I would rather have 1+1 on the quick pairings than 2+1. Anyone agree or disagree?
I disagree. When I play my 2+1 bullet every week or two, I can't even deal with that level of bulleting.
@scarpentus How do 2+1 and 3+0 compare for you? To me, they are practically the same, and it's weird that 1/2+0 through 2+1 are all put in the same category.
Hoo boy! Playing with no increment really gives me the vapors. :)
My reasoning is that if you say a game has 30 moves, then 2+1 works out to 2 and a half minutes or so, which is of course, less than 3 minutes. So in theory one should be able to play the same game in 3+0 as you could in 2+1, with time to spare. Of course we don't have the discipline. You'd think that would only be an issue with us patzers, but if you've been watching the candidates tournament, you see essentially the same thing.
@kingdave2 said in #3:
> @scarpentus How do 2+1 and 3+0 compare for you? To me, they are practically the same, and it's weird that 1/2+0 through 2+1 are all put in the same category.
That's because lichess counts a 40 move game to determine the type. Therefore 2+1 counts as 160 seconds which is still bullet while 3+0 counts as 180 seconds which is (the fastest) blitz. (E.g. FIDE uses a 60 move game so that 2+1 and 3+0 would be treated the same there.)
> My reasoning is that if you say a game has 30 moves, then 2+1 works out to 2 and a half minutes or so, which is of course, less than 3 minutes. So in theory one should be able to play the same game in 3+0 as you could in 2+1, with time to spare. Of course we don't have the discipline.
And that's the problem. Can't say how it works for blitz/bullet but personally I would rather choose 60+30 over 90+0 even if most of my games have less than 60 moves. The reason is that once you get into trouble with time in a time control with no increment, there is no way out. Also, your opponent can abuse it by dragging on in a game they would have resigned otherwise.
> You'd think that would only be an issue with us patzers, but if you've been watching the candidates tournament, you see essentially the same thing.
Exactly. Seeing titled players getting down to 8 minutes by move 17 with 90+30 for 40 moves makes me feel a tiny bit less ashamed. Of course, the big difference is that they then manage to play their moves in time which is still not always the case for me.
> @scarpentus How do 2+1 and 3+0 compare for you? To me, they are practically the same, and it's weird that 1/2+0 through 2+1 are all put in the same category.
That's because lichess counts a 40 move game to determine the type. Therefore 2+1 counts as 160 seconds which is still bullet while 3+0 counts as 180 seconds which is (the fastest) blitz. (E.g. FIDE uses a 60 move game so that 2+1 and 3+0 would be treated the same there.)
> My reasoning is that if you say a game has 30 moves, then 2+1 works out to 2 and a half minutes or so, which is of course, less than 3 minutes. So in theory one should be able to play the same game in 3+0 as you could in 2+1, with time to spare. Of course we don't have the discipline.
And that's the problem. Can't say how it works for blitz/bullet but personally I would rather choose 60+30 over 90+0 even if most of my games have less than 60 moves. The reason is that once you get into trouble with time in a time control with no increment, there is no way out. Also, your opponent can abuse it by dragging on in a game they would have resigned otherwise.
> You'd think that would only be an issue with us patzers, but if you've been watching the candidates tournament, you see essentially the same thing.
Exactly. Seeing titled players getting down to 8 minutes by move 17 with 90+30 for 40 moves makes me feel a tiny bit less ashamed. Of course, the big difference is that they then manage to play their moves in time which is still not always the case for me.
2+1 truly doesn't deserve the label of bullet. The threshold should be moved from 180 seconds to 150 seconds