Mikhail Krjukov: "We Should Change the Way We Set the Clock"

Время публикации: 22.01.2013 00:55 | Последнее обновление: 22.01.2013 00:55

You may need: Adobe Flash Player.

Е.KLIMETS: Mikhail Vitalyevich it turns out today's incident wasn't the only one to happen during the Dvorkovich Memorial. The same kind of thing happened to Maria Severina in Round 3

М.KRJUKOV: That's true. In today's incident the arbiters had an opportunity to see how the chess player switched the clock twice. I don't know how has that happened, but he did that. That's why the 30 minute increment was added already after 39th move...

There's only one way out. It's not all that simple when such decision is made, I mean when the player gets a defeat for not playing forty moves in the allocated time. I think that we should save such time control, but we should change the way we set the clock. Now we set 1.5+30"/per move for exactly 40 moves and then 30 minutes with the same increment are added till the end of the game, I suggest we should do that in the following way: we should set the clock not for 40 moves, but put 00. So, 30 minutes will be added after the time control.

E.KLIMETS: Do you mean that in this case one should check the number of moves in order to know when 30 minutes will be added?

M.KRJUKOV: Yes, that's what I mean. The same system worked when we had mechanical clocks. I should say this kind of thing happens for the sixth time in my practice. I made a different decision only once, but only because the clock was out of order... Of course the way out I have suggested has its own minuses including the psychological side, it's harder for the player: will 30 minutes be added or not? I think both time controls can be applied though. I emphasize it once again in both incidents we have mentioned the clocks were in good order.      


Смотрите также...