Over the years I have seen many different time controls. When I started chess, the standard international time limit was 40 moves in 2.5 hours. I found this a little slow.

Capablanca once said that the optimum time control was 40 moves in 2 hours.

There has been a phasing out of adjournments. Adjournments do have some advantages. Adjournment analysis can greatly help improve one's understanding of the endgame. Some disadvantages are that players have to return to another session. This may be awkward if its a week night.

Also, adjournments effectively allow players to "cheat". They can consult friends, books, computers, move the pieces around etc.

The removal of adjournments has been a good step.

One time limit I used was 40/2 hours, followed by 2 hours to finish the game. This requires a blitz finish, but does remove adjournments.

Before digital clocks, a lot of club events and weekenders used limits like 40/90. A limit such as this makes it more difficult for players to budget their time. 40/80 would be better for instance.

With 40/80 or 40/120 it is easy to keep track of your time. For example, with 40/120, on average you have 3 minutes a move. If you have played 30 moves and have used more than 90 minutes, you know you are falling behind par.

It makes sense to have a move number which is easily divisible into the number of minutes.

In weekenders (and other events) where adjournments are not possible, there have been a number of solutions.

One is a faster time limit after the first time control. For example, you have 40/90, then 30/30 repeating. this is not entirely satisfactory, as often scoresheets need to be updated at each control.

Another try is to have say, 40/90, 30/30 then 15 minutes to finish the game.

Experienced blitz players may like the sudden death finish, but many club players don't like it. Incremental time limits remove these difficulties.

Fischer's idea of an incremental time limit is a good one. Arguably Fide may have breached Fischers patent by producing incremental chess clocks.

I feel that the the current Fide standard time limit of 90 minutes + a 30 second increment is not optimum. It is roughly include to 40/90 + 30 moves in 15 minutes.

I have heard of 'Insanity Open' (unrated) tournaments, which have time limits like 37 moves in 77 minutes. 90 + 30 seems more like this than it should.

When a player has used all his acccumulated time, he is down to 30 seconds a move. 30 seconds a move is speed chess.

Some club events use controls like 60 minutes + 10 seconds. 10 seconds a move is barely enough time to record the moves. I don't see this as a viable time limit.

• 60 minutes + a 60 second increment would have advantages as a standard time limit.
• I hour and 1 minute are standard units of time, while 90 minutes and 30 seconds are not.
• The hour fits in perfectly with the 1 hour forfeit rule.
• One minute is enough time to record and play a move.
• With a larger increment, players can play quick moves to build up their time reserve.
• Endgames require just as much time as openings or middlegames.
• A good time limit gives you the same rate at any move in the game.
• Speeding up the rate after move 40 is a not a good idea.
• All in all, it would be a more enjoyable time limit.

If a slightly faster limit is needed, 60 +30 seconds would be much better than 60 + 10.

Some people may say that because Fide use 60+30, it should always be used, because it helps players get used to the time limit that is used in Chess Olympiads etc.

There is merit to this idea. The other side is that the vast majority of club players do not play in international events. Also, Fide have been known to chop and change (quite rightly), who knows what the time control for tomorrow will be.

I propose that Fide adopt 60+60 for their standard international time limit.