FIDE blitz is 5+3.
Nearly all lichess blitz tournaments are 5+0.
There is only rarely 3+2.
If the tournaments are 5+0 then 5+0 appears to be popular.
I personally hate to get flagged in won positions and I would like to play more increment even if only +1, but I play 5+0 as this is the tournament time schedule.
My only push back against +3 or greater is that if players don't finish at the same time, it's more challenging to make pairings.
FIDE rules are for OTB games where it takes time to move the pieces and punch the clock and premoves are not possible. Maybe it would make sense to run 5+0 and 5+2 (or 5+3?) at the same time, although this fragments the player base? I don't understand why 5+0 was added although
@blunderman1 seems to indicate that nobody wants +1 or +2 (despite the fact that FIDE uses +3 which plays quite similar to +2).
Well.. I see the lobby has a 5+3 blitz button.
"""
For the FIDE World Blitz Championship, each player has 3 minutes, plus 2 seconds additional time per move starting from move 1
"""
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_chessYes that is correct.
The 5+3 was for the world championship Carlsen-Karjakin deciding blitz games in case of a tie after rapid. I get the point of Toadofsky that pairings for 5+3 are more difficult than for 5+0 or 3+2.
I like 3+2 better than 5+0, but I like tournaments and most lichess tournaments are 5+0. So I non-voluntarily contribute to the popularity of 5+0.
I actually find it easier to play 5+0 than 3+2. Being bad at using my time wisely, I can feel pretty comfortable and possibly get the game going the way I want before my time starts to effect me. So sometimes, no increment can make the game feel less rushed, earlier on, for slow players.
On the other hand, when I play a lot of 1+0, I find that going to 2+1 is a big difference because it keeps me a lot more honest (no more thinking sloppy moves can win because of time). I enjoy the practical, bloodthirsty nature of 1+0, and I enjoy the 3+2. Every time control is a different hybrid between practical skills, frantic instinct, and the ability to play accurately and carefully at the right moments.
The best time controls are interesting because they either highlight one extreme, or because they are challenging because players must be good at multiple extremes and switch between them at the right times and can use this dynamic against their opponent to their advantage.
We should, like the variants, keep a consistent mix of both established time controls, and more strange ones that might turn out to be great.
I like both inc and no inc. tourneys.
The problem with inc is that it sometimes is difficult to get a feeling whether you are high or low in time.
However inc is better in the way that position is more important than time. I think both tourns should exist.
I just wanted to state that a +1 inc:
- (in my opinion) saves the fun of playing in time troubles as
@lovlas said previously
- can prevent a player to win a game with only K+pawn(s) against K+Q+whatever just because of the time, that is something that really piss me off
Sigh... I agree
@gucelli although it seems this forum topic is all over the place. Maybe next time this issue is discussed a more focused proposal & discussion can be had.
don't know about increments but now there are these huge gaps without tournaments at all . it is 17-18 oclock here in Europe and next tournament is in 3 hours
EDIT: ok nevermind it was probably a glitch. but tournaments were really not visible in the gantt chart and on the home page it said next in 3 hours for most if not all.
