Posts from The importance of a chess timer for XL+U (time per turn + time per battle).

It's time to decide whether we want to use a chess timer as recommended and finally set time intervals that will suit most players.
upd. In the poll, you can select multiple options; this is done because there are many values, and some of them are very close, but differ in all three parameters, so there is an opportunity to choose several timer options that you will be comfortable playing with.
The options for interpretation are quite simple: if there is one option that suits the vast majority, then there should be no questions; if there are two or more, a new topic will be created.
I don't see the point in limiting the time; let it be a month; I think everyone will have time to see the topic and express their opinion.
P.S. I ask those who have played with a chess timer and have an idea of the range of values on XL+U templates to vote.

no option for +2 minutes per battle, only +6 minutes, etc.
Vik suggested an optimal voting option:
per battle:
1) +1
2) +2
3) I would add +1.5 minutes (1 minute is too infrequent, 2 is too much for each battle)
4) your option

time increase per turn:
1) +6
2) +8
3) +10
4) your option

initial time reserve:
1)
...
4) your option

this way, it's easier to calculate, and the choice doesn't become "blurred".

There's no option for +2 minutes per battle, only +6 minutes, etc.
Vik suggested an optimal voting option:
Per battle:
1) +1
2) +2
3) I would add +1.5 minutes (1 minute is too little, 2 is too much for each battle)
4) Your option

Per turn addition:
1) +6
2) +8
3) +10
4) Your option

Initial time reserve:
1)
...
4) Your option

This way, it's easier to calculate, and the choice doesn't become "blurred."

Initially, I also wanted to use this idea, but it was even more "blurred" or would take 90 times longer to vote.
To explain: for example, I vote for +1 minute per battle, but I don't know the other parameters. This +1 minute per battle only suits me if the other values are, for example, 16 and 8. If these values change, then my answer will also change, and so on. It's unlikely that we'll quickly reach a consensus.
Therefore, I created the most popular timers that I myself have played with or seen others play with. If there is an option that is not included in the voting, it can be written, and if the majority supports it, then there are no questions, we will add it to the voting, but IMHO, there are enough options as it is, plus, there is also the possibility to choose several convenient options.

all results will be evenly distributed, with local spikes, right?
If less than 2/3 of all votes are for any particular timer, the poll is essentially illegitimate, and setting a standard timer based on, for example, 11% (simply because the others have less) is ridiculous; it's better to set it directly.

all results will be evenly distributed, with local spikes, right?
If less than 2/3 of all votes are for any timer, the vote is essentially illegitimate, and setting a standard timer based on, for example, 11% (simply because the others have less) is ridiculous; it's better to set it directly.

Reading other people's posts is apparently also ridiculous. It's written in Russian letters; if no single option receives an overwhelming number of votes, additional votes will be held from the most popular options, and even then, it's all done to simplify things for players.
Besides, it's just a vote; let's discuss it, see how it goes – if it's well-received, it will probably be added to the rules; if it doesn't work out, well, we'll continue playing with Jebus on 60+10+1 (or rather, someone will continue to do so).

I don't think we'll be able to determine the truth through voting. First, we need to introduce some kind of timer experimentally, and then adjust it based on feedback.

I think we won't be able to establish the truth through voting anyway. First, we need to introduce some kind of timer experimentally, and then adjust it based on feedback.

Exactly.

Hello everyone, what if we tried a different approach? I assume that the chess timer was invented to somehow shorten the duration of the game. There are a number of players with whom it is simply impossible to play with a regular timer; their moves take 30 minutes or more. I mainly play with a 24-8-1 timer, and at the end of the 3rd week, most players have about an hour accumulated on their timer, which is completely unacceptable. Based on this, and if the goal is to reasonably shorten the game time, I would fully support the judges' decision to switch to a 16-8-1 timer, first in tournaments (try it out in 2-3), and then for the entire season. I've played with it several times, and there's still enough time for everything, and this is for a player who, let's be honest, is far from an average level.