|
|
Topic: How does the "bank" work in a time control?
| |
|
Author
| Message |
|
I assume if you have a time control of 7 days per move with a bank of 3 days, that each time you move in less than 7 days, the difference between 7 and the number you actually moved is added to your bank, up until your bank has 3 days, at which time it the bank won't increase, and won't decrease until you take more than 7 days on a move. Is this correct?
|
|
It is easier than you are thinking...
For example, forget the bank for a moment. Lets say that you are playing 7 days/move, with 0 days bank.
If you spend 7 days, you lost. If not, next move you will have 7 days again, no matter how much time you spent in the first move.
Now, the same with the bank:
Then bank never increases. Lets say you are playing 7 days/move with 3 days bank.
If you play in less then 7 days, next move you will have 7 days again. The bank will be the same, 3 days.
But, if you spend more then 7 days, lets say 8 days, then you spent all your 7 days plus 1 day from bank. Now you move...
Next move you will have 7 days again (because it is a 7 days/move game) plus 2 days in your bank.
Continuing to another example. Now in your next move you spent 9 days... Then you moved. The time for the next month will be 7 days plus 0 from bank, that means you do not have any days in your bank anymore...
From now on, you are in the situation of a simple 7 days/move game. If you spend more than that you lose by time.
Got it?
Cheers, Beco.
|
|
OK, I think I got it. If your bank is three days, it stays that way until you overstep the time limit. If you overstep the time limit by one day, you use one of your bank days. The bank will never increase, it's only a buffer so that you can occasionally overstep, but not by more than three days, or not more than three times of one day each. If this is not right, let me know. Otherwise, thanks for your help.
|
|
That is correct. Also note that the bank can be fractions of days as it is the time left to move, both are actually measured in seconds.
Miguel
|
|
Got it, thanks both miguel and beco for explaining this.
|
|
|
|
|