@Cynis001 said in #9:
> More proof that playing with increment is simply superior. :D
> Would be interesting to see these graphs based on game termination, so that we can filter out the games that were only won on time. I mean, how often do you see players do crazy sacrifices in time scrambles to give an unexpected check and gain some more time to get the time win. Those games would then have a +5 or more for the losing site, and bias the results slightly.
that's true but the blog considers the eval after 10 moves (enough time to complete most of your development) and its unlikely people would make ridiculous sacrifices for time this early on in the game.
@tpr said in #3:
> More interesting would be to evaluate 15+10 time control.
I've briefly looked at 10+5 and 15+10 games and there isn't any big improvement from 5+3 across the rating ranges.
My guess is that part of it comes down to different rating pools and also that many people may not be as attentive when having a big advantage in longer online games.
It would be interesting to see the time difference at move 10 compared with the evaluation. My naive prediction is that the winning player would have less time at low ratings, reflecting the fact that they made better moves by thinking about them, but this tendency would reverse at higher ratings, reflecting the fact that the winning player made better moves by being booked up. You could also look at different points in the game (move 6, move 15, etc) to see where this flip happens by rating range.