Pool games with increment?

You can't have all time controls as the user base will become too divided, and finding a game will become more difficult.

I would vote for 3+2 if it were there.

Most chess websites use non-incremented blitz games as the default time controls, which makes them the most common if you want to get a quick game in without waiting. Increments seem superior to me in almost every way, namely by preventing a lot of frustrating antics in the endgame. 3+2 should take about the same amount of time as 5+0, and it's the standard set by the World Blitz Championship (http://dubai2014wrb.com/en/regulation/5). I'd love it if incremented time controls became the standard for pools on Lichess.

I don't see how 0+1 could work in the pools without changing it so the clock doesn't start until white makes the first move. Maybe 1+1 (or 10sec+1 if that's possible) would work for bullet.

Thanks for pointing that out. It will definitely be taken into consideration.

i think it is a valid point to consider what the "official" FIDE formats are, I guess there is a lot of good reasoning behind their decision to make 3'2" and 15'10" the official blitz time controls. That being said i see it as mandatory do maximize the amount of players in the pools to make waiting times short and the ratings mean something, thus similar time controls should be avoided. E.g. either a 5'0" or a 3'2" pool, but not both. This could also be a great way to distinguish lichess (e.g. ICC) from other sites that have pools and be a bit more progressive and use the 3'2" over the 5'0" controls. So all things considered, I think settling on four formats is ideal: 1'0" (one pool without increment should be there, and 1 0 bullet is a real classic), 3'2" (what i would consider the most interesting pool), 15'10" (a proper rapid pool is not available on the web yet!), and a 5'0" FRR pool (pairing the classic time control with the new format might be fun!). Just my two cents! Thank you so so so much for doing all the hard work!!!

Good thoughts, pbnn.

It looks like Chess960 might not be popular enough to merit its own pool. It's disappointing, but we must work with reality. As lichess.org grows, the total number of pools can grow more easily without risking empty pools. Right now, anything above 4 might be pushing the limits of what the userbase can reasonably consume.

We would have to run some queries on the lichess.org database in order to determine what time controls are most eligible for inclusion as a pool. However, a certain someone hasn't given me readonly DB credentials (yet). *grin*

Since increments are so fantastic, perhaps switch to these four pools? It's a pretty radical change.

0 1 (which is like 1 0, but with increment)
2 1 (which is like 3 0, but with increment)
3 2 (which is like 5 0, but with increment)
5 5 (which is like 10 0, but with increment)

I'd fight to keep 1+0 and 5+0 as they are very well known time controls.

My vote is to switch 3+0 with 3+2, and 960 with 5+5. But I wouldn't jump on this decision too haphazardly.

You can't just add the two numbers :) Most games last 40 moves or less, so you'd need to take 2/3 of the increment number to get a realistic comparison. 4 2 would be closer to 5 0 than 3 2, and 6 6 or 8 3 would be close to 10 0. 5 5 would be more similar to like 7 0.