Single Comment

Thanks again for the congratulations, Roberto, but there is little doubt
that having one hour for each move reflected in the outcome, especially
when I ended up sacrificing my Rook in our game of Anti-King Chess. Most
participants (and non-participants) had several other things to do, such
as work, family, studying or maintaining this site. 
In my view, the only fair equalizing methods are
1) to give all players enough time to think between each move, that is,
allowing them a pace of only one move per week at times in a given game.
For next year, I would suggest a January to June round-robin of six or
eight games, and a seven-player September to November final of six games
because these seven players might have enough time. (I would also allow
two players to replace their assigned game with any game that has been
played in any yearly tournament such as this one or last year's
tournament.) And I think you need a more lenient pace at the beginning of
the games, not merely to avoid blunders, but also to assess the possible
strategies, and because after twenty moves, half the games are already
more or less decided and you can drop them anyway if you're losing.
2) to play each game in four hours, or by slices of ten moves by hour with
one player playing a secret move at the end of the slice, like in
FIDE-Chess. Of course you need to have both players connected at the same
time (probably feasible on Saturdays and Sundays), but there is also the
problem of your Internet connection. It is one thing to lose an
independent game because of a technical problem, but I wouldn't like to
lose a Tournament that way. (Now, the penalty for not playing within the
clock in the middle of a ten-move slice in a given game could be the piece
of your choice (unless your opponent doesn't want it) the first time, that
same piece to drop for your opponent the second time and loss of the match
the third time. But it sounds overly complicated.)
Nevertheless, the implementation of that kind of device might be useful.