The ONLY way to set this time control (or such a time control) is with a clock that has a move counter and to use it (as I found out at the 2015 Sinquefield Cup). That is the only way to ensure a clock starts adding the increment at move 41.
Micah said his friend “is running” such tournaments. Some speakers use the present progressive tense (“is running”) to mean “is planning to run” or “has planned to run”.
I, too, would be interesting in finding out, if any of these events have already been held, how it worked out and whether the players liked it.
Bill Smythe
I’m not saying I agree with the time control, but for those of you saying that there must be at least 1 minute of “thinking” time per move are missing the point. This is a short time control game. You have to compare this with G/30 or G/40 games - maybe G/45 at most. All of these time controls have thinking time less than 1 minute per move and yet are fairly common.
Take a G/30 game and insist on the first 40 moves within 25 minutes and you get this time control. One would hope you are able to make 40 moves that fast anyway in a G/30 time control. Although this control is strange, it is intriguing. If nothing else, it’s at least something different to break up the monotony.
But why would you insist that someone spit out 40 moves in any specific amount of time in such a short time control game? (The whole game should last less than 40 minutes). 40/25 puts in the whole forfeit claim requirements, which is absurd here—you’re barely even giving the players the time per move at which they are expected to keep score.
I would say it is not common in today’s US tournament environment to have dual-rated or regular-rated games with no delay or increment. Such a time control is likely to produce a lot of headaches for players and directors as the first 50 minutes of the round elapses. Players are still required to take notation throughout the control, especially if they’re looking to preserve rights to claiming a time forfeit.
But that insistence - especially with no delay/increment - is why I think so many respondents find the control unpalatable. In any SD time control, I can stop taking notation when one of us is under 5 minutes, and still be able to use the clock to claim a win on time. I can’t do that in a non-SD time control.
There is also the issue of setting clocks. Not every clock can set this time control.
Again, though, there’s nothing stopping an organizer from using it, especially if the organizer is providing equipment (thus relieving players of having to set a potentially wide variety of clocks for this control, or some rough equivalent if the clock is insufficient).
It would be useful if the OP would enlighten us with some discussion of what his friend has encountered using this control.
I show up to tournaments to play the game of chess. It is important to have a time limit, and generally, I need to know in advance whether the rate of play is slow, rapid or blitz (I personally prefer rapid to blitz). The specifics of the time control, however, do not matter much to me, as long as the time control is the same for both players.
I know this is sort of a non-answer to the original question, but I’m surprised at all the claims that players would avoid the described event. Now, I do understand that it must be difficult for the organizer due to clock availability/setup issues, etc.
Dual rated time controls can have a second time control segment. The rulebook states that 30/30 SD/30 d5 is dual rated.
Micah, have any of these tournaments (with 40/25 inc/0; SD/10 inc/5) actually happened yet? If so, can you give us the tournament names, dates, and states? I’m sure we’d all like to look them up on MSA.
Bill Smythe
I only meant that it is common to have games where thinking time is under 1 minute per move. Not that it is common to have no delay or increment. This weird time control still has an increment, but only in the secondary one.
Certainly it is still more common to have a delay or increment in the primary time control as well. There are events that do not have a delay/increment in the primary, but they are not rapid games. Before this I’ve never heard of a dual time control of any kind in a rapid/quick game.
It may be an advantage in the FIDE events with this no delay in the primary to have the arbiter call flags. Maybe it’s a necessity with this type of control. I’m not sure.
I think what’s a necessity with this type of control is for the organizer to be admitted to a psych ward, since it’s insane. Not only will many games have a player in serious time pressure, but (unlike the situation with a 40/90 or 40/120 TC) a non-trivial percentage of games will have players in mutual time pressure, and mutual time pressure without delay (can you say “flying pieces”?). That would be a nightmare for a floor TD. (Of course, if both players realize that the opponent doesn’t have a scoresheet adequate for claiming a time forfeit, then the TC turns into G/35 which would have made more sense in the first place).
Not yet. The first one is planned for October 4. He made a few changes to the time control based on the feedback here. I’m also curious what people think of his “rotating triangle blocks” idea, his attempt to improve the mini swiss.
So now I have a question for you. Why on earth would anyone think any of this would be a good idea?
Alex Relyea
That’s effectively equivalent to doing a 6 player RR and using only the first 3 rounds. (You almost certainly can relabel a standard table to make them exactly equivalent). There’s nothing wrong with it, it just isn’t as original as he thinks.
Aye. What is the supposed advantage to this over simply G/30, Inc-5? I supposed you could argue “we have a move-based primary control, which is a Good Thing”—but that only holds true if you have at least one minute per move on average in the primary. IMO, that is…good luck.
OK, the organizer has taken our advice (at least in part). He will no longer be running 40/25 inc/0; SD/10 inc/5. Now it will be 40/20 inc/5; SD/10 inc/5. (More commonly written 40/20 SD/10; inc/5.)
In other words, in the first control he has removed 5 main minutes and added 5 increment seconds, so that the increment is now consistently 5 seconds throughout the game.
I still think, though, that he should simply make it a single time control of G/30 inc/5. That way the total time would be the same, with less fuss at move 40.
This organizer’s tournament is planned as a standard quad (4-player sections, 3 rounds). The “rotating triangle blocks” comes into play only if the number of players is not a multiple of 4, and then it applies only to the last 6 players.
When the number of players in a quad event is not a multiple of 4, the “normal” solution is to pair the lowest, 6-player section as a 3-round Swiss. According to the organizer, the 6-player “rotating triangle blocks” method (for the lowest 6 players) is an improvement over the usual 6-player 3-round Swiss.
Now, everybody, please don’t be shocked, but I agree with the organizer about the rotating triangle blocks. It really is a better idea. 
But the idea is, perhaps, a bit over-explained in the organizer’s description (link above).
Another way of looking at the idea is to view the 6-player section as two 3-player “trigs”. (I guess if “quad” is an abbreviation for “quadrangular”, then “trig” can be an abbreviation for “triangle”.) The 3 highest players (of the 6) are in the higher trig, the lowest 3 are in the lower trig.
In each round, two of the players in each trig are paired against each other, while the third is paired against a player in the other trig. In other words, in each round there is 1 inter-trig pairing and 2 intra-trig pairings.
By having primarily intra-trig pairings, the two trig sections “feel” more like quad pairings, which is exactly how pairings are supposed to feel in a quad event. Duh.
The inter-trig pairings are as follows:
round 1: 1-4
round 2: 2-5
round 3: 3-6
where the higher trig consists of players 1-2-3, and the lower trig is 4-5-6.
The intra-trig pairings, of course, are:
round 1: 2-3 and 5-6
round 2: 1-3 and 4-6
round 3: 1-2 and 4-5
This is all without regard to color. If you look at the organizer’s link again, where he explains colors, you’ll see that four of the players alternate colors in every round, while the other two alternate colors between rounds 2 and 3 – about as good as it gets.
Note, also, that with this method the “trig” pairings for all 3 rounds can be posted at the start of the tournament, just as is already the case with the “regular” quads in the upper sections.
Please, everybody look at the organizer’s link and try to understand the rotating triangles. New ideas are not always bad.
Bill Smythe
Bill, you could have saved yourself the 500 word essay. I don’t think anyone is really bothered by his treatment of hexes. It’s the fact that he doesn’t seem to want to give up the idea of the 40/ridiculous. Note also that he intends to be a playing TD if the number who show is odd. That makes it even more absurd.
It still sucks. Not just the time control, but the treatment of the hex as well. The hex becomes two round robins with a round of interleague play. A Swiss System is preferred because it reasonably approximates the result of a round Robin tournament in a limited number of rounds. This does nothing of the sort, and the only benefit is a fixed schedule determined early.
Oh, no? Take a look at the post immediately after yours (and immediately above my reply here).
Well, at least he changed it to have the same increment in both time control segments. I join you in hoping he changes it further to simply G/30 inc/5.
On the contrary, that’s a perfectly good idea. I did it all the time at the Lunt Avenue club when I was directing. Sevan Muradian does the same thing in his smaller events. It’s an excellent way of avoiding full-point byes and giving players their money’s worth.
You should note that this tournament has zero entry fee and zero prizes (except for some sort of Grand Prix points through his club). The turnout probably won’t be large. It looks to me like an ideal event for a playing TD.
Bill Smythe
It depends what you’re after. The Swiss, with its 6 players, might do a decent job of approximating a single quad. The hex idea better approximates two quads, but with 3 players in each.
I see no inherent reason to prefer the first idea over the second. It may be just a matter of what you’re accustomed to. Think outside the box! The second idea, I think, would “feel” more like quads, because it produces two sections and because the pairings are determined at the outset. If there were prizes, there could be a first-place prize in each of the two sections. Looks good to me.
Bill Smythe
How about you make comments in context? He would be a playing (and I assume only) TD in a time control where stuff is likely to hit the fan roughly 40 minutes in (and on top of that, he’s a very inexperienced TD). If he weren’t playing, it wouldn’t be easy. Playing and handling the TD duties with a unnecessarily complicated TC is just a really bad idea. If he were to take the effectively universal advice of just using a standard G30 control, I would have no problem with it.