Ernie, the Chronos and Excalibur GameTime II both show the beginning time without the increment time, AND neither clock adds the time at the beginning when the clock is started. They just count down from the 1:00:00 displayed time.
At the present time all clocks with increment capability display the extra time Bronstein-style, i.e. by adding the increment to the main time.
USA delay style, however, has a separate digit (or other indicator) for the delay. In this mode delay time is never added to main time.
I wonder if there would be any support for displaying increment in USA delay style, i.e. displaying the increment time separately.
Call it USA increment style. It would work like this:
- Main time and increment time would be displayed separately, just as delay time is displayed separately in USA delay style.
- At the start of each move, the increment portion of the display would show 30 seconds (or whatever the increment is) and would start counting down to zero.
- When a player uses up his entire increment time (e.g. 30 seconds), the main time would begin counting down.
- If a player uses up less than his increment time, the excess would be added to the main time as soon as the player presses his clock, and the increment time would then be displayed as blank (or zero).
What do you think of that idea, Baba Looey?
Bill Smythe
Next years US Open will be played with Increment (40/90;SD/30+30). I wonder how this issue will be handled for the US Open.
I kind of doubt it will be paid attention to at all.
I think Micah was talking about the original topic (add-before vs add-after) rather than my little side suggestion above.
There are two reasonable ways for USCF tournaments to address the issue:
- Instruct owners of add-before clocks (DGT) to set them for 40/90 SD/30; inc/30, and instruct owners of add-after clocks (Chronos, GameTime, Zmart) to set them for 40/90:30 SD/30; inc/30. OR
- Let players set them whichever way they want.
If the U.S. Open is FIDE-rated the first alternative would be highly recommended. Perhaps, though, the announcement could be in writing only, posted during registration and throughout the tournament. It probably isn’t worth the bother to make a verbal announcement before round 1. To the written announcement, though, perhaps add a disclaimer clause, along the lines of “Add-after clocks set without the extra 30 seconds will remain as set throughout the game, and any time-forfeit claims will be handled as though the extra time had been added at the start.”
Bill Smythe
Three of the things that would go against the US Open being FIDE rated are the cost of rating it, the requirement that all of the TDs/arbiters be NAs, FAs or IAs, and the requirement that FIDE rules be used rather than USCF rules (K+R can lose on time to K+N, arbiters can call flags, only algebraic notation can be used, etc.).
A fourth reason to not bother with FIDE rating the event: it’s virtually useless for norms, due to early-round mismatches.
I would actually be surprised if the U.S. Open were accepted for FIDE norms owing to the multiple schedules. But, even if it were, there are far too many FIDE unrated players to make norms practical. In a nine round tournament, a norm seeker may have at most two unrated opponents. However, one of those unrated players will be considered to have a rating equal to the minimum FIDE rating to be published on the FRL. At one time, that was 1800, so if the other opponents were rated high enough, the average rating of opponents (ARO) may still have been high enough for a norm. Now, that level is 1000, which makes achieving a norm all but impossible. (One unrated player may be assigned a reasonably high rating for ARO calculation depending on the norm sought: 2200 for GM, 2050 for IM, 2000 for WGM, and 1850 for WIM.)
For completeness, the minimum ARO for a GM norm is 2380; for an IM norm, 2230; for a WGM norm, 2180; for a WIM norm, 2030.
Couldn’t the first two arguments also be made for not USCF rating an event? The cost (rating fee, affiliate fee, membership fee) and the TD must be a USCF certified TD.
The nine-round US Open won’t work, for numerous practical reasons. However, in longer US Opens, players have made norms before. IIRC, Dean Ippolito picked up an IM norm in 1997. The event would have to return to 12 rounds for that to happen, and I don’t see a 12-round US Open reoccurring anytime soon.
With the new restrictions on multiple schedules, it may well be ineligible anyway (though there may still be room for horse-trading in the event of a particularly compelling result). And, since the event is not even likely to be submitted for FIDE rating any time soon, this is likely all academic anyway.
My impression (admittedly secondhand, based on what others directly involved have said) is that FIDE (more specifically, the Qualification Commission, or QC) now considers that well dry, having been dipped into far too many times. Is that fair? Maybe not. Is it self-inflicted? I think there’s a solid argument that it is.
Sorry. I’m lost in the pronouns. Could you translate?
I’m not entirely sure how to translate it, but I’ll try translating it by writing with no pronouns.
My impression of the Qualification Commission’s (QC) attitude toward USA is that USA has asked for too many exceptions and tried the patience of QC past the breaking point. I therefore think that US Chess has expended all the good will QC is willing to extend to US Chess, and that any requests for exceptions from title norm regulations that US Chess asks of QC will be denied.
There is a history of US Chess asking for exceptions to allow title norms for players to be approved, even though those title norms did not strictly meet all the requirements specified in section B.01 of the FIDE handbook. We particularly have a history of title norms that come out of tournaments where the pairings were modified to give the player the needed mix of opponents. QC will no longer tolerate that, and QC will not yield to any amount of pleading based on how extraordinary the player’s performance was.
Because of US Chess’s past history with QC, it now appears that QC will apply closer scrutiny to norms from US events. While US Chess may feel this is unfair treatment by the QC, this is by and large a self-inflicited wound. The compliance issues in the past history of US Chess was a significant part of the motivation for creating the FIDE events committee. US Chess will try to police itself more diligently and attempt to adhere to the QC regulations.
Thanks. That’s much clearer.
Hi Ken,
Actually, that amount of scrutiny is now placed on all federations, not just the US. Therefore, we can no longer say they are being unfair to us. We are at the point, as you know, that if a so-called Super Swiss losses foreign rated players causing the total to drop to 19 for just one single round, that event no longer qualifies under B.01, 1.43e of the FIDE Handbook. Same goes for title requests that are not in compliance with 1.44, 1.45, etc. No exceptions. Perhaps it is because I do not ask for exceptions that at this Congress, the QC found all of our norms to be in compliance, whereas seven from other federations were denied, including one because of 1.43e and one for 1.44. I did get several requests from US arbiters to ask for exceptions because they had players with very high performance rating at their events although the correct mix of opponents was lacking, and I did not allow those norms to be submitted to FIDE. Every year, many players from many federations perform very well. That does not mean they earn norms. Organizers and arbiters must know the rules, and must have the courage to enforce and explain those rules to the players.
Spot on, Franc, as I have learned the hard way (on a rating issue, not a norm issue). I won’t make that mistake ever again.
Thank you, Franc. This is exactly the level of self-policing to which I referred. It is good work that is much needed.
I put together a document on the best setting to use to set the popular digital clocks for a single time control with an increment, pdxchess.org/wp-content/uploads/ … rement.pdf, for the increment tournaments I will be running. Bill, based on your suggestion I put a note in the document that states “Failure to set any clock for the increment for move one will not be grounds to contest a time forfeit claim and the clocks will not be adjusted to add the increment time for move one once the game has begun.” Any feedback on the document is appreciated.
This is well done, Micah.
I will add this document to the Rulebook updates and other stuff and put it in the big tournament folder with my Rulebook, 6th edition. This is very helpful. Thanks.