From John Hillery’s blog about the delegates’ meeting today:
Does this mean that directors now no longer can tell players to deduct five minutes when using delay? (I suppose advance advertising would still be a way to do this, of course…)
I certainly hope so. I never liked this option to begin with, and by now it is completely ridiculous. In many tournaments all games are played with a delay – you hardly ever see an analog clock anymore.
Bill Smythe
Yes, the TD can’t do it any more without advance notice in the TLA/ad/flyer.
. .
I presume you can still say — “If you are playing with an antique clock, you can ADD 5 minutes to each player’s clock”.
And if you were planning the first time control to be say 40_moves/90_minutes, you could instead design the time control to be 40/85min.
Relatively fewer players will be bothered by this extra step of adding, compared to deducting.
Once electronic digital clocks became common, it made sense to shift the adjustment task to the analog clock users.
And it is easier to make this minor adjustment on a hand-dialed analog clock than it is on an electronic digital clock.
. .
Well Gene, there is no reason to “reward” the player with the antique clock by giving him extra time either.
I see 3 reasons why a player would play a rated chess game with an analog clock at this time in history:
-
The player is like my friend David Long (Rochester) who has a strong dislike for the delay clock and strongly prefers the analog clock. If his opponent either has no digital clock or agrees with David, it doesn’t matter. In this case both players deserve to not get any extra time or privileges because they are not using the current standard of time keeping, a clock with delay.
-
A person is too poor to come up with less than $30 to purchase a delay clock but does have an analog from days gone by or he cannot borrow a delay clock from anyone, and his opponent is in the same boat as him.
The solution to this case is to tell the player to not play in this tournament and perhaps the next one, saving his entry fee money up to purchase a delay clock.
If none of the above options are available then they don’t deserve the extra time either and will just need to play quicker and make sure they have enough material to checkmate even a Master or lose completely and thoroughly so they don’t even come close to worrying about the “no chances of a C player…”
- The person is a Scholastic player who is on a school team and doesn’t own his own clock and neither does his opponent and they must use no clock or an analog nearby. Heck, these type of kids play fast anyway, usually, and it will be about the same if they use an analog or no clock at all. If things go on too long, the TD will place a Delay clock on the game and tell them to finish the game, even though they both have 3 Queens on the board
Wow. I cannot think of what else to say but wow.
Analog clocks are perfectly legitimate clocks. Why should someone be told not to play so they can save up for a digital clock?
Perhaps you mean if the player tries to insist on the extra five minutes, this would be a reasonable solution? That I could at least comprehend, but it isn’t what you wrote.
Humor, my friend, nothing but pure satirical humor…
Best news I’ve heard in a long time.
Please note that the elimination of rule 5Fa takes effect January 1, 2011.
However, the second part of that motion (which was divided by the Delegates during debate), which would have allowed TDs to continue to submit G/25+ 5 seconds increment/delay as dual rated events failed.
So, effective 1/1/11 G/25+5 seconds will not be permitted as a dual rated event. Moreover, since subtracting time will no longer be in the rulebook advertising G/30 but allowing clocks to be set as G/25+5 will also not be permitted as a dual rated event, even if mentioned in the advance publicity for the event.
I’ve received conflicting versions of the actual wording of this rule change. However, if this is correct, and Game/30 cannot even be advertised as G/25 + TD/5 and rated regularly, then that means it will be pretty much impossible to run the Thursday Night tournaments anymore, after 23 years as the USCF’s longest-running Action Chess tournament, because adding an extra 40 minutes to a weeknight tournament whose last round already starts at 10:45 pm is not really an option.
However, that’s not the only tournament in that situation. Other organizers also run Game/30 tournaments on weeknights, and they have to end not too late (but also can’t start too early on a weeknight). I’m sure that many of them also deduct the 5 minutes to compensate for the delay, and so they can still maintain their schedules.
And what about all the Game/30 tournaments on the weekends? Adding an extra 50 minutes to a 5-round, Game/30 event is going to be very problematic for many small events in particular, like a weekend scholastic or a club tornado. Many of these events are held in venues like churches, cafeterias, gymnasiums, community centers, etc., which are only contracted for a certain period of time, or have strict union rules about how long the premises can be occupied. Exceeding those limits could result in incurring higher charges or being thrown out alltogether.
Game/30 is a unique case (actually, Game/30 thru Game/34 are all unique cases). Anything longer, and you can just advertise in the TLA something like “G/45 or G/40 + TD/5” and make it clear what the conditions are. But because Game/30 is the fastest regular-rateable time control, it would be essential to also be able to advertise something like “G/30 or G/25 + TD/5” and have that regularly rateable, in order to make it possible for the tournament to stay on a tight schedule and not lose all its entries because it’s Quick-rated only or too few rounds.
Making it so that an extra 40 minutes to an hour is routinely added to a typical weeknight or weekend Game/30 tournament will have a devastating effect on the viability, if the not the very existence, of hundreds of those tournaments, at all levels, from scholastic to club.
It seems incredible that no feedback from other clubs and scholastic organizers was sought before going ahead and making a change like this which could have such disastrous consequences.
Had the original undivided motion passed (or had both parts of the divided motion passed), the ONLY DIFFERENCE would have been that Steve (and others) would have been required to advertise those tournaments more accurately by saying that the time control is REALLY G/25+5 and delay-capable clocks are required.
What’s wrong with truth in advertising?
But “G/25, TD/5 or G/30” would also be accurate way of advertising.
Yes it would, and that’s my point, but that’s not how your events are being advertised in Chess Life now, is it?
No, but my point is that if I want to, in light of truth-in-advertising, the events can’t be regular-rated anyway. So it’s not really a matter of truth-in-advertising at all, it’s something which strikes me as more political (not allowing Game/30 to be considered as a special case, where you can both advertise, truthfully, “G/30 or G/25 + TD/5” and continue to rate those games regularly, as has always been the case ever since time delay began).
Steve, the reason I moved to divide the question was that G/25/30 is a very small niche market. The deduction rule affected nearly all tournaments and needed to be considered on that basis. If you want to talk “political,” I can’t think of anything more political than giving a special dispensation to G/25 because one or two organizers like to use it. We have to draw the line somewhere, and a majority (albeit a narrow one) voted to hold the line at G/30.
A small niche market???
Game/30 encompasses an enormous number of events! Many scholastics and club events, both large and small, are held in locations which are only available for a day or for an afternoon or for an evening, and they don’t have the luxury of simply adding another 40 minutes or 50 minutes or even an hour to their schedules. And the reason that G/25 + TD/5 is a special case is that because Game/30 is unique, because it’s the fastest time control which can be regularly rated.
Players want to continue to be able to use time-delay and also to have their Game/30 tournaments regular-rated. Players and organizers want their events to be able to fit into the schedule that they have, not to add an extra hour to the tournament.
And tournaments which have been running successfully for many years (and promoting USCF activity and USCF membershps), precisely because those two competing aspects are maintained at their most optimal equillibrium (e.g., G/25 + TD/5), should not be told to disappear.
Kind of full of yourself, aren’t you, Steve? You got your way, since we just voted to postpone implementation until 2012. Personally, I resent all tournaments being held hostage to your little weeknight events, but after arguing that we should abide by the result of a vote, I suppose I’ll live with it. That should give you time to find a more realistic schedule for your tournaments.
A small niche market?? Game/30 encompasses an enormous number of events! Many scholastics and club events, both large and small, are held in locations which are only available for a day or for an afternoon or for an evening, and they don’t have the luxury of simply adding another 40 minutes or 50 minutes or even an hour to their schedules. And the reason that G/25 + TD/5 is a special case is that because Game/30 is unique, because it’s the fastest time control which can be regularly rated.
Players want to continue to be able to use time-delay and also to have their Game/30 tournaments regular-rated. Players and organizers want their events to be able to fit into the schedule that they have, not to add an extra hour to the tournament.
And tournaments which have been running successfully for many years (and promoting USCF activity and USCF membershps), precisely because those two competing aspects are maintained at their most optimal equillibrium (e.g., G/25 + TD/5), should not be told to disappear.
I don’t think that anyone is being held hostage. Personally, I don’t see what the problem would be with just adding something like “G/30 or G/25 + TD/5” in the TLA and having Game/25 + TD/5 being regular-rated. Then everyone could advertise the tournament with the exact time controls , so no one would be misled or deceived when they entered the tournament, and Game/25 + TD/5, which has been regular-rated for over 15 years, would continue to be regular-rated.
Also, as I stated above, this doesn’t affect only me; there are an enormous number of Game/30 tournaments, and many of those are held on weeknights or afternoons, or in facilities where there is no margin for an extra 40 to 60 minutes.
And thanks again for doing the live blogging from Irvine; otherwise, this whole issue would never have even been brought to light until after the Delegates Meeting had ended
(BTW, it’s actually Stamford, CT, and not NY).
When I first read the post at the top of this thread, I was delighted. It’s about time we got rid of the 5-minute deduction, once and for all.
However, upon seeing the mess the delegates made of the G/25 situation, I am dismayed.
I agree with Steve Immitt that G/30, or G/25 d/5, should not be thought of as a “niche” market. There are zillions of these events all over the nation, all the time – not just Steve’s “Four Rated Games Tonight” events.
Of course, if you guys would ever listen to me, you could have passed something reasonable. 
It’s a terrible thing, being ignored when you have a good idea.
My proposals (made on more than one occasion on these forums) have been along the following lines:
- A tournament should be regular-ratable (or dual-ratable) if EITHER
1a. the main control is G/30 or slower, OR
1b. the main control is G/25 or slower and there is a delay or increment of 5 seconds or slower.
In the case of 1b, there should be a requirement to explicitly announce the delay in pre-tournament publicity, i.e. the TLA would have to say “G/25 d/5” rather than just “G/25”. (Otherwise, d/3 would be assumed and the event would be quick-ratable only.)
Note that 1b should apply to the tournament, not to each individual game. If a particular game is played with an analog clock, it would be played at G/25, not G/30. It would still be regular-ratable.
If the delegates had done the above, there would be no problem, and the implementation date would not have had to be postponed for a year. You guys blew it!
Under the above proposal:
(a) All 5-minute deductions (or additions) would be eliminated, both for G/25 and for slower events.
(b) G/25 d/5 would be regular-ratable.
(c) Most of the motivation for some players to furnish analog clocks would be gone. (They wouldn’t get the extra 5 minutes of main time.)
(d) Truth-in-advertising problems would be eliminated.
Next year, maybe?
Bill Smythe
A few other miscellaneous notes:
Adding 5 minutes with an analog is slightly preferable to subtracting 5 minutes with a digital, but eliminating the 5-minute difference entirely is way better.
That should change, too. Describing a digital as “preferred” and an analog as “standard” is way too nice to an obsolete concept. Instead, define digital as “standard”, and anything without delay capability as “sub-standard”, “marginal”, or “second-tier”. Functionally, this new description would result in no change – a clock with delay is still preferable to one without – but the new wording would send a stronger message.
Under my proposal, delay-capable clocks wouldn’t even be required. Games with analog clocks would simply be played at G/25 d/0.
Or, under my proposal, just “G/25 d/5”.
Bill Smythe