This is one of those great mysteries. Many, many people I have spoken to simply hate dual rated events: EITHER they want the event is to effect only their REGULAR rating, or only their QUICK CHESS rating, but not both. To rate a G/30 anything other than Quick Chess seems odd; rather Quick Chess is defined as G/5- G/29. G/29?!? I’ve yet to see a single one of these elusive creatures, and I suspect it has something to do with either the fact that 2,3, and 4, go well into 60 minutes yielding 30, 20 or 15 minute games. If the USCF wants to keep “dual rated” events, then a dual rated event should be redefined as G/31-G/60, and redefine a Quick Chess event as being G/30 minutes and under.
The ONLY true Quick Chess events I’ve seen are G/15, and I might have once seen G/20. Too many of us are avoiding tournaments that fall between G/30 - G/60 because those tournaments tend to screw up our regular ratings, usually dragging them lower.
30 minutes is still by any definition, a fast clip, but it is leisurely enough to allow one the chance to think before one moves. Due to disease I have found that I can no longer play blitz (I use to some 36 years ago), and find that even 10 minute games are still way too fast for me. I’ve yet to experiment with G/15, but suspect that is about as fast as I can reasonably move, but I would rather have a full 30 minutes.
We used to run G/29 quick-rated events (with a 3-second delay) all the time at the old club on Lunt Avenue in Chicago. Players liked them because the time control was as slow as it could be without affecting their regular ratings, and they didn’t have to keep score, yet they could get in a lot of chess (six rounds) in a single day.
A little history might explain things. In olden times (35 years ago), there was no quick rating system, the fastest allowable control was 2 minutes per move (such as 40/80), the minimum period for the first control was 1 hour, and there was no sudden death. The best an organizer could do (if “best” means as many rounds as quickly as possible) was 4 rounds, each at 30/60, then 15/30, 15/30 etc indefinitely. Garrett Scott used to run a lot of these “tornados” in Bloomington, Illinois. Scorekeeping was required.
A little later, USCF changed the 2-minute minimum to 1.5 minutes, making 40/60 legal. Later still, the minimum period was reduced from 1 hour to 30 minutes. Eventually, sudden death was permitted, making G/30 the fastest allowable.
Then, quick ratings were introduced. The idea was to allow players to play faster without risking their regular ratings. Initially, quick-rated events were required to be played at either G/10 or G/15, but the range was soon extended to G/10 through G/29. There was no overlap – G/30 or slower was regular, G/29 or faster was quick – and no dual ratings.
(John Hillery can correct me if I have any of my facts slightly wrong or out of sequence. But I’m sure the above is close enough for practical purposes.)
Quick-rated tournaments never became as popular as slower tournaments, so the player base for the quick rating system remained small. To enlarge the base and bring the two systems into better synchronization, dual rating was introduced for G/30 through G/60. It was argued that, since most players care about their regular ratings more than their quick ratings, this change would not harm the popularity of G/30 through G/60 events.
In a nutshell, G/30 was legalized before quick ratings were introduced. If it had been the other way around, the dividing point may have been established at G/60 rather than G/30.
As for now changing the dividing point to G/60, there are always players who like to play at G/30 and still have their games regular-rated.
Or, if the dividing point were to be placed between 30 and 31 minutes instead of between 29 and 30, that is a trivial change. Organizers who want G/30 quick-rated can simply run their events at G/29 instead.
Time controls are a matter of personal preference. If G/30 regular has proved more popular than G/29 quick, it could be because players have voted with their feet.
I’d think, under delay time controls, it could be a rather gray area where a G/25+ d5 could be rated either as a quick rating or normal rating.
Personally, I prefer my regular games to be at leat G/60 or longer, and G/29 or less as Quick Rating. Statistically, there really isn’t much difference between G/29 and G/30.
Almost all of my quick rating games were played at G/15 though. At least in the 90’s when I was last active in OTB rated play, G/15 seemed to be the most common quick time controls. G/15 is my favorite time control for skittles too.
Its really a shame, but around here, all the OTB players (mostly high schoolers and college students), all want to play G/5 d2 skittles. I’ve never been very good at speed chess. Oh well, to each thier own.
I live in a college town, so every year we gain a few and lose a few chess players.
Oh yes I would prefer G/60 to be ONLY Quick Chess rated but I can see that might not be possible, but G/29?!? Make it G/30 and under for Quick Chess – that or do away with the dual rating system altogether.
When I use to play (some 18-21 years ago) there was no “Quick Chess” All there was were “Standard” Tournaments and if you were lucky you got in maybe two - three games per day.
When I got diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease part of the clue was my writing had degraded to the point of being unreadable, so recording of moves is now out of the question. Now I play chess for “fun” and I move very quickly – seldom do I spend more than a few seconds before I move, abut every once in a while I spend a few minutes looking – it just for fun. It is nothing like when I use to play "serious " chess.
The biggest complaint I hear at the local club I attend is about dual rated tournaments that are G/60. For most of the members G/60 is too fast a time control and they would prefer that it be ONLY a Quick Chess event, and I tend to agree. I can see why some might be inclined to keep G/30 as a dual rated event. But if G/60 is too fast a time control then G/30 is way too fast and should ONLY be a Quick Chess event. Truthfully I think the USCF should make tournaments an EITHER/OR events: EITHER it is a REGULAR tournament, OR it is a Quick Chess Tournament, but not both. G/60 Tournaments SHOULD be rated as Quick Chess Tournaments, but I can see why some might want them dual rated but G/30… ?!? No one is going to run a G/29 Tournaments, but I see a lot of G/30 listed. If you want to run a Dual rated tournament then it should be G/31 on up – ie force the wicked step minute on the Under G/60 crowd insuring that G/31-59 disappear, or ONLY G/60 tournaments are dual rated, and making G/30 and below officially Quick Rated. As it is now the only Quick Chess rated tournaments I’ve seen listed are G/15 and the occasional G/20, but I’ve never see G/29 listed.
It might be interesting to see what USCF membership would think if a vote were held to eliminate the Dual rating tournaments, ie making G/60 Tournaments ONLY Quick Chess rated, or if G/60 tournaments were dual rated make all G/30 – an even half hour – and under tournaments ONLY Quick Chess rated.
I don’t understand the logic between changing G/30 to G/31. It seems to me that many of the organizers who run G/30 tournaments because they want them to be regular rated would just make them G/31, and nothing substantial would have changed. I think that everyone agrees that there isn’t much difference between G/29 now and G/30, except how they’re rated, and adding a minute to both wouldn’t change anything. I have noticed several G/29 tournaments, although I’m sure Mike Nolan can tell us how many, over the last few years, and I think they’re popular with people who want as much time as possible without risking their regular ratings.
As far as changing from G/30 and up to G/60 and up for regular rating, I think that will meet with a lot of resistance. In the first place, G/30 (action chess) has always been regular rated, at least as long as it has been ratable. G/30 as a legal time control antedates even the existence of a quick rating system. In short, you’re proposing to change a long standing practice. In the second place, a lot of (most of?) the scholastic activity is at G/60 or faster. Your proposal would mean that most of these kids, and the vast majority of USCF members, wouldn’t have a regular rating. Whether that’s desirable or not can be debated, but what you’re suggesting is a much more major change than you appear to think.
It would appear to me that the fact that there aren’t many G/29 tournaments compared to G/30 tournaments suggests that the membership has already voted for what they want.
(It’s worth noting, though, that while Game/30 may be the most popular time control for USCF rated events, well over half of those events are youth events.)
If you don’t want your events to be quick-rated at all, run Game/61 events.
As far as that goes, I’ve been running a lot of G/65 events lately, not to avoid quick rating them per se, but rather so that the players are eligible for JGP points. I would do G/61, but I think that looks a little silly.
Ah, here is where the flip side of the coin comes in: there are a lot of elderly members who have trouble keeping up the reflexes of youth… especially if in any way they are disabled. To be sure I’m clearly not stating we should get rid of dual rated systems between G/31 - G/60 – though PERSONALLY I’d rather have tournaments that are either/or, however I can and do see the logic in keeping a dual rated system – rather for fairness sake I’m stating that the minute be added to make G/30 Quick Chess only. Why?!? Regardless of the “logic” involved we are conditioned to think in terms of 5, 10, 15 20, or 30 minute intervals, not 1 minute intervals. ie Which makes more sense G/29 or G/30?!? We usually adjust things to the nearest minute (ie not 1 min 45 seconds), or five minute interval, in this case 1/2 hour, not 29 minutes. You’re exactly right there should not be any difference between G/29 or G/31, however there is, simply because we are conditioned to think in – usually – at least 5 minute intervals. I’ve seen very, very few G/29, but lots of G/30 tournaments advertised, the most common form of Quick Chess is usually quarter hour (G/15) or rarely 1/3 hour (G/20) tournaments. Notice this does NOT do away with tournaments which are dual rated where most of said “youth” play, but rather provides tournaments which are more for “fun” than "serious " chess, where more elderly members might feel better in taking part in playing. We need to recognize that many, many clubs have an ever increasing aging population. We should do things that would accommodate that population and make them feel welcome. All I have said en passant is in noting that many of the more elderly populations of many clubs hate tournaments that fall within that 30 minute period of G/30 - G/60 which are dual rated. I also noted that G/30 is still a very fast clip. Finally while there is not much difference between G/29 and G/30, there is a psychological difference simply because I have seen few G/29 tournaments advertised, this could change if G/30 tournaments were changed to a Quick Chess rating only, it does not eliminate dual rated tournaments between G/31 - G/60, but I would bet almost anything there would be fewer G/31 tournaments for the same reason I stated before – its all psychological.
As for “action chess” it simply broadens the base by including the more elderly set who simply can’t respond as fast as the “youth” set, yet who might want to take part, without penalty to their usually hard won regular ratings. Just something to consider.
One last thing: When I grew up I never had a “chess coach”, or a chess club that drilled chess into my head, I taught myself, yet today many schools employ chess masters and above to do that. While we should consider the needs of youth that schools are turning out in droves, we better also start taking intro consideration the needs of our aging population least we alienate a huge population of chess players who don’t want to play a bunch of young whipper snappers between the ages of 8-16 that have been coached by some master or grandmaster at school. Just my POV.
If you were to rate G/30 as quick-only, you would alienate a lot of players who like G/30 and like their results to be regular-rated. Forget it – ain’t gonna happen.
These rules have some extremely peculiar consequences. For example:
A. G/5 d/16 is regular-rated ONLY.
B. G/5 through G/29 is either regular ONLY or quick ONLY, depending on the increment or delay, but is NEVER dual-rated. (Either extreme is acceptable, but the middle ground is not.)
And what’s with all the wishy-washy stuff (“should”, “designed to be”, “was not intended”) in the TD Tip? Especially this one:
This is exactly backwards. Faster controls are precisely the ones where shortening the basic control begins to make sense.
For slower events, let the announced control stand, in games both with and without the delay. That way, players are rewarded, rather than penalized, for furnishing proper (delay-capable) equipment.
For faster controls, especially around G/15 or faster, the absence of delay begins to cut significantly into the main time. Here is where a difference makes the most sense. For example, G/10 without the delay could become G/8 d/3. Similarly, G/6 could become G/5 d/2. (In each case, a reduction of LESS than the maximum allowable seems best to me – 2 seconds becomes 1 minute, or 3 seconds becomes 2 minutes.)
Except that the organizer can announce G/30, and then reduce the control by 5 minutes in games using the delay.
I guess in boundary condition cases it will depend on how the event is advertised. (But that’s fair, players need to know just exactly what it is they’re intending to play in.)
G/30 (with or without up to 15 seconds of increment or delay) is different than an advertised time control of G/25 (with or without up to 15 seconds of increment or delay.)
Supposed that either of those time controls is the advertised time control for an event and everybody shows up with an analog (no-delay) clock? What time would be the proper setting for the G/25 event and what time would be the proper setting for the G/30 event?
But as always, there is no rule that cannot be abused or subverted for some specific purpose. I don’t define the rules (and often don’t even get consulted when revisions are under consideration), I just have to figure out how to implement them.
Some years ago I believe there used to be a rule stating that the minimum time for a primary or secondary time control in a regular-rated event was 30 minutes. That rule apparently got dropped, but maybe it needs to be revived.
It is interesting what happens over time. 1990 was the last time I played in a competitive and “serious” chess tournament, then dropped out to do my doctorate, then on October 14th 1996 got diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease. It would not be until 2005 or 2006 that I would again prowl a chess club. Between 1990 and 2005 – fifteen years – so much had changed in chess that I did not recognize the game I had left. When I left the digital chess clock had not yet been invented – or if it had, was at least not widely used – chess clocks were analog. In 1972 I was invited to play in an invitational international blitz tournament – 5 minutes, using an analog clock. Today there is all this strangeness about “delay time”. What?!? While I have sort of wrapped my mind around the idea, it seems to an add additional, but unnecessary, layer of complexity to something that should be rather straightforward is – well – STRANGE! Quick Chess had not yet been invented, thus when I came back and started receiving Chess Life again, and started looking to see what tournaments were coming up and saw things such as “G/60, G/15, SD, etc., etc, etc.” I was baffled.
Bill wrote:
And he’s probably right. Relyea however wrote:
On one hand Bill argues that G/30 should be dual rated as Regular and Quick Rated, and that essentially that if you want to to play in a Quick Chess only event find one listed at at G/29 yet reality is that there are very few G/29 tournaments listed; using inverse logic then there there is not much difference between G/30 and G/31 – those who want to have a dual rated event should find one that is listed as being G/31- G/60
But as Nolan correctly noted:
Is there any FAIR way out of this mess?!? Well I can think of at least 3: A) Do away with ALL G/30 tournaments and forcing the organizer to make it either G/29 and below or G/31 and above. B) Have G/30 Tournaments which can be rated as 1) Quick Chess ONLY 2) Regular rated ONLY 3) or Dual rated, but the organizer has to STATE in the Tournament Listing which rating system will apply (Actually I would apply this idea to anything under G/60) C) Many of these tournaments have “sections” Open , U2000, U1600, U1300, BOOSTER, etc. In G/30 tournaments why not do something similar, and allow the play to choose a section in which to play depending upon if he – the player – wants the results to be regular rated, dual rated or Quick Chess rated only?!? A fourth idea worth thinking about is a modification of C) and that is to set what rating will be used dependent upon age. Ie “Youth Only” tournaments where seniors or individuals over 50 are banned; Senior events where anyone under the age of 25 are banned, and Open tournaments which are open to all and are dual rated.
You might have noted I have been arguing of ONLY making G/30 and under events Quick rated, not do away with the dual rated structure altogether, rather making, using the same but inverse logic that if it is so easy to make a Quick Chess only rated tournament, by making it G/29, then it is just as easy for the tournament director to make it G/31 - G/60. Indeed that this discussion is happening at all verifies my earlier point: that the silly little minute DOES matter, and it seems there few people are willing try to accommodate both sides – it is, unfortunately, my way or the highway. Positions such as Bill’s, “If you were to rate G/30 as quick-only, you would alienate a lot of players who like G/30 and like their results to be regular-rated. Forget it – ain’t gonna happen.” The reality is that if we DON"T address this to try and accommodate ALL players, and yield only to the whims of youth, then we are in trouble. As I pointed out, were it up to me, I’d make EVERYTHING G/60 and under ONLY Quick rated PERIOD!! There would be NO DUAL RATING System at all. PERIOD. But I can see the value of having a Dual rated system in place, even if I do not agree with it. That said the compromised solutions was to make G/30 and below ONLY Quick rated, while making G/31- G/60 Dual rated. Sadly what I see happening is that tournaments G/60 and under are going to be filled a whole lot young players because time controls under G/60 work against people above 50 or who are disabled, and usually adversely impact those players regular rating, ratings many of them have earned over a lifetime of hard work, not by being coached by the latest and greatest GM money can find, etc., but rather by hard work and love of the game.
My “active” tournament playing days are over – I can no longer write, and stress adversely impacts my health, making my PD symptoms that much worse. I returned to chess for one reason and one reason only: the love of the game. IF I hope to play in tournaments again then it will be something fun where the idea of “ratings points” is not so much an issue as it is to have fun, at the same time I have no desire to put a lifetime rating in jeopardy by playing in tournaments in which I start off with a competitive disadvantage. G/60 is a fast time control for me but comfortable; G/30 is manageable, even if a bit uncomfortable; and G/15… I have no idea, but would be the the absolute fastest time control I could probably play at. All praise youth, let’s sacrifice all on its alter; let’s yield NOTHING to those who have already lived full lives and have the advantage to guide them, albeit at a slower rate. For me… chess will always be fun, and need not play in some youth stacked tournament to have fun. It would have been nice to find tournaments in which I might be able to compete… and if not… that to is fine, I have nothing to prove to myself or anyone else for that matter, I have much more important problems to worry about, other than chess.
I was under the impression that reason for Dual ratings was to add impact to the Quick Rating System. Wasn’t there a split at one time, under game 30 was quick rated and game 30 and up was regular rated. But people complained that there weren’t enough quick rated games to make the system something that players respected (for a better word). So the Dual rating thing was done to address this issue, thus leading to new issues???
As has been pointed out, years ago time controls like Game/60 didn’t exist. I think 30/30 was the first ‘fast’ time control approved, but it wasn’t a sudden death time control.
Quick chess as originally approved by the Delegates (in 1988 if I remember correctly) was for G/10 through G/29. Dual rating was approved by the Delegates in 2000, in part because there weren’t enough games being played. (Whether or not that solved the problem is debatable, depending on what you think the problem was in the first place.)
In 2004 Quick chess was extended down to G/5 when the WBCA folded.
You could draw the lines between quick, dual and regular chess in different places, but not without a lot of angst, and then the lines would still be arbitrary places.
You seem to be arguing, although I don’t think that you have made the point, that G/30 should not be dual rated. This is despite my point above that G/30 has always been regular rated, as long as it has been a ratable time control. There is no justification to take that away, as far as I can see. Certainly you haven’t offered one. I remember having a tournament a couple of years ago that was G/30, and one of the players was upset that it affected his regular rating. However, if you don’t like that time control, don’t play. It really is that simple. If you don’t like the time controls that are offered, organize your own tournaments. You wouldn’t be the first one to have done that. Try a G/29 tournament. I think that’s kind of gimmicky, but I have run, and will continue to run, G/25 tournaments.
As far as “organizer option” goes, that’s more or less what we had in effect up to about 2004 (?). Mike Nolan, as always, would have more details than I, but for a long time G/30-G/60 was regular ratable, and if you wanted to pay an extra fee, it would also be quick rated. That’s why many people have the same tournament listed twice in their MSA, once as regular and once as quick. I don’t think that the computer had the ability to dual rate tournaments, that is to do both rating systems at the same time. That went out about the same time as online submission started. Why that was changed I don’t know, but it seems obvious that if you and I both play in similar tournaments under the same conditions, it should affect our ratings the same way.
As far as age-based tournaments, they exist. At the senior side, they haven’t been that popular, although again you’re welcome to try to organize one. Age-based junior events haven’t been that popular, either, at least not compared to grade-based events. I think that the Junior Open is usually an order of magnitude smaller than the Scholastic nationals. Why not set up three tournaments at once and have one be G/29, one G/45, and the third G/61? This would achieve what you seem to want without requiring any rules modifications. I’m convinced that anything which results in more tournaments is a good thing.
I have no idea, but one thing is sure: IF – a big IF – indeed G/30 is the most popular format as has been posted in some of the preceding posts, then keeping QC rating to G/29 and below will ensure that QC continues to receive short shrift. QC needs to be G/30 and below if it is to make any inroads and gain in popularity simply because of the way we think and perceive time. What we are really discussing here is who gets the all important G/30, a time control which is way to fast to be considered “serious” chess, and works against people who have mobility and coordination problems which usually come with advancing age and/or disease. In reality G/60 is too fast for people with such problems, but the case has been made that “youth tournaments” need to be an hour, but that they also want the half hour mark as well, is unreasonable, so… if no one is willing to agree in compromise solutions, GC will remain basically the ugly step sister of regular chess by insuring that seniors who find tournaments of 1 hour or less and who have impeded movement issues and who might not wish to risk a real rating they have have earned usually over YEARS on what is essentially a skittles game, are simply not welcome – SPEED favors youth, not age. While I am looking for a FUN way to once again enjoy chess via Quick Chess, there are only two ways this could happen: 1) If USCF mandates all G/30 and under tournaments are strictly Quick Chess Rated or 2) start over with a new ID registration, simply because I’ll never again be able to compete in a “regular” tournament simply because of my inability to write and other health issues. Quick Chess sounds like just the thing for me: Games in which moves need not be recorded, that are relatively short, but not something that need be taken seriously and are FUN as well to participate in. While the time control of G/30 is still fast for me, I could eventually adapt and would be about right. The idea of having two ID’s – one for QC and one for Regular chess – simply defeats the purpose of having a QC rating to start with, since anything with time controls of G/60 and under are essentially QC. It adds insult to injury to hear people cry that somehow they are being deprived if G/30 events are QC rated only, and that all games between the all important half hour marks MUST be dual rated,or somehow it would deny them a regular rating, thus they want all G/30 (not just G/60 but inclusive) events to be dual rated.
I’m starting to see why, even though chess players are masters of logic, one should never have a chess player be an arbiter, because chess players have huge egos that are unwilling to yield to compromise, even when logic dictates that compromise is good for all.
The ONLY reason that all events between G/30 and G/60 weren’t being dual rated prior to early 2005 when the ratings programs were rewritten is that the way the office had to handle those was to enter them under two different event IDs, validate and rate each one separately, etc.
They charged extra for that because of the additional work involved. (I think at one point they stopped charging for it if the event was submitted on diskette, though.)
BTW, charging for dual rating of events was not the recommendation made by the Delegates in 2000, but they didn’t MANDATE dual rating of all eligible events without any additional fees.
These days dual rating of an event is just a flag that’s set in the section record for the event, so the additional work to dual rate an event is insignificant.
BTW, the USCF does not permit players to simply create a new ID for themselves to start over as unrated.
As someone suggested, if you don’t like the time controls being offered by the organizers in your area, organize your own tournaments. (You can even get someone else to direct them, being a player-director is permitted but has caused many problems.)