Certainly it can happen. It’s not hard to create a “Marshall Exemption” in the legislation–the rulebook is chock full of these types of situations. Besides…I’d bet a dollar to doughnuts that organizers will continue to hold dual-rated G/25 d/5 events anyway. It’ll take a few years for all the evil rulebreakers to fade into the background 
.
Is is really kosher to dual-rate G/25 d/5 events under the current
rules, or is that a bit of, um, “creativity” on the part of the Marshall Chess Club?
It’s kosher, as long as you announce the tournament as GAME/30 and allow people with analog clocks to play that way. That is, it is until January first. We’ll see what happens in Orlando. By the way, the other main objection came from scholastic organizers who want to get rid of the kiddies as quickly as possible.
Alex Relyea
Presently it is clearly permitted by our rules.
…as long as the tournament is advertised as G/30 and players who use analog clocks play at G/30, that is—as Alex Relyea pointed out. See Rule 5Fa.
That’s the way things have stood for many years now, Brian M. I play as little G/30 as I can, but from observation I would say a majority of games from events advertised as G/30 are played with digital clocks set to G/25, delay-5.
Some games in “G/30” events are played with digital clocks set to G/30, delay-5, some games are played with analog clocks set to G/30. I would guess the latter two together account for fewer rated “G/30” games than does G/25, delay-5. (I have played all three of these ‘variations’ myself, in my quite limited “G/30” career.)
I am sure some “G/30” events have had some games played at G/30, delay-5 and other games at G/25, delay-5, with players confused about whether the time deduction (to compensate for delay) was in effect.
This all assumes the delay is properly set to five seconds for both players from move one on digital clocks.
I wonder if the standard FIDE Rapid control of G/25, Inc-10 would or should be Dual-rated? As I recall, that’s what was used in the NY Masters a few years ago.
It will be interesting to see what happens on this topic at the Delegates Meeting this summer.
Regarding evildoers, creativity, and fading into the background.
The “4 Rated Games Tonight!” tournament is the USCF’s longest-running action chess tournament, and also one of the longest-running weekly (and) weeknight tournaments in the country (I wasn’t sure on how to get the display to weed out the other non-Thursdays, but you get the idea):
uschess.org/msa/TnmtLst.php?TONIGHT;0
In fact, when, hopefully, the tournament celebrates its 25th year of weekly competition next March, it would qualify as “A USCF Heritage Event!” and possibly the only Heritage Event not just to be run once a year for 25 years-- but once a week for 25 years!
The appeal of the tournament is reflected in its name. It started with a unique format in that, unlike a more traditional weeknight quad, for example, you could play four USCF regular-rated tournament games in one night, after work or school and dinner, and be finished in time to get back home and then to work or school the next morning. That essentially was the reason for its initial popularlity and why people continue to play every week (dual-rating notwithstanding).
Virtually every week there is at least one Grandmaster, along with an IM or two (invariably including Jay Bonin but often some others as well). Many weeks there are two or more GMs playing. Most of the American GMs have played in the tournament, and several of them have played a number of times. I’d venture that there is no other weekly tournament in the country (and probably not many in the entire world, either) which features such a powerhouse lineup almost every week. The record, in fact, was 15 GMs playing on Thursday, June 23rd, 1994, where GM Alex Wojtkiewicz was in white-hot form with a perfect 4-0 score and a sizzling 2800+ performance rating: uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?199406233510.0
Often there are players from foreign countries, and the tournament has had its share of international publicity:
vaadeldaja.blogspot.com/2009/05/ … sa-mv.html
(sorry, but I’m not sure of the language in this one).
The strength of the field has also proven to be quite a boon especially for up-and-coming youngsters. Of course Josh Colas and Justus Williams eclipsed 2200 on a Thursday night, but so too did Raven Sturt, Fabiano Caruana and Hikaru Nakamura! They, along with Marc Arnold, Robert Hess, Alex Lenderman, Demytro Kedyk, Donny Ariel, Sal Bercys, Greg Braylovsky, Alec Getz, Kassa Korley, Alex Ostrovskiy, Parker Zhao, Boris Kreiman, Irina Krush, Martha Fierro, Alex Sherzer, Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (Zamora), Gata Kamsky and too many other strong juniors to remember throughout all the years have made the tournament “the thing to do” on Thursdays for chess players-- from the very inception of the USCF’s rating Sudden Death, long before there ever was dual-rating, and ever since there was dual-rating, before many tournaments had even made it into the foreground and probably well after others have faded into the background.
So what was the time control 25 years ago?
“So what was the time control 25 years ago?”
[/quote]
(from Tim Just in re Steve Immitt’s Four Rated Games Tonight events)
The time control at Steve Immitt’s Four Rated Games Tonight events has always been G/30, since the event started in 1987. That’s the year it started because 1987 was the year G/30 became the fastest ratable time control. For reference: When I started to play tournament chess, in 1980, debate raged over whether 30/30 was too fast to be rated.
In 1987 there was no Quick rating system and no such thing as delay-capable digital clocks. All USCF-rated games were rated under one system, and nearly all rated games were played with analog clocks. A few of the old awful non-delay digital clock (Kaissa?) were still around—alas—but not many.
The advent of ratable G/30 made possible—barely—the notion of playing four rated games in one evening. Thus was born Steve’s long-running Thursday-night series at the Marshall Chess Club. (I played in a few of these tournaments long ago, when I had a place to stay in the city. I could never take G/30 seriously, even with time delay, and doubt I will play in this event again. I do miss playing in Steve’s slow time control weekend tournaments at the Marshall, at 30/90 in good conditions as long as the a/c held up, surrounded by the aura of chess history…sorta.)
Then delay-digital clocks came along. These clocks brought a bit of sanity to insane time scrambles at the end of SD games and negated the inherently imperfect ILC rule (14H), thus delay-digital clocks were granted preferred status. That was a Good Thing overall—but the delay time added a few minutes to games played with digital clocks…which was enough to bust the tight schedules seen in some G/30 tournaments.
Thus, the option to deduct five minutes from main clock time to compensate for five-second delay came to be…which led to the situation I outlined a few posts above: For many years now we have seen rated “G/30” games played at three different controls: 25.5 as well as 30.5 as well as 30.0. I would not be surprised to hear that all three variations were seen in the SAME “G/30” event, where some players use analog clocks and others are confused about whether to deduct time to compensate for delay.
Steve has used the five-minute deduction—digital clocks set to G/25, delay-5—at the Thursday night series since that option became available, I believe. He has posted here that without the time deduction he could not run the Four Rated Games tournaments as Regular-rated any more, due to time constraints. As is it’s a scramble for players to make the last bus or train to get home after the four games finish, close to midnight.
My thoughts on that are the same now as they were 20 years ago: Guess what? It is NOT possible to conveniently play four Regular-rated games in one night, after a full day of work or school, then get home in time to get almost enough sleep for a full day of work or school the next day. Maybe if you live and work in the West Village…apart from that, it’s just not possible. Anyone who works or attends school during standard hours and decides to play on Thursday night at the Marshall knows it will take contortions and/or sleep deprivation. Lots of folks do it anyway—but it takes contortions. (or at least a half-point bye)
If I had a vote, the time-deduction option would be abolished, mainly so we have a maximum of two rather than three different time controls listed as the same thing. (“G/60” would mean G/60 with analog clocks and G/60, delay-5 with digital clocks; G/55, delay-5 would not be an option.)
If making that happen requires an exception or grandfather clause for G/25, delay-5 as Regular-ratable I can live with it. As I understand it, that’s what the original motion proposed last year would have done. For some reason, the late Mr. Hillery moved to divide the motion—and here we are.
With zero knowledge of what is going on with efforts to tweak or amend the motion to abolish 5Fa, I would bet what we wind up with this summer—to take effect next year—is pretty much the original motion from last year: The time deduction option is kaput, but based on tradition G/25, delay-5 is Regular-ratable as G/30.
Could be some animated discussion in Orlando.
Another solution is to define what is regular-ratable in terms of the total time available for all the moves of the game. A game is regular-ratable if at least 30 minutes are available for all the moves of the game. The amount of time available for all the moves of the game is the total of:
- all the standard time controls, plus
- time delay in seconds per move (if allowed) multiplied by 60
- increment in seconds (if allowed) multiplied by 60
If games are played with different amounts of total time available for all the moves of the game (as, for example, when delay and non-delay clocks are used), the section is ratable based on the least amount of total time available for all the moves of the game.
This rule would mean that G/30 0/d would qualify for regular rating. It would also mean that G/25 5/d would be regular-ratable, but not G/25 0/d (or any delay less than 5 seconds). This rule would also handle increments, which are probably going to become more popular: G/5 i/30 (andso forth) would be regular-ratable.
The question of what G/30 “really means” and how time controls should be advertised becomes a separate issue. How time controls are “advertised” would not matter. What would matter for regular versus quick versus dual would be the time controls actually used. That is at should be.
But Marshall could advertise the tournament as G/25 5/d, or G/30 if not using a delay clock, which would make it regular ratable.
That’s pretty much what we have now, apart from the last paragraph—even that is really semantics. (It might sound silly, but a tournament must be advertised as G/30, with G/25, delay-5 as an option for digital clocks, rather than the other way around, for it to be Regular-rated.)
G/30 with no delay is Regular-ratable now and will be next year, under the scheduled rules change. (abolition of 5Fa) I will go out on a limb and say that G/30 with no delay will be Regular-ratable as long as there is a USCF Regular rating system.
G/25 with no delay is not Regular-ratable now and will not be Regular-ratable under the scheduled rules change—or ever, I hope. When Bill Smythe takes over USCF that could change.
G/5, Inc-30 is Regular-ratable now and will be Regular-ratable under the scheduled rules change. Whether this is a good thing might be worth discussing in another thread.
G/25, delay-5 is Regular-ratable now, as long as the advertised time control is G/30. (Semantics again.) I suspect it will still be Regular-ratable next year, once the scheduled rules change has been tweaked.
The only control you suggest that would change as to its “ratability” is G/25, delay-5—and then only in the (unlikely, I think) event that A. Rule 5Fa is abolished as scheduled next year; and B. Everyone gets the memo and follows the new rule.
(from Tim Just in re Steve Immitt’s Four Rated Games Tonight events)
Tim Just knows the answer to this question—and perhaps it would be best to let Tim and Steve resume their joust from the Rules Workshop in 2009, if they wish…but the more I read this forum, the more aware I am that some relative newbies to USCF do not know the back story behind Stuff.
The time control at Steve Immitt’s Four Rated Games Tonight events has always been G/30, since the event started in 1987. That’s the year it started because 1987 was the year G/30 became the fastest ratable time control. For reference: When I started to play tournament chess, in 1980, debate raged over whether 30/30 was too fast to be rated.
[/quote]
You might want to check your facts here; i.e., Steve was not at the workshop (nor the entire delegates convention) in 2010. So, I could not have been jousting with him on this topic. ( I did joust with Bill Goichberg pointing out that his main argument was that he wanted the change to benefit Steve, a long time CCA employee who would lose some players if he was forced to go run a strict G/30 tournament.) And it appeared, to me, to be a conflict of interest on his part to oppose the change on those grounds. Bill disagreed with me at that time. I was deeply concerned about how Bill’s stance on this topic “appeared.” I made no judgment about any actual conflict of interest, just the appearance of it.
I had no idea that those events were going on for that many years. So, I had no idea what the original time control was back then. I asked.
You might want to brush up on “Mind Reading 101” before posting such items again.
“Assume nothing” is a motto you might also want to investigate.
You might want to check your facts here; i.e., Steve was not at the workshop (nor the entire delegates convention) in 2010. So, I could not have been jousting with him on this topic. ( I did joust with Bill Goichberg pointing out that his main argument was that he wanted the change to benefit Steve, a long time CCA employee who would lose some players if he was forced to go run a strict G/30 tournament.) And it appeared, to me, to be a conflict of interest on his part to oppose the change on those grounds. Bill disagreed with me at that time. I was deeply concerned about how Bill’s stance on this topic “appeared.” I made no judgment about any actual conflict of interest, just the appearance of it.
I had no idea that those events were going on for that many years. So, I had no idea what the original time control was back then. I asked.
You might want to brush up on “Mind Reading 101” before posting such items again.
“Assume nothing” is a motto you might also want to investigate.
((Above comments from Tim Just. Quote function gone haywire today.))
[/quote]
[/quote]
Fair enough, Tim. I thought you must surely know that Steve Immitt’s Thursday night events have been G/30 from the start. As Steve posted yesterday, it was the advent of ratable SD controls, with G/30 as minimum, that inspired the series in the first place.
Sometimes those of us on the far fringes assume too much that those closer to the center of the action “know everything”…My mistake.
In any case, as someone who played in a few of those events many many years ago—perhaps pre-MSA—I can attest that they were always G/30—and always Regular-rated.
BTW: I thought of asking about this before: What made you decide to use the time deduction option for your tournament in NJ in December?
As for the Rules Workshop: Is there a video of the 2010 workshop? I watched the 2009 Rules workshop via the Web cam video taken by one of the Delegates, (from Tennessee, maybe?) who posted a link to it here. I had just renewed my TD certification after several years away, thus wanted to get back up to speed…it was quite entertaining.
I am pretty sure Bill Goichberg wants to keep the time-deduction option for his own tournaments as well as Steve Immitt’s events. In this case, my surety is based on Mr. Goichberg’s own comments on this forum. He posted last year that timing would be tight in events with his standard “six-hour” control—40/2, SD/1—if he could not use the time deduction.
Sorry to play mind-reader; it was mostly unintentional. That was a serious question about a video of last year’s Rules workshop—or Delegates Meeting, too.
Finally: Do you know what is the status of efforts we heard about to fine-tune the motion to abolish 5Fa?
Thanks.
My $0.02 on this subject - make the time control G/30 with no delay, regardless of the clock being used. Solves all problems.
[/quote]
Fair enough, Tim. I thought you must surely know that Steve Immitt’s Thursday night events have been G/30 from the start. As Steve posted yesterday, it was the advent of ratable SD controls, with G/30 as minimum, that inspired the series in the first place.
Sometimes those of us on the far fringes assume too much that those closer to the center of the action “know everything”…My mistake.
In any case, as someone who played in a few of those events many many years ago—perhaps pre-MSA—I can attest that they were always G/30—and always Regular-rated.
BTW: I thought of asking about this before: What made you decide to use the time deduction option for your tournament in NJ in December?
Hmmm…good question. I believe that I did not deal with that directly. It just sort of appeared on my radar when someone else brought up the topic. I seem to recall I just went along with whatever they wanted; i.e., it was not that important, one way or the other, with the time controls we were using.
As for the Rules Workshop: Is there a video of the 2010 workshop?
I don’t think so.
I watched the 2009 Rules workshop via the Web cam video taken by one of the Delegates, (from Tennessee, maybe?) who posted a link to it here. I had just renewed my TD certification after several years away, thus wanted to get back up to speed…it was quite entertaining.
Yep, the 2009 workshop was a lot of fun. Steve and I are like oil and water…on a personal level we don’t mix well together; however, we have worked together several times at Nationals and I would take him as my floor chief, with me doing the pairings stuff, any time. The man does an outstanding job as a TD.
I am pretty sure Bill Goichberg wants to keep the time-deduction option for his own tournaments as well as Steve Immitt’s events. In this case, my surety is based on Mr. Goichberg’s own comments on this forum. He posted last year that timing would be tight in events with his standard “six-hour” control—40/2, SD/1—if he could not use the time deduction.
I don’t believe that Bill would ever intentionally involve himself in a “conflict of interest.” However, he is also blind to the fact that often it appears that way. I only wish that he would consider changing that appearance. I seem to recall his intentions regarding your statement above about his events was that he was not in favor of the time deductions (Bill?) because he had concerns about FIDE rules that governed the amount of playing time necessary for a game to be considered FIDE ratable.
Sorry to play mind-reader; it was mostly unintentional. That was a serious question about a video of last year’s Rules workshop—or Delegates Meeting, too.
Finally: Do you know what is the status of efforts we heard about to fine-tune the motion to abolish 5Fa?
I have no info on what the Scholastic Committee has done. I am on the Rules Committee and can find no committee e-mails discussing that topic to date (though right after the delegates convention there appeared to be a flurry of e-mails from various sources about this topic).
Thanks.
[/quote]
Have you ever been involved in an ILC/14H claim or dispute—perhaps with a position that was right on the bubble—as player or TD?
I have hopes that this policy is changing. Bill ran a MLK holiday tournament this year without the deduction (I didn’t attend, but it was announced in the tournament publicity). It seems to have worked well enough that he’s repeating the experiment – I will be playing in one of his tournaments next weekend and it also will not have the 5 minutes deducted.
I think the time for allowing the 5 minute deduction is past. I’d actually prefer not to even require a 5 minute addition as an alternative (because I’d like to encourage the use of delay capable clocks). I don’t like the idea of G/25 being regular rated, however. Maybe it would be OK to say G/25d5 can be rated but without the delay G/30 is the minimum.
For that matter, when I started playing, 40/60 was the fastest rated time control. I didn’t even like 30/30, when it came along.
Yes, I have. Doesn’t change my opinion at all on this.
So, would you simply do away with time delay for ALL Sudden Death time controls—or just G/30? (Or G/XX) If so, would you allow ILC claims via rule 14H, or would you simply say “Too bad, you lose.”?
Abolishing both time delay and ILC claims in a world of almost-universal SD time controls might be the one thing that would make me give up rated chess. I suspect I am in the majority on that, for once. (The reason I mention such a far-fetched notion is that I know players who support the idea, far-fetched or not.)
The one silver lining to a world without time delay might be the resurgence of move-based controls. We used to play 40/90 followed by 40/60 forever at our club. We changed that to 40/90, SD/60 to get with the 21st century, so to speak. I was one of the guys who pushed for the change, but now I wonder…The only time 40/60 and SD/60 do not mean the same thing as secondary control is a marathon endgame such as Q+P. The rare times that happens, why not let the players fight it out all night, if they choose?
So, Jon: What is the upside to a world without time-delay chess, in your view?
“So, would you simply do away with time delay for ALL Sudden Death time controls—or just G/30? (Or G/XX) If so, would you allow ILC claims via rule 14H, or would you simply say “Too bad, you lose.”?”
Just G/30, in order to satisfy both sides of this argument. ILC claims via rule 14H would be applicable in this instance.
The time delay is useful in all other scenarios, because “deducting” 5 minutes to compensate for the delay in 99% of the other realistic and usable “standard” time controls has no real impact on the suitability of the time control for standard rating purposes (i.e. there’s no debate on whether a G/35 TD/5 satisfies the dual rating criteria).
Getting rid of the time delay for G/30 only not only ensures that round scheduling is not disrupted (one of the main arguments of the G/25 TD/5 crowd), but it also ensures that the minimum time control of G/30 for a “standard” rated event is satisfied (one of the main arguments of the non-G/25 TD/5 crowd).
You are putting words in my mouth. I have never been in favor of regular-rating a G/25 d/0 event. I am in favor only of allowing a game played with an analog clock in a G/25 d/5 event to be played at G/25 d/0.
Also, I think neither a 5-minute deduction (in games played with the delay) nor a 5-minute addition (in games played without) should be permitted unless announced in pre-event publicity.
So, the organizer of a G/25 d/5 event would have the option, in games played with analog clocks, of either adding 5 minutes or not – but in the former case, would have to advertise the option in advance.
Bill Smythe