The update to the US Chess rulebook states that if you are running a tournament with an increment time control and your clock can’t do increment or delay, you set the clock just for the base time. This would mean that for G/3;inc2, you would simply set the clock for G/3 with no increment or delay. However, to be US Chess blitz rated, you’re suppose to have a total playing time of at least five minutes so would setting a clock without increment or delay capability for G/3 be acceptable for a US Chess blitz rated tournament?
Same principle as an analog clock in a G/25 d5 event. Games played on an analog in such events still count as Regular-rated.
Good point, thanks! It might be good for the rulebook to clarify these types of situations.
Is this in the rule book? I can’t seem to find it under 5C.
Technically, it isn’t in the rulebook but in the updated rules effective January 1, 2017:
Other relatable rules: 1A, 5C, and 16P1.
Best,
~Ybriang
Brian Yang
If the players (rather than the organizer) are furnishing the clocks, you might want to have a policy along the lines of “Organizer reserves the right to refuse entry to any player who does not furnish an increment-capable clock set for G/3 inc/2.” And/or “Any game in which neither player furnishes an increment-capable clock set for G/3 inc/2 will be scored as a double forfeit.”
Bill Smythe
If the players bring clocks without delay or increment capability, then they play G/3 and like it.
In no case should one adjust the base time. This simply rewards people who insist on using clocks that haven’t been standard for more than 22 years now. It’s time for these folks to buy a new clock.
The time control is specified for the entire event (or section), not for individual games. The fact that the rules specify that some games are played with less time (such as games played with analog clocks) does not affect the whether the event is ratable.
There are other situations (although rare) that could cause a player to have less time than the time control would indicate. For example, consider a time penalty that was assessed because the player’s phone rang audibly after he finished his previous round’s game.
Perhaps this could be spelled out more clearly in the rule book. However, consider that the rule book already uses so many words to say so little.
Why on earth would [an organizer] want to do that?
Alex Relyea
An organizer who makes no accommodation for the players deserves all of the arguments and headaches he gets. Players bring digital clocks that do not have delay or increment capability. They do so because those clocks are cheaper and they do not have to beat up their other digital clock. These clocks are sold by US Chess Sales and looked on by the players/customers as an acceptable product that can be used in tournament play. They can set their clock for Game 5, d0, which is the normal time in most blitz tournaments.
Game 3, i2 is a normal time control in internet blitz games. It is supposed to be an equivalent time to Game 5, d0. Using this increment time for OTB blitz has become acceptable but not a standard everywhere. To deny players a delay or increment time in order to run a tournament that is supposed to be for fun only causes unnecessary problems, ill will for the organizer, and likely delayed rounds because of the arguments that are going to ensue. It is easier to just let the players set their clocks for the normal Game 5, d0 time control. Note that under scholastic rules, the standard is Game 5, d0 for blitz. Digital clocks are preferable, but analog clocks are acceptable if a digital is not available. Most of the blitz players are scholastic players. Mama buys them the clocks they use for blitz and bughouse. Mama saves money by buying the cheaper clocks without all of the bells and whistles for her little darling. Tell me how much fun, as an organizer, you are going to have arguing with chess mamas over a blitz time control. Having the option of Game 5, d0 creates harmony and happy mamas and happy children. Makes life easier and does nothing to diminish attendance and profits. BTW, chess mamas talk to other chess mamas about their experiences in the chess world and can make or break organizers.
Perhaps some organizers do not care about creating ill will in the chess community. They don’t care if their rigidity and poor behavior toward the players spills over and affects the attendance for other events, impacts other organizers, and causes the chess club affiliates who sponsor events financial pain. Players will move their dollars elsewhere, and maybe not into chess. Players need to be forewarned so that they can skip these organizers’ events.
Perhaps Mr. Magar is unaware that some blitz tournaments offer prizes? I really do not understand the point of his post.
Alex Relyea
A player who brings a clock that has not been standard for 22 years deserves all the headaches he gets.
Players who look at clocks that have not been standard for 22 years as acceptable products for use in tournament play are simply wrong.
The time control is G/3. And if I lose an analog clock dead-ender because of it, good.
When organizers of G/120 events would deduct five minutes for a five second delay many players would deliberately bring non-delay clocks so that they would get more time in most games. G/5;d0 will give more time than G/3;i2 in any game finishing in less than 60 moves, so that option will be appealing to a number of players.
When digital clocks came out for the first time, the rules changed pretty fast to allow delay because the players complained about the inability to draw or win some games. When the delay rules were put in force, there was no language saying that you had to deduct 5 minutes because of the delay. Players who played in CCA events thought that was the rule, but it was not, it was a variation. Those organizers who read the rules for delay did not deduct the five minutes because the purpose of delay was to give players a little more time to play, not less. Many of the players who used analog clocks saw the virtue of purchasing a digital after suffering through the first Allegro tournaments where they lost games on time in spite of being up a Queen or failed to draw simple endgames because their opponent shuffled around until the flag fell. The only hidebound players who clung to their analog clocks were those who played only once or twice a year in their small clubs. Those who played more frequently went to digitals in a big way, purchasing every new iteration of technology if it seemed advantageous.
The history of the use of increment timing has been scattered and bumpy. The use of increment has been more urban than suburban/rural. Chicago and New York were on the cutting edge because those cities had more FIDE rated events where increment is a standard. The use of increment in internet blitz play is more recent, but is not widespread among OTB organizers who see more diversity in the kinds of clocks available for use. If you want to see Game 3, i2 as the standard, then provide clocks for all of the boards. If such clocks are not available, then expect to see player provided Saitek, cheaper DGT models, and other clocks that do not do increment. They are still digital clocks, but without the manufacturer’s bells and whistles. Game 3, i2 was touted as equivalent to Game 5, d0 in the original use of this increment time control. If it is less time, then the players have been cheated of time and prize money. If it is equivalent time, then having that option should not cause any problems for the TD in having rounds run on time. Whether using increment or d0, the skill of the users will determine how long the game lasts. I have seen Game 3, i2 games between adept blitz players last longer than 10 minutes with as much clock bashing as in d0 tournaments.
I have also seen TDs demean players for not spending money on digital clocks with delay and increment. I find that insulting players is not a very good marketing tool in increasing tournament attendance or retaining USCF members. If one is so against their not having what you deem the proper equipment, then provide it and keep your comments to yourself. You, as TD or organizer, do not know the economic circumstances of all of the players who come to your tournaments. Some organizers do make accommodations for players and are more flexible in providing tournaments for their clientele. At our club, we provide triple weighted sets, boards, and have a number of digital clocks available for use, especially in the lower rated sections where the players tend to be newer or do not have the means to provide for themselves. But that is just us. We think of doing that as a courtesy for the players competing in our events and joining our club. We don’t expect TDs and organizers in more affluent areas to understand the difficulties of growing chess. The path was already laid for them by previous generations and it is easy to take it for granted.
Did you mean 2 years rather than 22 years? Here are pointers to two official USCF documents on tournaments that are both dated 2015 and that both discuss tournament clocks, but neither one makes any mention of these “increment” or “delay” clocks you keep talking about:
uschess.org/docs/forms/Intro … Events.pdf
uschess.org/docs/forms/NineE … nament.pdf
Bob
Plus some like a master who had tied for first in the US Open, played big money events regularly, and wanted the entire stated time control for games that lasted less than 60 moves (actually more moves than that because many moves would have been made in less than the delay time). There were a number of other masters, IMs and GMs that agreed with that philosophy. It wasn’t really until the five minute deduction was no longer done that the last of those players stopped preferring analog.
Allowing G/5;d0 to substitute for G/3;i2 will bring back the analog for players that always want the full five minutes and don’t want to risk losing on time on move 28 after only 4 minutes.
I mean 22 years. And four months. At least.
The fourth edition of the Official Rules of Chess specified that an “allegro clock”, one capable of delay or increment, would become the standard timer once one became commercially available. The Chronos became commercially available no later than December 1994.
True, except if the tournament enforces it, LOL! uschess.org/tlas/7932.tla
Yechh. I hope that tournament draws zero entries. That’s what it deserves.
(Please look at the link provided by Micah before responding to this (my) post.)
Bill Smythe
Agreed. That we permit organizers to deviate this wildly from established standards with a simple disclosure is among our organizational shortcomings.