I disagree. While I share your disdain for analog clocks qne no delay tournaments, I have no problem with offering an occasional throwback tournament and, if it meets current rating criteria, rating it. I might even play in such an event on a one-off basis for variety. If an organizer offers only these oddball events, I’d probably not want to take my chances with him, but for variety, why not. Let players vote with their entry fees. We don’t know his motivation for this specific event, but it fits the US Chess mission statement just fine.
We have some posters who really need to lighten up. I was under the impression that for most people chess is supposed to be an enjoyable hobby, not an opportunity for TD’s to exercise their imperiousness.
When standard delays were adopted in conjunction with the above-mentioned allegro clock, they were standard, presumed with out announcement, and not optional.
There was a reason for that. That reason is because the clock-bashing-monkey game that d0 devolves into is not an acceptable standard for competitive chess when technology is available to avoid it.
If pointing that out makes me imperious or any other pejorative adjective, so be it.
There’s an enormous difference between (e.g.) our friend in Dallas who thinks that G/30;d0 is “the” way to run a (serious) tournament (no—it’s not), and someone running a one-off tongue-firmly-in-cheek effing QC tournament where it’s impossible to miss the intent. And yes, it’s imperious to say it’s an organizational failing to permit the latter.
i had a post ready to go this morning but decided to reflect upon it before posting. since your thoughts coincide exactly with mine…
i was quoting sgt hulka from “stripes”, “lighten up francis”!
…scot…
And note that the prizes are 100% guaranteed. It’s a fun day, offbeat event and if I lived in Sacramento I would play.
Here is an explicitly no-delay tournament from 2007
Run those rebels out of US Chess!
I like either delay or increment better than no delay/increment, but I see no problem with an organizer holding a tournament with no delay/increment. Chess players will vote with their feet. If no one comes the organizer probably won’t do this again. I agree with Mike; it sounds like an interesting, unusual idea, and if I lived in Sacramento I would probably play, too.
There is a wide variability in “standards.” Many big money tournament have 10 second delay now, not the “standard” 5 seconds delay. Bronstein’s original proposal was for delay to range from 15 to 30 seconds. Even some increment tournaments do not use the 30 second “standard.” Blitz is all over the place in what delay or increment is used. The “standard” is what the organizer thinks his market will be acceptable.
I see that the Sacramento organizer is providing all equipment. Good on him. I might not like a time control this fast, but it is only Quick Chess. I would try it for fun and many players I know would do it, too, if this type of tournament was offered. Gives us an idea to work on. We should look at this more to see if it works out. I bet the USCF will accept the rating fee, even if it came from a Club TD.
OK, on reflection, hats off to anyone who guarantees prizes and provides equipment. But not every neat event should necessarily be US Chess rated. If I had my way, d0 events would fall into the not ratable category.
But I suppose it’s a good thing that I don’t always have my way. Truce.
Would you say that even of blitz games?
I admit that I am rather intrigued and more than slightly puzzled by the popularity of G/3 inc/2. While I have no firm data (and “without data, you’re just another person with an opinion”), I would guess that no more than 1% of blitz games last at least sixty moves. (I would also guess that most games at regular rated time controls, perhaps even 95% of such games, end within sixty moves. I would be loath to believe that as many as 10% go at least sixty moves.) As pointed out earlier in the thread, players have more time with G/5 d/0 than with G/3 inc/2 in almost all blitz games.
I suspect that Blitz games tend to go on for more moves than regular games, because players will keep playing on in inferior positions, trying to flag their opponents.
They certainly go on long past the point where a game would probably have been resigned (or agreed drawn) at a regular T/C, but my guess would be that the point where the game is hopeless chessically comes much quicker, so that overall the games are probably shorter. (For instance, what percentage of blitz games get down to R+P endgames, vs regular games?)
I doubt this is any more true in Blitz than in regular games when one player is in time trouble. Especially if the game isn’t played with a reasonable increment.
Alex Relyea
Nevertheless, I am sure that most people who have actually played G/3 inc/2 will tell you that it has a far more civilized feel than G/5 inc/0. G/3 inc/2 gives you more time precisely in the games where it is most needed.
Bill Smythe
I’d be surprised if very many players who are preparing to participate in their first USCF tournament actually thoroughly read the entire USCF rulebook. I think they are much more likely to read one or both of the introductory documents I referenced. And if they do, they will be told that they should have a chess clock but won’t even be told about, let alone told that they need, a clock with delay/increment capability. So why haven’t these documents been modified to say this if, as you claim, delay/increment clocks have been standard for 22 years and 4 months? How long does it take to make a minor modification to a document? If you give me access to the documents, I will (barring unforeseen circumstances) have them changed in the next week.
Bob
You need to contact Dan Lucas and Jean Hoffman with that offer.
Yes.
I’m guessing that most Blitz-rated games have no delay or increment, and most regular-rated games have some delay or increment.