I would consider making the top Elementary section two-days. I don’t think this would hurt attendance. The two-day format doesn’t seem to hurt the top High School and Middle School sections attendance and some of those Elementary players are already going to be there on the first day anyway for the blitz and bughouse. I would also consider making the high school and middle school sections you mentioned 5 rounds at G/45;d5 (or even better, G/45;d10!) as I think that time control is fine for that rating range.
A two-day tournament tends to limit participation to those who either are within commuting distance of the event (probably under 100 miles) or can afford an overnight stay. It’s over 500 miles from one end of Nebraska to the other end, and while most of the chess has historically been in either Omaha or Lincoln, both in the eastern end of the state, we’ve seen teams from North Platte and further west come to one-day scholastic events.
Your parents are a bit different from the ones in this area. The vast majority of parents want an ASAP schedule for local one-day scholastics (there may be some selection bias there but even most inexperienced first-time parents have also said they liked the ASAP schedule and having experienced it they would not have wanted a fixed schedule).
From Jeff W.
My area, the DFW area, for sure as well. In fact, G/30;d0 tends to be a FAR more attractive time control for the rated (at least U900) rated based group. We do insert the 5 sec delay for 900+ sections. Generally we do not require notation for u sections. The idea is that, unlike a lot of areas in this nation, the DFW market does not have a lot of established school travelling chess teams. For with these traveling teams generally comes a greater educational level re notation, etc. Most of our beginning kids come with parents used to one hour sports games, so the idea of a tournament lasting 3 hours is indeed shocking to
them. much less 4 or more. Generally our novice sections, U400, are out in 2.5 to 3 hours for 4 G/30;d0 rounds, so this tends to keep parents happy.
Rob Jones
What is the reason for the bias against no delay time controls?
Are you asking why time controls that support neither increment nor delay are no longer preferable?
Essentially yes. There are examples of scholastic tournaments that still use a non-delay/increment time control, so obviously to some they are preferable. Why not for others?
For some it’s that rounds with time controls that have neither increment nor delay seem to run a bit faster (although I’m not sure that’s true.) For others its that they still have a lot of clocks that don’t support either increment or delay. And some people just don’t like change.
The rules favor increment and delay. (These days they seem to favor increment over delay, but that’s a bit more subjective.)
Our game is chess, not clock-bashing-primate. It’s not bias if it’s objectively inferior.
With a G/30;d0 time control you know the game will end in an hour (barring clock stoppages for TD ruling or time added by TDs). Some organizers and TDs feel comfortable with something that definite.
With a G/25;d5 time control most games will finish more quickly that with a G/30;d0 time control, but there is always the risk of a 200 move game with the delay being the primary component of the last 100 moves (adding an unanticipated 15+ minutes to the duration of the game).
Also, one mistake many people make (in a G/25;d5 time control for games that do not have a clock) is waiting until the 50 minute point before putting a clock on (with five minutes per side, possibly with no delay) when a better option is following the rulebook and putting the clock on at the 40 minutes point with five minutes per side and a five second delay.
Brennan,
My use of the word “bias” was that the word describes an inclination to treat one position more favorably than another. There was no judgement meant in the word other than some people believe, as you certainly do, that a non-delay/increment time control is “objectively inferior.” My question simply was a request for information that explains why you and others believe that is is inferior.
I think Brennan answered your question, at least indirectly, with his response.
There are many positions that are completely played out chess-wise, but in which one or both players are in serious time trouble. For example, it could be a completely locked bishops-of-opposite colors endgame –
– where each player has only seconds remaining.
Without an increment or delay, one or both players might be inclined to battle it out, moving their bishops back and forth repeatedly, hoping that the opponent will run out of time first. Then you truly have “clock-bashing-primate” rather than real chess.
With a 5-second increment or delay on each move, each player will have plenty of time to make each move, and each will quickly realize that his opponent isn’t going to run out of time, so they will likely soon agree to a draw.
It would be even worse if the player who is way ahead materially is short of time. Then he could lose on time very easily.
In other words, the idea (or one of the ideas) behind increment or delay is that, if a position is dead drawn, the game will in fact almost certainly be drawn. Or, if a player is way ahead materially, he is unlikely to lose in what would otherwise almost certainly become a mere clock-bashing contest rather than a serious game of chess.
That is why most of us (including me) feel that not having increment or delay is “objectively inferior” to having it.
Bill Smythe
For example, I had this position
as Black recently. Imagine having it with two seconds on your clock without increment or delay. For one thing, you’d have to decide quickly if it was worth it to capture the h-pawn so that you would draw if your flag fell. How many times would you have to lose or draw similar positions before you determined that your motor skills weren’t good enough to play this control?
Alex Relyea
In addition to what others have said, I’ll point out the following:
The way the rules of chess are written supports the idea that chess was not intended to be a timed game and that the clock was introduced merely as a means of insuring that games don’t last forever, but end in a reasonable amount of time (recognizing that what is “reasonable” can depend upon the venue). Consequently, the rules pertaining to the clock have been designed to minimize the likelihood that the clock will affect the outcome of the game. In particular:
-
Stalemate. Ultimately, chess is a battle over the kings, and games originally ended with the capture of the opponent’s king. But I gather that this was abandoned because neither the winner nor the loser found it particularly satisfying for a player to lose just because he failed to notice that his king was under attack. This led to the practice of announcing “check” and of making it illegal for a player to make a move leaving himself in check. If a player was in check and had no legal moves, this was called “checkmate” and meant that the player could not prevent his king from being captured, either by moving it or leaving it where it was. But what if a player was not in check but had no legal moves? If the chess clock were an integral part of the game, this should be a loss for the player who was trapped, since (if capturing of the king were still being done) he would either have to move his king into check and have it taken, or else lose on time. But if the clock were not an integral part of the game, the player could simply leave his king where it was forever, in which case the king would be safe but the game would be over. So the rule that stalemate is a draw effectively keeps the clock from affecting the game outcome in this situation.
-
Other rules defining draws. The rules defining draw situations have become more elaborate over the years, and the effect has been to minimize the chances that a game that would surely be a draw if there were no clock will still be a draw. Why, for example, do we need the “insufficient material” rule (14D)? If the rule didn’t exist and there were no clock, the players would either agree to a draw, or else they would play it out and the game would be ended by the 50 move rule (unless it ended before that with a stalemate or a 3-fold repetition of position). The reason for the rule is that with a clock, a player might insist upon playing it out in the hope that the other player would run out of time before 50 moves could be played.
-
Insufficient material to win on time. Why shouldn’t a player’s flag falling always result in that player losing (see Rule 14E)? The rationale, once again, seems to be that if there were no clock, the game could never end with that player losing, since his opponent lacked sufficient material to checkmate him. So allowing a player to win in a situation where he couldn’t possibly have won if there were no clock would allow the use of a clock to alter the spectrum of possible game outcomes.
It is clear that use of clocks with delay or increment provides another way of minimizing the likelihood that the clock will alter the nature of the game, since use of delay or increment reduces the chances that the victory will go to the player who is fastest at moving and hitting the clock button. Consequently, the rules have been modified so that, e.g., White’s right to use a clock with delay/increment trumps Black’s right to choose the clock (see Rule 42D).
Bob
Alex/Bob,
Thanks for the explanation. I was totally neutral on either side of the issue. What you provided was exactly what I was looking for…a rationale behind the reason.
Thanks again!
A historical perspective might be useful, as well. Those too young to remember history are doomed to never understand certain things without a detailed explanation. (Not their fault.)
Until the late 1960s or so, sudden death time controls (in rated play) were absolutely not allowed. Even G/120, let alone G/60 or G/30, were non-existent.
Even sudden death in the second control (e.g. 40/120, SD/60) was forbidden – or in the third, or any subsequent control.
A typical time control was 40/120, then 20/60, then 20/60 indefinitely. One-day tournaments essentially did not exist.
There was also a minimum time per move, I believe it was 2 minutes per move. Thus 30/60 (or 40/80) was the fastest allowable control. The same minimum also applied to the second, third, etc controls.
30/60 allowed for so-called “tornado” tournaments, one-day events with 4 rounds in a day. These may even have been invented in Illinois by Bloomington’s Garrett Scott.
Eventually the 2-minute minimum was changed to 1.5 minutes, allowing tornados to be run at 40/60 rather than 30/60. Still later, the minimum was lowered again, to 1 minute.
Sudden death was introduced with some trepidation, and over the objections of many, at first with restrictions like “only if the site has a fixed closing time” or some such.
Of course, sudden death (even if only in the second or a subsequent control) introduced certain problems, like what to do about a dead-drawn position in a time scramble. So the infamous, highly imperfect, and now largely deprecated rule 14H was introduced, to allow a TD to declare a game drawn upon request by one of the players, provided that the position presented “insufficient losing chances” to the opponent. The very definition of this term, of course, required its own rule, 14I, which was itself necessarily imperfect, unclear, controversial, etc.
Enter new technology, in the form of digital clocks with increment and/or delay, and finally, dead drawn positions could be handled properly, since if the position is truly “dead drawn”, it would be easy to play it out indefinitely with 5 seconds per move.
But increment and delay, like all new ideas, was met at first with some resistance and a lot of ignorance. U.S. Chess was forced to add a rule that, if no delay was announced in the TLA, there would be an automatic 5-second delay upon demand by either player who furnished a delay-capable clock.
Even after this rule was enacted, it still took another two years (at least) before knowledge of this rule became more or less universal, and U.S. Chess could finally invoke the current rule requiring that increment or delay, even if zero, must be explicitly announced in all pre-event publicity.
Good ideas often take a lo-o-o-o-ong time before they take hold.
Bill Smythe
In the late 70’s or early 80’s, 30/30 tournaments became both possible and popular. Those still ran at a ‘1 minute per move’ pace, but it was considered somewhat controversial to allow an initial time control of less than a full hour.
I think Brennan answered your question, at least indirectly, with his response.
There are many positions that are completely played out chess-wise, but in which one or both players are in serious time trouble. For example, it could be a completely locked bishops-of-opposite colors endgame –
– where each player has only seconds remaining.
Without an increment or delay, one or both players might be inclined to battle it out, moving their bishops back and forth repeatedly, hoping that the opponent will run out of time first. Then you truly have “clock-bashing-primate” rather than real chess.
With a 5-second increment or delay on each move, each player will have plenty of time to make each move, and each will quickly realize that his opponent isn’t going to run out of time, so they will likely soon agree to a draw.
It would be even worse if the player who is way ahead materially is short of time. Then he could lose on time very easily.
In other words, the idea (or one of the ideas) behind increment or delay is that, if a position is dead drawn, the game will in fact almost certainly be drawn. Or, if a player is way ahead materially, he is unlikely to lose in what would otherwise almost certainly become a mere clock-bashing contest rather than a serious game of chess.
That is why most of us (including me) feel that not having increment or delay is “objectively inferior” to having it.
Bill Smythe[/quote
Bias is VERY Correct, and the answer to the first question is simple. There is simply a core of old
fellas quite used to doing things the same old way, who simply are not open to change - and their
answer, when one gets right down to is - don’t confuse use, for we are used to doing things the same old way - forgetting that for some of Chess, esp BEGINNING YOUTH chess, G/30, ZERO delay is ABSOLUTELY wonderful, and Quite often, ESSENTIAL in the organization of regular rated chess tournaments that parents NEW to Chess will actually BRING their young ones to. It is time that many
in chess, esp, scholastic chess wake up to the fact that it is indeed difficult for chess tournaments to
compete with youth soccer, and other sports.
As to the player way ahead on material losing on time - A word for this is something players are responsible for, which IS and should be, a part of the game - proper clock management.
Rob Jones
Rob, you’ve made some assertions about d/0 but you haven’t really explained the REASONS why you consider it desirable. The others gave the reasons why delay/increment is necessary as well as the fundamental principle of deciding the game on the board rather than by the clock whenever possible. The one thing you did do is dispute that, saying that managing the clock is an important skill. It is, but by using delay/increment you retain the need to manage your clock without making poor use totally fatal.
Since no delay preceded delay, it seems to me your crack about old fellas not wanting to change is pointing the wrong direction logically.
That said, you know what works in your area. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Just realize that rationally, and in most markets, delay and increment are preferred because they logically are superior for the reasons given in this thread.
Your quote function didn’t function properly. If you add a closing bracket “]” to your "
[/quote", that might fix it. You may have to add "[quote]
" at the top, too. If it’s too late for you to edit your post, maybe the moderator can do it for you. Otherwise, it looks (at first) as though you wrote the post that was actually mine.
The question asked by the OP was “What is the reason for the bias against no delay time controls?” (emphasis mine), or in other words, “What is the reason for the bias in favor of delay time controls?”. You answered the opposite question, which would have been “What is the reason for the bias against delay time controls?”. I guess the double negative “against no” tripped you up a bit.
Bill Smythe
The original “Allegro” time controls were not thought through very well. They were designed for organizers who wanted to run one day, 5 or more round tournaments. It was quickly apparent that having fast time controls running with the regular rules that required taking notation and all sorts of niceties were a problem. Players howled that they could no longer save dead endgames or even win superior positions. Players adopted strategies of banging the clocks harder to make the opponent’s time run faster. There were a lot of arguments during tournaments that various antics were being used to win that were, to put it mildly, unseemly. TDs could not watch all of the time pressure games, which now were more frequent than in the older way of using multiple time controls that were based on the number of moves made. It was hard on equipment; more broken pieces and clocks. There was even more cheating through trying to modify the speed of the clocks.
It was odd to see old and new rules grafted together to fix the problems. For example, in a no delay tournament, you can use a delay clock once you reach a certain point in a game where there is a very drawish position. The TD may or may not allow such a clock to be placed, which raises the issue of the quality of the knowledge of chess that the TD possesses. I have seen people with only spotty skills of chess add or not add a clock improperly. The default was to add a clock. But does that not defeat the purpose of no delay entirely which was to end the game at a certain time?
Yes, Allegro was a mess and its modifications not entirely satisfactory. That some like Allegro does not surprise, but you have to take a lot of bad along with the good of playing more chess in a one day setting. Having children playing so fast makes one wonder at how much learning is really going on. Using no delay just to appease some chess moms who want to go shopping on Saturday is just as bad as when Allegro was introduced to appease some organizers who wanted to make more money by cutting their costs. The question of whether fast time controls with no delay is really chess or how we want to promote the game is still out there. When faster reflexes trump chess skill, what message does that send?