Don’t let a long game in one section slow down the other sections. Get rounds 2 and 6 started on time in three of the four sections even if there is a long game in the fourth (probably top) section. If the top section is in a room separate from the other three, this may be an even better idea.
If there is a long game, play it by ear. Decide case-by-case whether to adjourn or to start the next round late.
Depending on the position, you may even have a somewhat strong-armed option. Walk up to the game about 30 minutes before the next round is due to start, pause the clocks, and tell the players, “I am not adjourning this game. However, it is time to make pairings for the next round. If, within the next five minutes, either of you offers a draw to your opponent, please tell me about it, and I’ll pair you as a draw and your opponent as a win. If, however, both of you offer a draw within the next five minutes, I will declare the game over (drawn). Now, please resume the game.” Then restart the clock and walk away.
This idea could be especially effective in endings where one player has all the winning chances. The defending player will likely offer a draw right away, putting the onus on the first player to either accept the draw (to get an easier pairing) or to play for a win (but only if he actually has realistic winning chances).
Several years ago I saw a game with K+P vs K, and the pawn was a rook-pawn no less, with the defending king within easy reach of the queening square. Such a position is so easy to draw, that even a player who doesn’t know it’s a draw will easily draw it just by playing obvious moves. Yet the player with K+P wouldn’t agree to a draw. If the TD in this case had applied the above trick, the player with the pawn would likely agree to a draw immediately, rather than trying to win a virtually unwinnable position only to be paired against a tougher opponent next round as a result.
One trick I used in the old days was to silently drop off an adjournment envelope (yeah, try finding one of those today) at the board(s) that looked long in the tooth and likely not to not end in time for the next round to start. Amazingly most, if not all, of the games ended before the envelope had to be used.
Any given round will have a fair number of games going over 40 moves. I know you believe in ignoring the possibility of 100 moves, but it seems planning for 60 moves is a bare minimum. That comes out to 260 minutes. 5 hours is 40 minutes cushion. I personally don’t find that sufficient, but some might. Depends partly on availability of food.
A little thread-drift is inevitable but this post and all of the eight which follow it are completely off topic. All of it should be split off to a new thread and moved to the Running Chess Tournaments section. None of it belongs in US Chess Issues.
I hope the organizers of the US Open will consider having the four day schedule played at G/60;inc5 rather than G/60;d5 this year since most players prefer increment and it would have all the schedules use an increment time control.
A few years ago at the Portland Chess Club, we changed the time control of our 4-round “Game in 60” tournament, which takes places once a month, usually on the last Saturday in the month, from G/60;d5 to G/60;inc5 and people liked the change.
it may be a stretch to assume most players prefer increment. But even if so it might not be the US Open player audience that prefers such. Further have you considered the impact on other schedules?
The Federation is the organizer and Hal Terrie is the chair of the US Open committee. uschess.org/docs/gov/reports … eeList.pdf
You can try to lobby the committee or you can simply be quiet and hope.
The time control chosen has to be one that gives the staff time to have round 5 start at noon on Friday and round 6 finish soon enough for the three schedules to be merged before round 7 is paired and posted (and still leave enough time for people to read the pairings and get to their boards before the pre-round announcements are made).
The noon rounds allow people in them to attend the morning workshops even though they cannot do the afternoon workshops.
It was mentioned in a previous forum thread that the US Open players generally preferred increment when polled (and this was at a US Open that was using delay). I don’t think changing from G/60;d5 to G/60;inc5 will cause any issues with the schedule.
I’d avoid the 4-day because of 4 games in one day and an aversion to playing G/60 in a major event for 6 rounds. The difference between 5 second delay and 10 is far less significant to me by comparison. In any event, if you want to go to workshops, the 4-day is a non-starter anyway.
5-second delay is wonderful, not awful. Of all the different variations of delay and/or increment, it is my favorite. And no, I’m not being ironic or sarcastic.
In principle, yes, although it’s a moot point since I never play blitz.
The whole point of delay (or increment) is so that, in a sudden death time control, you don’t run out of time in an “automatic” won or drawn position. Thus, the game is decided by the position and the players rather than the clock. The clock is mainly there to ensure that games don’t last forever. Ideally, it shouldn’t be deciding games.
However, blitz is a different game. In blitz, the clock is supposed to be as important as the other factors. That’s the essence of blitz. If you take that away, it’s not really blitz anymore. It’s just a faster form of “Quick Chess”.
As for 5-second delay (in non-blitz games), 5 seconds is enough time to accomplish the purpose stated above. If you need more time than that, it’s not really an “automatic” type of position. By making the delay longer, you’re just encouraging procrastinators to get into time trouble rather than managing their time properly. And allowing the main time to actually increase (as with increment) goes way beyond the original purpose of delay. It really encourages the procrastinators. And that’s the main reason why I prefer delay.
There is one positive thing about increment, though – it allows you to continue keeping score in time pressure. I used to really hate games where I had no record of the final moves (often the most interesting part of the game, not to mention the decisive part of the game) because I had to stop keeping score due to time pressure. That doesn’t happen with a sufficiently long increment (or, for that matter, with a sufficiently long delay). However (for me anyway), this is only a factor in shorter time controls. At G/90 or longer, there’s no excuse for getting into such time trouble. People should learn to manage their time better rather than demanding ever longer delays and increments. Since I stopped playing blitz and quick/action chess, time pressure is a distant memory. It never happens anymore. And that is simply “awesome” (the opposite of Micah’s favorite adjective, “awful”).
That may be the main point of a five second delay but not a longer delay or an increment.
And this is a good argument for using an increment or a delay longer than five seconds.
I disagree that the clock is suppose to be as important as playing good moves. Sure, the clock is more important in blitz than regular chess but the most important thing should always be about making good moves and blitz is about seeing who can do that at a faster rate.
Procrastinators will get into time pressure even with a five second delay. Increment isn’t supposed to serve the same purpose as delay.
Originally, it was the point of delay, period, and there were no delays longer than 5 seconds (also note that the basic reasoning only applies to sudden death, where time budgeting is problematic because you don’t know how many moves you will have to make). That it has grown to serve other purposes is metastasis, in my opinion.
You need to set some kind of limit. Presumably, you would not be in favor of a 30-minute delay or increment. The only question is where to set the limit. In my opinion (and for the original purpose of delay – see above), 5 seconds is plenty.
In my opinion, increment serves no useful purpose at all, other than the scorekeeping issue that I mentioned in my earlier post – and that could be solved just as well with a 30-second delay. I don’t see any need for increasing the main time during the game. Set a main time control that allows enough time, and then manage that time properly. People who can’t manage their time (i.e., procrastinators) should stick to correspondence chess.