The current version of the Rulebook Changes uses the notation d/5, inc/30 etc. for delay or increment. The current practice for TLAs and other publicity is to omit the slash: d5, inc 30, etc. I’m not sure whether Tim Just changed the rules for the 6th edition to reflect current practice, but assuming he didn’t I think the rulebook should be changed to reflect what’s actually being done (or we should go back to using the slash as called for in the rules). Accordingly, I’m planning to submit the following ADM. Comments are welcome.
The standard formatting used by the ratings validator is:
There is always a slash between the number of moves and the time in minutes for those moves.
G/xx is only used as a primary time control, a secondary sudden death time control is entered as SD/xx
Commas are used in between a first and second time control period, etc.
If the increment or delay setting appears at the end, it applies to all time control periods and is preceded by a semicolon to set it apart from those time control periods. If it follows a time control (with a space instead of a semicolon) it applies only to that time control. (But see note below.)
A delay setting is indicated as dxx
An increment setting is indicated as +xx
Note that we do not currently accept time controls that do not have the same delay or increment setting in effect at the start of the game (eg, from move 1 on.) For the purposes of determining which rating system is in effect, time controls should be entered as if the delay or increment setting is in effect at the start of the game.
TLAs are using a different notation, e.g. the time control for the Traditional schedule of the U.S. Open in the April Chess Life TLA is specified as 40/120, SD/60 d5. Obviously the 5 second delay is for the entire game, not just for the last time control. More puzzling is the TLA for the 70th Annual U.S. Amateur East Championship in the same issue, which specifies the time control as 50/2 d5, SD/1. Do they really intend to use d5 only in the first time period? This should probably have been written as 50/120, SD/60 d5, or in the ratings validator notation as 50/120, SD/60; d5.
The ratings validator notation is more complete since allows different delays or increments to be used in different time periods, but it’s a little awkward if semi-colons are being used in the same sentence: “e.g. G/90; +30; G/30; d5; G/10; d3; G/5; d0”. With the proposed notation, already being used for most Chess Life TLAs, this would have to spelled out, e.g. “40/90, SD/30. Inc 30 used only in last time period.” I actually like that for TLAs because it calls attention to an usual time control, but I admit that it would be difficult for a computer program to parse.
I’d like to standardize on the “G/30 d5” format in the rulebook. Since the ratings validator doesn’t currently support using different delays or increments in different time periods it could use the “G/30 d5” notation too for consistency, and if later on you add support for mixed delay/increment controls you can invent some syntax to specify this, e.g. “40/90[inc 0], SD/30[inc 30]”.
The only place a semicolon is used is to separate the time control(s) from the increment/delay setting that applies to all of the time control periods, so there can only be one semicolon. It is true, though, that semicolons can be used in other contexts in TLAs.
I prefer the following designations: d5 for a 5 second delay and 30i for the 30 second increment. Having the letter first indicates that there will be delay used. The letter after, not only shows that increment is used, it also saves space when printed in a TLA. For example, Game 45, d5. With a longer time control, 40/120, Game 30; 30i. The semicolon would show that the increment time is used in both time periods.
IMHO, ‘Game’ should ONLY be used for a primary time control,
You’re right. But the “G” in the teeny tiny print of the TLA’s in the magazine look like a 6.
Welll, ‘SD’ doesn’t look like a 6. 
I think print TLAs have been unreadable for years, thankfully the online ones give the reader some control over the size.
I few weeks ago I made a list of some time controls found in tournament listings on the website and in the magazine, to see what kind of time controls are being used in practice. Here are some of them, as they were actually listed:
G/120 d5
40/2, SD/1 d5
G/90+30/increment
40/90, SD/30, inc 30
40/110, SD/30 d10
G/90 inc/30
G/55+5sec
40/90, SD30 + 30” incr
20/1, SD/60 d5
There are quite a lot of variations in there.
Here are the listings for the US Amateur:
USAW: 40/90, G/30, Inc/30
USAE: 50/2 d5, SD-1
USAN: G/90, w/30 second increment (or G/100 d5)
USAS: G90 d5
Just those 4 show a remarkably wide range of styles.
Since January of 2013, some 350 different time controls (after conversion to a standard format) have been reported for USCF rated events.
Here are the ones that showed up 150 or more times:
[code] timectl count
G/30;d5 8160
G/25;d5 2913
G/40;d5 2161
G/60;d5 1881
G/30;d0 1825
G/45;d5 1674
G/90;d5 1121
G/5;d0 910
G/120;d5 628
G/75;d5 484
G/55;d5 465
G/85;d5 407
G/26;d3 311
G/90;+30 306
G/35;d5 273
G/70;d5 254
G/20;d3 230
30/90,SD/60;d5 215
G/10;d0 213
40/75,SD/30;d5 207
G/60;+10 204
G/45;d0 201
30/90,SD/30;d5 179
G/10;d5 175
40/90,SD/30;d5 165
G/15;d5 162
G/30;d3 160
G/80;d5 157
G/5;d2 156
[/code]
IMHO this proposed ADM moves in the wrong direction.
Since other portions of the time control have slashes in them (40/90, SD/30, G/60, etc) the declaration of delay or increment also should have a slash (d/5, inc/30, etc).
This is particularly true in the case of increment. Running the d and the 5 together (d5) may not be so bad, but running the inc and the 30 together is just horrible (inc30) because there is more than one letter in inc, and likely more than one digit in 30. Putting a space between (inc 30) is also bad, because it separates the two elements of a single time control element, making it resemble two separate elements.
Adding the slash, and removing the then-no-longer-necessary space, also simplifies the punctuation options. Instead of using the semicolon as a strong separator and the comma as a weak separator (40/90, SD/30; inc/30), one could take it down a notch and use the comma as a strong separator and the space as a weak separator (40/90 SD/30, inc/30).
If the increment in the two controls is different (for example if the increment applies only to the second control), this could be written 40/90 inc/0, SD/30 inc/30. (IMHO this is a horrible option anyway, for the reasons Mike Nolan has pointed out, and for other reasons as well.)
Also, let’s get rid of that horrible plus + sign. It could be confused as meaning either delay or increment.
It would be better to change the publication standards to meet the rule, rather than the opposite. Of course, the parser used by MSA to interpret the time controls should continue to recognize all likely possibilities.
Bill Smythe
I’d prefer changing the ‘d’ to ‘-’, and the ‘inc’ to ‘+’, and not having the slash: “G/60 d5” would be “G/60-5”, and “G/60 inc/30” would be “G/60+30”.
I’d prefer “G” be used instead of “SD”, even when this time control is not the first time control of the game. I see no reason to distinguish between a “finish the game in N minutes” time control being the first time control or being a later time control.
I’d suggest that we move the delay or increment specification to the first time control it applies to. It then applies to all subsequent time controls unless overridden by another delay or increment specification. Examples (I’m going to use my + and - notation for increment and decrement):
• “40/90-5 G/60” would be a first time control of 40/90 followed by a 60 sudden death, with a 5 second delay throughout the game
• “40/90 G/60-5” would be a first time control of 40/90 without any increment or decrement, followed by a sudden death 60 with a 5 second delay
• “40/90+12 G/60-0” (or “40/90+12 G/60+0”) would be a bizarre time control of 40/90 with a 12 second increment followed by a 60 minute sudden death with no increment or delay.
• “40/120 20/60 G/15+30” was the time control from the 2013 World Championship (no increment until the G/15 portion).
Posted some of the below in the other thread - not sure but it may belong more here.
I like the idea of additional standardization.
What I had suggested is:
The above approach defines that there is always a delay or increment, so disclosure is required. Perhaps removing the slashes on the “added time” makes sense, so that only the Base time and the number of moves has a slash.
G/90 I30 or G/30 D5. Maybe even the space isn’t needed, and would clear things up for multiple controls:
40/90D0; G30D5 for example. So all the time is indicated together.
I think moving the increment/delay to the first time control buries very important information, making it harder to see. It also means you need to look at subsequent time control periods to see if the increment/delay changes for that time control.
Using ‘-’ for delay is a TERRIBLE idea. It implies that time is being subtracted from the clock. While that might be one way to get G/30 events over faster for time-limited venues, it just isn’t what (currently) happens. Moreover, a ‘-’ may be so small in a printed TLA as to be nearly invisible.
Lose the ‘-’. (Take the cannoli.)
Using the “I” runs risks of confusion. In some fonts it could be easily confused with a one.
And moving the ‘i’ to after the time doesn’t help differentiate it from a ‘1’.
Or is it simply recognizable with the space? G/90 I30 or G/90 i30 would be meaningless if interpreted as a 1, right? G/90 130 has no meaning, does it?
Clarity is far more important than a little magazine space, and relying upon the ability of a reader to discriminate between an ‘i’ and a ‘1’ or to even notice a ‘-’ is IMHO asking for confusion
Parents and the uninitiated newbies already are confused and ask what the “number thingies” mean when reading a flyer or a chess magazine TLA.
For our club tournament flyers we have established a template for setup so that others can do the publicity in the future. For example:
Centered tournament name
Centered date
Artwork designed for the specific tournament
Site: (Address for tournament site)
Format: Game 45, d5
Round times: 10 am - 11:30 am - Lunch Break - 1:45 pm - 3:30 pm
Registration: 9 am - 9:45 am
Entry fee: Open - $16 Reserve (U1400) - $8
Prizes: (Listed for each section, cash or trophies) (Also indicate door prizes and other prizes)
If we used increment, it would be: Game 45, 30i in the format line. If we had longer time controls, then we would state them as 40/100 d5, Game 30 d5 or, if increment is used, 30i for each control. This is our club standard practice, YMMV. I think you probably should indicate the delay or increment for each time control. Other organizations around here are starting to use a similar setup for their tournament publicity.
Agreed. But in the instance of ‘i’ or ‘1’ is there any meaning if it is a ‘1’? (In other words - with what alternative interpretation can a player become confused?)