- 1 minute on your clock per every full 100 rating points of your foe. or
- 1 second increment per " " " " " " " " " or
- 1&2
Is this based on blitz chess, or perhaps quick chess, because it does not seem relevant to any other formats?
The 1 second increment per 100 rating points (of your foe) could apply to any TC.
The longest starting for a player today would be 28 minutes as Carlsen is 2800+ now. If your opponent were rated 100 you’d get 1 minute starting time.
Or some multiple thereof, to push it outside of blitz?
Interesting.
Now, how would one code that into TD/A? There aren’t any provision for time odds there AFAIK… So would one just list it at the highest control? 
Since the ratings formula is based on equal time and material, I was under the impression that time-odds games are not supposed to be rated at all.
I have played in a material-odds tournament with the odds based on rating, but it was not a rated event.
Time odds games are fun, but not USCF ratable.
I don’t know that Rule 5C specifically forbids rating time-odds games, as I don’t have my rulebook here. However, I certainly don’t think they’re supposed to be rated. IIRC, 5C’s language talks only about time controls where each player has the same amount of time.
Boyd, if you think time odds games should be ratable, I will happily play a match against you where I get 3 hours of time and you get 10 seconds, with no increment or delay. In for a penny, in for a pound.
All I said was that Rule 5C doesn’t seem to contain any specific language excluding time-odds games from rating. But I immediately followed that by saying they’re not supposed to be rated.
For the sake of laughs, though, Mr. Nolan…one problem with your proposed match: what system would you rate it under?
Blitz for Boyd, regular for Mike.
Bill Smythe
Mike the problem with this time control is that if you lose even with these odds, the pain
due to utter shame would be unbearable.
Rob Jones
I’m not sure how good Boyd is at Blitz, but it is a roughly 600-point rating difference. If Boyd starts his move once Mike’s move is determined and hits his clock a split second after Mike then it is feasible for Boyd to win some games.
However, since this is a match we are talking about, even if Boyd wins the match 9.5-0.5 Mike would still gain about 5 rating points and Boyd would lose about 4 rating points.
Those would probably be the first ratings points I’ve gained in 20 years. (I haven’t played a regular rated game since the US Open in Hawaii in 1998, but I was on a downhill trend at the time.)
Give me a Master Quartz clock, and I’ll try it, since I don’t care about my blitz rating at all. 
And with the genuine, made in Japan, Master Quartz, the better player will be a star! I wish I still had one of my old ones.
I have an old Master Quartz clock. It has about a 1.5 second delay. I watched blitz legend GM Roman Djindjihashvili at a World Open take quite a bit of cash from some hustlers and even some 2300+ rated players giving substantial time odds using such a clock. He ran many of them out of time while his time barely was touched. Mike, I don’t think you should take the bet. If Boyd says he can take you, he can with the indicated clock. Boyd, I don’t think you should take Mike’s bet and time odds, either. You might keel over not being able to leave the board for three hours to use the restroom. 
Oooh ooooh ooooh I know I know!
Let’s do a separate ratings system for time odds games!
(Is it a flame when you intentionally acknowledge you’re being stupid and inflammatory in advance?)
Instead of seperate systems (which players would take seriously despite numerous denials) why not let players decide if they want to compete at odds under the blitz and quick formats? I would include the regular system in this but something should be sacrosanct. Lower-rated players would have something to shoot for (flagging) and the higher rated players would get full pay for fattening up the prize pool.