Saw an announcement recently that allowed players to choose whether or not to use delay. G/60 d/0 or G/55 d/5. Seemed like an odd way to go and I suspect this may not be a legal time control, but I did not find a rule on point. Thoughts?
No, that’s legal. I assume that the organizer is directing players with a delay-capable clock to use the latter time control. I use 40/90, SD/30;+30 analog clocks play 40/90, SD/60. I think that’s sufficiently punitive that no one who had a choice would use analog. Of course I may be wrong.
Alex Relyea
If that was in a TLA I am not sure it means players have a choice. More likely, it means that digital clocks will be set for G/55 d5 while analogs will be set for G/60. Black still maintains choice of standard clock, and if he chooses digital they play G/55 d5. If he chooses analog, then White can insist on the use of a digital clock if he has one. If White agrees to use an analog then they play G/60.
IOW, it’s effectively the same as the old “deduct one minute from main time for each second of delay” option. That was eliminated a few years ago. I say “option” but in some areas deducting the time became more the standard than the exception. I understood using this option for G/30 but scratched my head when it happened with longer time controls.
Hope that makes sense…where did you see this advertised?
Thanks for the responses. I did not see this in a TLA but it is for an event being run close to where I live. Here are some of the relevant parts of the announcement:
Games are 45 min. per player for rounds 1-2; 60 min. for rounds 3-5; and 90 min. for round 6. Next round starts 15 minutes after previous round ends. Clocks will be required on all boards (as long as we have sufficient numbers) and players can choose to lower their time by 5 minutes and add a 5 second delay.
This is asking for big trouble unless the organizer specifies which standard will be used if the players disagree. Then again it sounds like this is a tournament for newbies and/or young scholastic players; still I would not leave things so undefined.
Hope it works out.
I sure would not set one up this way.
As described, it is unorthodox in a number of ways, though I’m not sure how many of them are real and how many are due to a sloppily written ad:
-
It is unorthodox nowadays to allow different amounts of time depending on whether a delay is used.
-
Whether delay is going to be used is normally determined by whether there is a delay clock available. Obviously, you can’t play with a delay if the clock you’re playing with doesn’t have a delay function. But, as worded, the description implies that even if the clock being used has a delay function, the players can choose not to use it in return for a time setting that is 5 minutes greater. If this is really what it means, it is very unorthodox.
-
As worded, the ad might be read to indicate that G/45;d0, G/45;d0, G/60;d0, G/60;d0, G/60;d0, G/90;d0 is considered to be the “standard” way to play at this tournament, but that they will allow players to instead choose G/40;d5, G/40;d5, G/55;d5, G/55;d5, G/55;d5, G/85;d5.
But it may be that neither 2 nor 3 was intended and that the ad just wasn’t worded clearly.
- The phrase “players can choose” is very ambiguous. It might be taken to mean that the second option can only be used if both players agree to it. But I’d also consider the possibility that they intend to let Black choose whether to play with a delay clock, or that they intend to use the USCF standard (Black normally chooses the clock, but White has the right to override this if Black chooses a non-delay clock and White has a delay clock available).
Bob
It sounds to me as though the organizer is the newbie.
He needs to make it clear which time control will be used if the players disagree. Unless he is a Neanderthal, the delay option would no doubt prevail.
Bill Smythe
I’m hoping this is just a poorly worded announcement. To me, this sounds like the organizer is trying to reassure people with analogs that they will get an adjustment if they don’t have a digital clock. If I’m right, I would hope this organizer clarifies the matter prior to round 1.
There may not be a specific rule against this exact scenario, but common sense says that the game must be played with one specified time control for both players. Having players select their time control for each game is a recipe for disaster.
That said, I do like the idea of a time control that increases periodically during the event. The Akron (OH) Chess Club holds its annual championship as a two-day, five-round affair with time controls of G/45 d5 (R1, R2), G/60 d5 (R3) and G/75 d5 (R4, R5). I played in this year’s edition early last month. It was actually quite enjoyable to play two longer games on Sunday, when the games were of greater consequence, but still be done relatively early.
Virginia is doing the same for our Scholastic Championships. We have a 6SS, with Rounds 1-4 on Saturday and Rounds 5&6 are on Sunday. Rounds 1-3 are G60d5, and Rounds 4-6 are G45d5.
They start with the longer time controls for the pro forma early rounds and speed up for the “money” rounds? That sounds very odd.
No – just my typo. The last rounds are G90d5.
Maybe the organizer meant that, for example, if white prefers G/60 d0 and black prefers G/55 d5, that’s exactly how the clock should be set – G/60 d0 on one side, G/55 d5 on the other. 
How many clocks can even do that? (The Chronos can.)
Bill Smythe
That’s part of what I was getting at. The other part is that, if the players disagree and can’t come to such an (illegal) solution, how does that get resolved?
The DGT XL, DGT NA and DGT 3000 all can. (I own the DGT 960 too, but I haven’t dug too deeply into its settings. Same for my ZmartFun II, though IIRC, it has individual delay settings as well.)
I can’t say that I understand how to set a DGT NA to have delay for only one side.
Perhaps I was thinking of Fischer mode on the NA (option…14?). The bonus time for both players can be set individually, I believe. I thought delay modes could be similarly customized.
On MSA this is listed as G/60 d5 for all rounds and is Dual-rated. Note the great echoing silence from the 61 players who competed.
Anyone up for an ADM to eliminate Dual rating?
P.S. Upon further cogitation, it occurs to me that the k factor for the five Masters in this event was incorrect for the last two rounds. Thus there could be a (tiny) impact on post-event ratings.
Anyone up for an ADM to eliminate adjusted k for Masters in Dual events?
P.P.S. Upon further caffeine consumption, it occurs to me that if you “fixed” the k-for-Masters issue by putting the last two rounds in a separate section, that would ruin the chances for USCF title norms for all players. It would also make k very slightly different for nearly all players, based on length of event.
Anyone up for a motion to eliminate USCF title norms?
Too many tweaks and fine-tunings and this is what we wind up with.
I’d be up for that, but I’d like to hear from the Ratings Committee first.
Alex Relyea
I personally like dual rating!!
Why is that? Well, OK, there are folks who like it. I would not object to Dual so much if it were not part of a series of tweaks that complicate that which should be easy.
Finding good moves over the board and to some extent making good rulings and pairings as TD should be the tough parts of a chess tournament.
Here we see how Dual rating, adjusted k for Masters in Dual play, floating k factor and USCF title norms combine to make it impossible to run a tournament as designed without something ‘breaking.’ (Bonus points could also come into play in some scenarios.)
Think about it. There is no way to hold a tournament with slower time controls late in the event, to the point it mixes Dual and Regular-only controls, without messing with one of the factors mentioned above. It can’t happen. Something’s gotta give.
Show me how it’s possible, please. I spent too much time today trying to devise a way to do it, without success.
Will be interesting to see how the tournament you mention in the OP gets reported for rating.