So I went back and read some of the LENGTHY posts on Blitz chess. I’m wondering if there has been any change or movement on the subject? Specifically:
Is the USCF going to add a Blitz rating? Is it even being considered?
In practice what are people usually doing in respect to time controls for Blitz. (ie g/2, g 2 t/d 2, g/0 t/d 2 and all that nonsense)? Are there more well-defined guidelines from the USCF since that post back in '04?
The USCF is already rating blitz games in the Quick rating system. (If you want to pay a rating fee.) Do you really want yet another rating system? Two is too many as it is.
I was just curious. I’ve never played blitz and dont intend to. Its not in my blood. But apparently there are some pretty strong feelings about it out there and some of my club members have expressed some interest in running some Blitz tourneys, so i was just inquiring.
Blitz tournaments are a good idea for clubs. They’re easy to run (especially if you can do it as a round-robin), and have essentially no expenses. I think having them rated is a bad idea (it adds a parasitic expense and encourages disputes), but that’s really up to your club members. My suggestion: try one each of rated and non-rated on successive weeks, and see what the turnouts are.
I’m very sure Mike Nolan talked about the new rating system can support having more then two ratings. Blitz chess has been for very little entry fees like $2, some clubs not having a prize fund out of the entry fees. At this time, do not see a reason for the USCF rating committee needs to add more special rules with Blitz. As any special problem has a number of rules within the rule book.
The problem with Blitz, there are way to many organizations with special Blitz rules. Some blitz players would use the WBCA Blitz rules, the state association Blitz rules, the USCF Blitz rules or some Blitz rules you wounder how they came up with that.
Would not mind having Blitz tournaments, I’m just not going to have them rated. As most Blitz tournaments do have the non-USCF members. I have always looked at Blitz tournaments, as the club side events for the non-USCF members.
If you have the Blitz tournaments USCF rated, you are going to have to raise the entry fee, and drive the non-USCF members away from the club.
Yes, the new programming could accomodate a 3rd rating system for blitz, but that would raise a lot of policy issues and I’m inclined to agree with John that offering a 3rd system has very few advantages to the USCF or to players and would complicate a lot of things. Would we go to having THREE columns of ratings for each player in the rating supplement for example?
I have run both rated and unrated blitz tournaments at my club as a change of pace. Our typical club attendence is 15-20 players each week.
The first rated one from last year drew 21 players, including 5 players that came from more than an hour away on a Wednesday night. Our next one will be this Wednesday and I will post how it does. I planned for 20, so anything above that is gravy The key is to have a fixed format so that the amount of the entry fee going towards rating fees is known. I am doing 7 round swiss where you play each opponent twice. It worked great last year.
My unrated blitz events have drawn 16-20 over the last couple of years. With these, I divide the group into sections of 6-8 and do a double round-robin.
If there was a 3rd rating system just for blitz, only a small number of members would have an established blitz rating.
How many members did Walter Brown have in the BCA?
A third rating system for blitz did not seem like a good idea to me either. But no one has answered my second question:
And then what do you do if some have analog and some have digital?
Blitz is a 2 second delay, Quick is a 3 second delay and Regular is a 5 second delay. The USCF will not rate any game under 5 minutes. The director has the right to take 2 minutes off a Blitz game if it has time delay. So in theory the fastist time control is a G/3 (t/d 2), if you have it that way I’m not going to play.
If going to have a Blitz tournament, its’ going to be a G/5 or G/5 (t/d 2). If the director wants a G/4 (t/d 2) or G/3 (t/d 2), its’ legal to be rated. Willing to accept time removed for the five or three second delay. Not going to any blitz event with time removed for the two second delay.
The tournaments with anything lower then G/3 (t/d 2), they cannot be rated. They are fun games, but not going to spend a nickle to be in the tournament.
The problem with the analog vs delay, same ethical issue with any time control. If you do not want delay at a blitz event, then its’ your call. Make sure the players understand before the start of the first round.
The problem with the Blitz rating, is not how many players are willing to play in one. The question would be if the directors are willing to have a Blitz event. If the directors are not willing to have a rated blitz event, then having a Blitz rating would be pointless. Only seeing Blitz rated events in large population areas. If you live in a small population area and not willing to travel, the Blitz rating would be very pointless.
My policy is no time-delay in blitz. I would be mildly interested to learn if there is a consensus on this question, though I don’t plan to change.
That has been my policy as well. Have ran some blitz events with a few friends. If the blitz event is going to be an open blitz event, would not have it as a rated USCF event. As the G/5 (t/d 2) only makes the game a little longer, but provents the claim of insufficient losing chances. Even with the two seconds, it is a little hard to make a move in less then 2 seconds.
Would risk the claim of insufficient losing chances for the draw claim, then making the critical blunder just to trow away the technical draw. With moving within the 2 seconds can make blunder after blunder, or lose making the better move with a expired clock.
I will not play in a blitz tournament (or even an informal blitz game) unless it has a 2-second delay (on demand by either player who furnishes a delay clock).
I’d recommend taking off 1 minute (not 2) in games using the delay. For example, the tournament could be game/5 d/2, or game/6 in games not using the delay.
Bill Smythe
Our club USCF quick rated blitz tournament last night drew 20 players, which is what I budgeted for. I did not use delay, as advertised.
I think that the clock is more integral to the game in blitz and prefer not to have delay. In a tournament such as ours, it is important to have some finality to the games, because there are so many games. The added time from delay would make us run way too late.
The reason I do not like time delay on the Blitz game. Sure the directors that like time delay for the reason they do not need to make the 14H or 14I ruling. If for some reason get into a game like the rule 14I4, with just the rooks without a pawn. Since the time delay does not grant me the right to demand a ruling on insufficient losing chances. Will stop the clock before I capture the last pawn on the board. Will demand the director to come to the board for a 14F4 ruling. When the director is at the board will restart the clock and capture the last pawn. Then let the director count the next 50 moves, as now I’m going to ask for the ruling on 50 moves when the count is reached.
For the directors that love time delay so they do not need to take care of the 14H or 14I rulings. Well then, there is always the rule 14F4. Not that many directors would have many players make this claim, as the 14H or 14I would have settled the problem. If there is time delay on a blitz game, there can and would be a huge demand for the 14F4 ruling.
This is the reason I do not like time delay on Blitz. As the 14H or 14I rulings are more simple to take care of then the 14F4 ruling.