I agree that having only one time control is suboptimal. The reason is that in principle any time control segment that spans a large range of move-pair numbers is suboptimal — having only one time control is the most extreme case.
The following link points to a .PDF that explains my full reasoning on its final page. Part of my reasoning is that while a baseball game predictably has nine innings, a chess game could have 22 moves or 99.
Coercion was not involved – unless you consider it coercive to enforce the rule that delay-capable clocks are preferable to analog clocks (i.e. that either player who furnishes a delay clock has the right to insist on its use).
As soon as a few people were furnishing delay clocks, and more and more opponents found themselves “forced” to use them, more and more players realized their value.
One of our players was a 1900 who was always getting into time trouble with his BHB clock. Finally one day, he was forced to accept a draw in a crushing position against an 1100 (he had to claim ILC, and of course the 1100 immediately accepted the draw offer). That same day, he purchased a Chronos, and has been using it ever since.
The superiority of delay clocks is what has “coerced” players into liking them.
On August 11, 2004, you wrote, “Sometimes a change has to be forced, or at least pushed, to get people to try it. In this case, it worked beautifully, as nowadays 60 to 90 percent of tournament games are played with delay clocks, and almost everybody seems to like the idea.” On August 12, you wrote, “When ideas are forced down people’s throats, the good ideas will soon take, and the bad ones will fall by the wayside.” I didn’t agree then and I don’t agree now, but at this point it’s a purely abstract argument. No point in starting it up again unless the Rules Committee reenters its manic phase.
Ehhhh, not 100 percent true. The Evanston Chess Club, for example, has disallowed analog clocks as long as I’ve been playing in its events.
I like move delay, but I also like my Rolland Meisterschach. Alas, the poor thing is probably never going to get used again, now that I’ve bought myself a Saitek C-Pro to bring myself into compliance. (Unless I resume playing tournament go – the Saitek doesn’t do byo-yomi.)
As I recall the context, there was a debate about whether it was permissible to use a delay-capable clock without the delay if neither player demanded it. I said yes. You disagreed. These are probably all legitimate rules variations, but I’d say that “scaring players into setting the delay” would qualify as “coercion.”
John, are you saying that the USCF rules should not be followed?
The USCF rules state the delay/increment clock is preferred over any other type of clock whether analog or digital without delay/increment. (I added increment because I have come to like it).
This means that if a delay clock is available and the person playing the Black side has an analog, the delay WILL be used in the game whether Black wants it or not, if White chooses.
In Bill’s statement he only applies those conditions to a player that deliberately sets a delay capable clock to having no delay and not telling his opponent about it.
Bill never said anything about penalizing both or either player when the players agree to not having a delay.
Also, Bill’s wording did say force, but really what can we do to force anyone to buy a digital clock?
If someone prefers an analog clock and they own one, they are perfectly within their rights to bring that clock to a tournament. If their opponent desires to have a delay clock, then the analog won’t be used. Also, if the TD says that only delay clocks will be used, then the analog will not be used. However, the individual is still within his rights and happiness to have his analog. No one is stopping him from having it.
On the other hand, we need to look at California and your tournament players, and you as a TD, John. If you fellows are so backward and stilted in your chess play as to “demand” an analog clock, there is something wrong with you all. After all, the USCF rules stipulate the delay and/or increment is the preferred and most desirable time keeping method for tournament play. FIDE also prefers the increment time over analog, showing that tournament chess in our WORLD, not just country, in 2010 has put analog clocks as a historical situation and not current.
I guess you guys in California, just need to catch up with the rest of the world in tournament chess, John.
Are they supplying clocks for those situations where both players only have an analog clock? Otherwise, unless they’ve advertised that, they are violating USCF rules. (There’s a big difference between saying that a clock is not preferred and saying that it is not allowed.)
Mike, do you not own a digital, delay capable clock?
In every tournament I have attended or heard about in Illinois, St. Louis, Southern Wisconsin, Iowa and a large part of Indiana, digital, delay clocks are now the VAST majority of clocks seen.
I ran a tournament in Illinois in February where the delay was required, thus banning analog clocks. I also had 6 digital delay clocks of my own that could have been used if necessary.
It was NEVER mentioned about delay being mandatory.
There were more than enough delay capable clocks there that players brought with them, and every game had a player that owned a delay capable clock, so none had to be borrowed.
Mike, these are the facts of tournament chess in 2010. Do you really see a proliferation of analog clocks in your area? If so, American Chess Equipment, Dewain Barber has a phenomenal deal on Excalibur Game Time II clocks. They can be had for under $30!! Surely, the tournament chess players in your area could afford to buy one of these.
OK Tim, I’ll bite. What are you inferring is the reason for tournament participation declining?
Do you honestly think it is the delay clock that is causing the decline?!?
When I started playing tournament chess and through the years since, up to today, it is a given that a tournament chess player would need to use (note I didn’t say own) a certain, minimum standard of chess equipment. This would include a tournament standard chess set, chess board and a chess clock. Of course owning a set, board and clock were preferable. The cheapest one could get such things, 22 years ago when I started, was about $8 for a set and board, and $45 for a BHB, wind-up clock.
Today the cheapest one can get such things is about $10 for a set and board, and $29 (including shipping) for a digital chess clock.
Today’s prices for equipment, not even considering inflation, is at least $10 LESS EXPENSIVE than it was 22 years ago!!
The delay clock concept is not complicated or difficult to understand. In fact, with the Excalibur clock a person can watch the countdown clock count down and the game clock begin on the screen. This certainly would not “scare” people away from tournament chess.
I too play on GameKnot. It is nothing more than internet correspondence chess. And it certainly does not compare to playing live, OTB chess.
I agree that live, internet playing sites like ICC, FICS and Yahoo DO contribute heavily to the decline in tournament and even OTB club play. I have experienced this in one club I run. This is a problem.
But, it is totally wrong for you to insinuate the delay or increment time controls are the problem with declining tournament numbers. That is ludicrous.
You’re being obtuse, Ron. The question was whether players should be required to use delay even if neither player asks to. A second question is whether it is proper for organizers to coerce/manipulate the players into changing their habits whether they want to or not. The answer to the first is clearly no. I find the second deeply objectionable, but it’s a moral question, not a matter of rules.
The kind of lemming-like deference to authority your post seems to endorse is something I hope most players do not share. Who are you (or the USCF or FIDE bureaucrats) to tell the players what they ought to want? I won’t do it, and I won’t tolerate it from anyone else.
No John, I’m not being obtuse. You say the people in the Chicago area “forced” players to use delay. That was your word.
Also, this is 2010. The USCF rules, as written, say the delay is prioritized over the analog timing. If you say that agreeing with this is a kind of lemming-like deference to authority, then you also don’t agree with other rules like the touch move, the necessity to keep score, and others.
The delay feature has been instituted in tournament play in our country for a good number of years such that it has become the “Standard” Time style of rated play, read USCF sanctioned, in our land. If both players were in the habit of taking moves back and not keeping a game score, that would not be acceptable under our current standard of tournament play and rules.
You really are getting silly saying that making rated, tournament time controls uniform by using a delay or increment is a moral issue.
The time control is there to control the time of the game in different aspects. From a TD perspective we want to have a decent and fair approximation of when a round will be finished.
From a player point of view, the delay is in place to rid the player of the sudden time scrambles that occurred in the past. The game times have also been changed to reflect the time change with a delay. I refer you to my initial post in this thread where I pointed out the original standard used to be 40/80, 15/30,15/30. Since the coming of the delay feature in timing the standard has become G/80, 5 sec delay.
If you allow a limited number of players to go back to a non-delay situation and even add 5 minutes to each of their clocks, it isn’t the same at all as what the standard was when analogs/non-delay were the standard.
I also do not nor would not assume the position to tell anyone what they should want.
In this instance where the rules of the game are explicit, I am simply voicing the facts that people that play in USCF rated tournaments, under the auspices of the USCF tournament rules, should need to do, not want.
John if you want to have a tournament where the delay is not a priority of timing standard, then you will need to advertise that in any and all your pre-tournament publicity. This is because a non-delay timing is,…not,…standard.
I also know Bill Smythe, personally. He is not a suppressive TD or anything like that at all. He is just saying that the delay is standard in tournament play and therefore will be implemented as such with little or no exceptions to that. As evidenced by the last tournament I directed where I forbade analog timing, me too.
In the first place, I don’t think you understand the rule. The specific always takes precedence over the general, and specifically, the rule says that if either player wants to use time delay (and can provide a delay-capable clock, either his own or the organizers), he gets to use it. Use of delay is not mandatory (unless the TD posts a rule variation). You are trying to stretch the summary phrase “tournament standard” into something it doesn’t mean and was never intended to mean.
In the second place, my objection is not to rules which have general acceptance and the authority of tradition. It is to the imposition of change without an overwhelming consensus of the players. It is arguable that there is such a consensus now (arguable, not certain). There certainly was not when a few influential organizers decided that time-delay was a really neat idea whether the players liked it or not. I thought this point was obvious, but apparently not to you.
I do understand the precedence of the delay clock being the one used in all cases but the one where both players do not have one and/or do not want to use a delay clock AND the tournament is one where non-delay timing is acceptable under those conditions.
The reality is that the delay has BECOME the tournament standard in our country, at least the Midwest, at this time in history. You must admit that the vast majority of games occur with a delay timing option. I noticed on your own blog site, in pictures of tournaments you have there, no analog clocks at the table but all digital, in fact Chronos, clocks with delay.
I am also aware that the TD would post the “no analog timing” as a rule variation. However, in this day and age the delay option is standard usage.
My point of starting this thread was not to belabor any discussion of delay versus non-delay timing. The reality is that non-delay timing is out of vogue and certainly an exception to normal, USCF tournament play in 2010.
My point of this thread was to inquire of the value of increment timing versus delay timing. It also is intended to find out what specific time controls in increment timing would work best and be comparable to the current delay timing usages as well as the older, now outdated from common usage, analog/non-delay time controls.
I understand that there is the occasional tournament that offers the non-delay timing, but you must admit those are certainly the exception in tournament usage and not the rule.
Well, change is inevitable. Perhaps the timing controls COULD have not changed but they most certainly did beginning 14 years ago.
New concepts, back in the mid to late 1990’s, like the delay option in timing are, understandably, not taken easily and/or accepted at its introduction. I understand how some established players would not readily accept a newfangled timing method that relies on a digital clock, has some mysterious feature that holds off starting your clock for a bit of time and also makes the time controls different as accustomed as well.
John, no one is forcing anyone to play a tournament game of chess. If someone wants to use a set that isn’t a standard Staunton style set, board that is not the standard we are accustomed to, and a clock and/or timing method that is also outdated, AND their opponent agrees, AND the TD has no problem with it, they play chess.
However, the discussion of this thread is one that is looking at the current and up to date equipment and timing methods used by the rules of our group.
So John, what do you think of the increment timing versus the delay timing?
What do you mean by “offers the non-delay timing”? If you mean putting “no time delay allowed” in the TLA, there are a few, but I agree that this is rare. If you mean “Allows games to be played without delay or with an analog clock if the want to or cannot supply a delay clock,” that’s standard practice in every tournament I know of. Perhaps Illinois is an exception.
On the merits, I’m entirely indifferent. On the possibility of the Rules Committee returning to the deplorable hyperactivity of the 90s and trying to force players to make such a change, i think the answer is obvious. If you want to try it, go ahead. If it’s really superior, the idea will prevail. If it doesn’t, then it didn’t deserve to.
The point here is scaring players into not being sneaky with their opponents. If I saw a game where the delay was not set, and both players assured me they agreed to it, I’d probably leave well enough alone. (I would not, however, be sympathetic to any future ILC claim by either player.)
