CCA has an 40/80 I30/ SD 30 I30. Some clocks dont support I30. Question: would 90 I15 SD 45 I15 be equivalent
I do not know of a clock that supports increment but only for less than 30 seconds. There is at least one clock that does not support 30 seconds of delay, but I don’t know of one that limits increment that way.
Also, I think CCA is trying 30-second delay rather than increment. (Or will start to do so very soon.) Is that what you mean? I am not sure I understand your suggested alternative time control.
Back when five minutes was deducted for a five second delay, many players would opt for non-delay clocks because the extra time up front was the equivalent of at least 60 moves of delay (more if a player did not always use the full delay). Those non-delay games risked needing insufficient losing chances rulings. When there was no longer extra base time for a non-delay clock the use of delay increased.
Adding 10 minutes to the first time control does an up-front add of 40 moves worth of the increment difference and adding 15 minutes to the second time control does an up-front add of 60 moves worth. (or if you are talking delay then it is 40+ moves and 60+ moves). Such adds would be an incentive to use a clock that cannot handle the actual tournament time control.
First, what do you mean by “equivalent”? Second, what do you mean by “90 I15 SD 45 I15”?
There is a missing parameter somewhere. Perhaps you meant “40/90 +15; SD/45 +15”? And please, let’s use “+”, or at least “inc”, instead of uppercase “I” for increment (bonus).
And if that’s what you mean, how is “40/80 +30” equivalent to “40/90 +15”, and how is “SD/30 +30” equivalent to “SD/45 +15”?
Some models of the Saitek, and some older versions of the Excalibur, do not support increment (bonus) at all.
You need to furnish a clock that supports the time control listed by the organizer. You can’t just change everything around any way you want.
The only exception provided by the rulebook is to substitute delay for bonus if the clock does not support bonus. And even then, if your opponent provides a clock that fully supports the stated time control for the tournament, including bonus, and your clock does not, then he has the right to insist on the use of his clock instead of yours, regardless of which player has the black pieces, or any other consideration.
Also, of course, if the organizer supplies clocks, then you should expect to be required to use the clock furnished by the organizer.
Bill Smythe
The following rules are applicable:
With the above rules in mind, given I don’t see CCA listing alternative time controls, this means the following priority of clocks would be in effect for this time control:
- An increment capable clock set to 40/80;+30, SD/30;+30
- A delay capable clock set to 40/80;d/30, SD/30;d/30
- A delay capable clock set to 40/80;d/x, SD/30;d/x (where x is the maximum delay available, not to exceed 30)
- A digital clock set to 40/80;d/0, SD/30;d/0
- An analog clock set to 40/80;d/0, SD/30;d/0
Note the rules do not say what to do if you have an increment capable clock which cannot do the amount of increment available. Personally, depending on how close I can get to the actual increment required, I think I would place such a clock at either step 1.5 or 2.5 where the increment is set to x, the maximum increment available, but not to exceed 30. Either way, I would not change the base time.
Note that if this is a FIDE rated section, FIDE does not allow mixing of time control equivalents and so only a clock capable of the actual time control, in this case 40/80;+30, SD/30;+30 should be used.
Is that actually stated in the FIDE rules somewhere?
It is certainly listed in the Title Tournament Regulations, but I don’t see it explicitly stated in the rating regulations, although note that a time control has to be provided when you register an event and I would assume the expectation is that games are played at that time control.
OK, I get it. The time control you suggest is 40/90, SD/45, inc-15 from move one. Asking if that would be equivalent to 40/80, SD/30, Inc-30 from move one.
Close, but not quite. Add up 80 plus 30 plus 30 to get 140. Your proposed alternative is 90 plus 45 plus 15, which equals 150. Based on a 60-move game, your alternative control lasts five hours, while the original control lasts 4 hours, 40 minutes.
The controls would equal out at move 100, so your alternative might be better for a large Swiss with multiple rounds per day—to ensure a rare mega-marathon game does not wreck the schedule.
But as noted: I do not know of a clock that supports increment but limits it to less than 30 seconds. And from TLAs, it looks like CCA will try out 30-second delay…not increment.
Upon further review, perhaps Birdsman was talking about CCA’s new time control and for some reason listed it as 30-second increment, rather than delay.
I can see a potential problem with 30-second delay in a large Swiss: What about geezers returning to rated chess after years, clutching their beloved Excalibur Game Time clock, which does not support 30 seconds of delay? Or folks who cherish that clock since they find noisy plungers to be soothing.
In a non-FIDE-rated event, could there be an alternative time control for a game in which one player has no clock, while the other player has an Excalibur, which only supports up to 19 seconds of delay?
It’s similar to a game in an increment control in which the only clock available is the big blue Saitek, which supports delay but not increment. In that case, the clock can be set for 30 seconds delay rather than increment.
In this case, you could get the delay vs. increment portion correct, but not the number of seconds stipulated. Fun times for the TD called over to deal with it.
There could be, and indeed is, but unless the organizer announces an alternative time control in advance publicity, it follows the hierarchy listed by Mr. Bird above.
Alex Relyea
So you would set an Excalibur Game Time to 40/80, SD/30, d19?
Yes, the excalibur is loved it is easiest to set. I carry 1 or 2 extra clocks with me. I was simply looking for an alternative.
I don’t want to punish both players. I am aware of the letter of the law
[ I have reworded your question for grammar and punctuation, and to align with the question I believe you intended to ask. ]
Let’s put this thread to rest once and for all.
You are thinking of a concept that I shall call the “60-move time-equivalence convention”. FIDE uses this convention to define the maximum total time (in minutes) that a 60-move game will take.
Because there are 60 seconds in a minute, each second of bonus (increment) time counts the same as 1 minute of main time, when calculating the 60-move time equivalence of any time control.
For example, the 60-move time equivalence for 40/80 +30; SD/30 +30 would be 80 plus 30 plus 30 plus 30, or 170 minutes per player, or 340 minutes per game.
For 40/90 +15; SD/45 +15 the 60-move time equivalence would be 90 plus 15 plus 45 plus 15, or 165 per player, or 330 per game. So the two would not have the same 60-move time equivalence.
If you changed the SD/45 part to SD/50, the two would have the same 60-move time equivalence, 340 per game.
FIDE uses the 60-move time equivalence to calculate whether the tournament is FIDE-ratable, and if so, under which FIDE rating system (standard, rapid, or blitz).
U.S. Chess does exactly the same thing, to calculate whether the tournament is U.S. Chess-ratable under its regular, quick, or blitz rating system.
Additionally, FIDE has limits on the total number of hours per day that a player can be subjected to. For most events this limit is 12 hours (720 minutes) per day.
For example, an event with a time control of G/90 +30 would be limited to 90 + 30, or 120 minutes per player, or 240 minutes – which is 4 hours – per game. Thus the G/90 +30 event would be limited to 3 rounds per day if it is to be FIDE-rated.
Back to your original question, it is not permissible for a player in a tournament to substitute one time control for another just because the two have the same 60-move time equivalence. As anybody will tell you who has played both in G/90 +30 events and in G/120 d0 events, the two have a very different look and feel, even though both add up to 120 minutes per player.
You should furnish a clock which can be set for the announced time control for the tournament.
The only exception explicitly allowed under U.S. Chess rules is to substitute delay for bonus (e.g. G/120 d30 instead of G/120 +30), and then only if neither player has a clock that can be set for the announced control, but one player has a clock capable of being set for the delay version.
And, please, be ethical. Do not try to sneak a delay-only clock into a game that is supposed to be set for bonus. Instead, tell your opponent, before the game starts, that your clock does not fully support the time control, and therefore your opponent is entitled to furnish his own bonus-capable clock if he has one. You should probably involve the tournament director in this discussion as well.
Bill Smythe
Mr. Smythe should only add the increment once.
Alex Relyea
Or correct the numbers for 40 moves and 20 moves:
For example, the 60-move time equivalence for 40/80 +30; SD/30 +30 would be 80 plus 20 plus 30 plus 10, or 140 minutes per player, or 280 minutes per game.
For 40/90 +15; SD/45 +15 the 60-move time equivalence would be 90 plus 10 plus 45 plus 5, or 150 per player, or 300 per game. So the two would not have the same 60-move time equivalence.
The 40 move time equivalent matches (though some players would see an incentive in getting the extra 10 minutes up front) and changing 45 to 35 would make the 60 move equivalent match (some players would see an incentive in getting the extra 5 minutes up front while others would be worried about having less time after move 60). Having 45 instead of 30 would be aiming for a 100 move equivalent and that would increase the number of players that would see an incentive in getting the extra time up front.
I considered it a step forward when the rule was changed so that a delay-less clock was to be set only to the standard base time (in a G/55;d5 time control it would be set to G/55, not G/60) and there was no longer any incentive to get extra time up front by providing a clock that was substandard for the time control.
Oops, that’s correct, of course.
But that just further strengths my main point, which is that players should not be fooling around trying to find “equivalent” time controls when their clocks do not support the announced time controls. Just tell your opponent he has the right to furnish his clock, if it fully enables the proper support. And tell the tournament director also.
Amen. And the question asked by the OP is similar.
Out of curiosity, though, what happens if the organizer decides to get weird, and apply the bonus only to the final control? e.g. 40/90 +0; SD/30 +30? Perhaps a 20-move “equivalent”, rather than 60, should be sought.
What about the big FIDE tournament held in Norway a few years ago, where the bonus does not kick in until move 61? I think the control was 40/90 +0, 20/30 +0, SD/30 +30. Would it be “correct” to assume a 60-move equivalent of zero, since the (assumed) 60 moves all occur before the bonus begins?
Bill Smythe
Perhaps it’s a new organizer that should be sought.
There are more things on heaven and earth, Bill, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
I have a two more questions, and one comment, for the original poster:
-
Are you SURE your clock is limited to 19 seconds when setting the increment?
-
Does this limitation apply to only to bonus, but not to delay; or only to delay, but not to bonus; or does it apply to both bonus (cumulative) and delay (non-cumulative)?
If you are limited to 19 seconds, it seems likely that your clock is using a one-and-a-half-digit display area to ask for the bonus or delay time.
A one-and-a-half-digit display is like a 2-digit display, except that the leftmost digit can only be the digit 1 or a blank. it can never be 2 through 9. This takes up less space than a full 2-digit display, because only the right edge of the segmented display of the tens’ digit is needed to display the digit 1. This concept is often used, in chess clocks and other devices, to conserve space on the screen.
The same concept is used by the DGT North American when it displays the main time. It uses a three-and-a-half display mm:ss, but the first m is only half a digit, so it can only be 1 or blank. So that clock instead displays hours and minutes only (h:mm, omitting the seconds) until the main time drops below 20 minutes, at which time it switches to mm:ss mode. One moment it shows 0:20 and standing, the next moment 19:59 and counting.
Bill Smythe
Why would you have to do anything special? The wording in the FIDE manual is that you have xxx minutes to make “all moves, assuming the game is 60 moves”. At 60 moves, that would be 120 minutes per player. Theoretically, it would be possible to play three rounds a day at that T/C. Not sure I would want to do that, with potentially three periods of time pressure in each game.