Time Controls

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Well, we then get into the whole issue of blitz ratings being incorportated into Quick chess ratings at all! I know you agree with me on this Ernie, but just wanted to elaborate on your comment about Fischer-Random Blitz.

Blitz in general is a completely different form of chess in which the time element actually takes precedence over the game. Its more important to be fast than good or accurate, although to be both is wonderful. To include games played at G/5 into Quick ratings which can be from G/10 all the way up to G/60 is silly to the point of absurd. It is like averaging 10 apples and 8 oranges - what could the average possibly mean??

When the WBCA folded in late 2003, the USCF quickly jumped in on the void and started rating blitz. The main reason that blitz was folded into quick ratings was twofold:

  1. They already had two rating systems and didn’t want to add a third, and
  2. A third rating column would not fit into the paper Rating Supplement.

I suggested an online rating supplement for blitz, no good.

The overriding reason not to unclude blitz into quick ratings is that they are different creatures. The rules HAVE to be different for blitz because it is a different game. USCF Quick/Sudden Death rules for blitz are completely silly. WBCA rules were developed by a team of seasoned GMs familiar with all the tricks and traps of blitz. I use WBCA rules in all blitz events I direct, including World Open blitz. Two minute time additions for illegal moves, tried once in World Open blitz, created mayhem on the floor. WBCA rules of an illegal move losing if claimed correctly are sweet and simple. Insufficient Losing chances rules applying to regular chess should not apply to blitz due to the importance of speed over accuracy. Having one pawn left in blitz versus a queen is a win if the queen’s flag falls; it is a draw in most ISL sudden death claims - not a just result for blitz.

Any form of Blitz should not be included into Quick ratings. I also agree with Ken Sloan that FischerRandom should not be included. i don’t even think that should be included into blitz ratings if the USCF ever develops a separate system. They are different enough to warrant a different rating system, but we could then go to extremes and have dozens of rating systems:
Monday night ratings
Weekday ratings
Ratings for playing drunk
ect :slight_smile:

2

It shouldn’t be THAT different, though. The main idea should still be chess.

That’s what I mean. Even blitz chess should be more chess than blitz. It should be somewhat civilized – with, for example, a 2-second delay upon demand by either player furnishing a delay clock. (Perhaps 1 minute could be deducted from the main time to compensate.)

I don’t think the rules should be all that different. A 2-second delay (“civilized blitz”) brings the differences to a minimum.

No, they’re not – not if you still want to retain “chess” as the main element of “blitz chess”.

I have heard that each WBCA rule – including the inconsistent and ridiculous ones – arose from something that once happened to GM Walter Browne. I find that easy to believe.

A few minor changes in USCF blitz rules would fix things up nicely. Instead of a 2-minute penalty for an illegal move, there should be a 1-minute penalty the first time, then a 1-minute deduction (from the player’s own time, possibly causing an immediate loss) for each subsequent illegal move by the same player in the same game. Also, a player who wants such a penalty (when his opponent makes an illegal move) should be required to know how to adjust the clock quickly, or furnish his own and adjust it, otherwise he wouldn’t get the penalty. This should eliminate the chaos and mayhem you alluded to.

I agree it would be desirable to have separate blitz and quick rating systems. Events played at game/5 through game/9 could be dual-rated (blitz and quick) just as those played at game/30 through game/60 are presently dual-rated (quick and regular).

Bill Smythe

3

I have my doubts that a blitz system would be viable, and if people think it would be necessary to dual rate (blitz/quick) some events, that probably proves my case.

Quick chess was initially limited to Game/15 through Game/29 in part to keep from competing with the WBCA.

The decision to dual rate Game/30 through Game/60 was because not enough games were being rated as quick.

Here’s a table showing tbe number of games rated each year by rating system.

I’m not entirely sure when dual-rating began, though I think it was approved by the Delegates in August of 2000.

However, because the old programming couldn’t handle dual rating except as two separate sections usually with separate event IDs, we really don’t know how many of the games in 2001-2004 were dual rated.

year | quick | dual | regular -----+--------+--------+--------- 1992 | 19831 | 0 | 324747 1993 | 29722 | 0 | 339437 1994 | 41162 | 0 | 377014 1995 | 48694 | 0 | 410365 1996 | 49367 | 0 | 425999 1997 | 48419 | 0 | 427946 1998 | 39807 | 0 | 425384 1999 | 40754 | 0 | 418709 2000 | 37086 | 0 | 420318 2001 | 56414 | 0 | 437456 2002 | 115403 | 6 | 485865 2003 | 154124 | 0 | 494044 2004 | 210089 | 13192 | 461242 2005 | 26110 | 171761 | 152483

It looks like we’re on a pace to have about 40,000 quick-rated-only games in 2005, which would be comparable with where we were in 2000. That suggests that expanding quick-rated down to game/5 has had only a minimal impact on the number of quick-rated games, which also suggests that a blitz system would have trouble generating enough numbers to be independently viable.

Also, if we assume that the number of quick-rated-only games has been relatively stable, I believe this table shows a trend for faster time controls in the last few years. The number of Game/61 or slower games appears to be down and the number of Game/30 through Game/60 games (including perhaps as much as 7/8 of the ones in the Quick column from 2001-2004) is on the increase.

Game 30 is now the dominant time control for USCF rated games.

4

Myself supports an independent blitz rating. Having blitz chess being part of the quick events are not one and the same. Since the quick rating is between G/5 and G/60, it would be foolish to say the two time controls are equal. With G/60, you get a five second delay, you need to keep a scoresheet, you can be away from the board for five minutes without a forfeit. With G/5, you get a two second delay, you do not need a scoresheet, if your away from the board for five minutes you lose the game.

The reason why blitz chess has not been popular to rate, as the entry fees for the blitz tournaments are low. The average entry fee, between one dollar or as high as five dollars. If the entry fee is at five dollars, there should be some major prize, or a lot of games to get players to register. Even if the blitz events are sent on-line, the eighteen cents’ per-game on-line rating fee would have to be picked up by the players or paid by the director. Most directors are not going to have any events, if they know they will always lose money each and blitz tournament.

The other point of blitz, most blitz players are non-USCF members. Blitz tournaments are designed on club meetings, so the percentage of non-USCF members and current USCF members is important. If the chess club does not have slower rated tournaments of G/30 or slower, the higher change the members of the blitz tournaments are going to be non-USCF members. Blitz tournaments on average are a one section event, as most blitz tournaments are round robins. Having two blitz tournaments, one for the USCF members and the other for the non-USCF members are not going to work.

The cost of the USCF section would be higher for the rated tournament than the non-USCF tournament, as the organizers would have to factor in the rating fee. If the cost of the USCF section and the non-USCF tournament are the same, it would be the organizers paying the rating fee out of pocket or the non-USCF tournament is support with entry fees the cost of the rated USCF tournament. Having two tournaments for the USCF members and the non-USCF members, would place conflict between the members of the club.

For the organizers of blitz tournaments, the rating fee for the blitz only events have to be much lower. Blitz tournaments have a large number of games than any other form of tournaments. Some blitz tournaments would be save to say could have among twenty or one-hundred rated games. One player could under the on-line reporting of the event, have more money spent on the rating fees, than the cost of the registration fee for the non-rated blitz tournament. If the USCF has blitz rated tournaments, the cost of the rating fees has to go down. This is the major reason why the USCF needs an independent blitz rating, as the cost of the rating fee has to be different.

The problem for the chess club, having two different tournaments on the same day: one for the USCF members and one for the non-USCF members – could lead to civil conflict with the members of the club. Converting all non-USCF member blitz players into the federation would be small. It could lead to a sharp decline for the clubs’ membership, it could leave the club being much smaller than it was before.

The only idea the blitz tournaments would not destroy the chess club, is having a round robin event that lets USCF members and non-USCF members be in the same tournament. Only the games between current USCF members would only count for the USCF tournament. Do know that Nolan does not like this idea, but accepts that if it is a round robin that gives all the players equal amount of games he could support.

Club blitz tournaments are in conflict with the USCF. If the club goes and has rated blitz tournaments to the out right wish of the USCF – it would lead to conflict with the members of the club – or the out right disunion of the club. Any organizer of any chess club works to keep unity with the members, not to place conflict between the USCF members and the non-USCF members. If the chess club has a policy of non-USCF blitz tournaments, the conversion to rated blitz tournaments could destroy the club.

5

Doug, all I’m doing is enforcing the rules as currently defined. Rule 23C says that all participants in a rated event must be USCF members, with a limited number of exceptions for things like foreign IMs and GMs.

If people don’t like the rules, they should work within the system to change them rather than try to find creative or quasi-legal ways around them.

Similarly, if people want a blitz rating system, I suggest they contact their Delegates, the USCF Executive Director or the USCF Executive Board.

6

Mike, just pointing out areas were the rules need some minor changes. I do support the rule 23C, it is a very important rule. A committee needs to look into the idea, when it comes down with blitz chess.

The reason why the chess clubs have not convert over from non-rated blitz tournaments to the rated blitz tournaments, as it will start a conflict between the non-USCF members and USCF members. The cost of the rating fee for blitz is a problem, as blitz tournaments can be around twenty or one-hundred games.

If the chess club goes from one section to two sections, one section for USCF members and one section for the non-USCF members. The pool of players in the two sections would be limited, as the players are use to the average pool of players for only one section. There would be peer pressure on the non-USCF members to join the federation. Joining the USCF because of peer pressure would only make the new member dislike the federation, to the point the member would only be a one year member.

Having the two tournaments or only having rated blitz, would place the USCF members and the non-USCF members into to different camps. It could lead the membership of the club into bitterness between the two groups.

There is no easy or simple answer to the problem. If there is a committee, they do have to look at the problems the clubs can face to convert over to blitz. There has to be some major rule changes, as blitz is a different animal because there are different types of people that play blitz. If the USCF is looking to gain new adult memberships, it does have to look into the idea that blitz players are different from the players that player slower time controls. True, chess is chess, but the people that play blitz, and the people that play slow are two different groups. The group of people you see at slow tournaments and blitz tournaments, for most part change with the different time controls.

7

Okay, maybe this happens in your neck of the woods, but have you ever tried it?

We had an organizer who would hold two tournaments for scholastics, one for USCF and one for non-USCF. He did this because he wasn’t getting enough players coming to his purely scholastic USCF events, and some scholastic players wanted to play in a USCF-rated tourney.

I don’t remember seeing any fistfights break out because he had two different tournaments. In fact, he liked it better that way because he wanted to support the USCF and hoped the non-members would be encouraged to join when they saw there was no difference between the two. That “peer pressure” you mentioned was what he wanted to use, but I never saw it erupt into bitterness.

Of course, in your world maybe non-members would become jealous of the members. But I think USCF members are a little more mature than that.

Radishes

8

Over half of the new adult members who join the USCF each year and play in at least one rated tournament do not renew their membership.

9

How do the people get forced in to joining by peer pressure. I thought people had a choice to join or not. When I joined I wanted a rating. I never was forced in to it. but then I joined another federation to go against better players on a world stage. Now I am trying to come back to the USCF.

10

How do the people get forced in to joining by peer pressure. I thought people had a choice to join or not. When I joined I wanted a rating. I never was forced in to it. but then I joined another federation to go against better players on a world stage. Now I am trying to come back to the USCF.

11

It is not so much forced, it is a feeling they are left out of the activities, if the activities are rated. Having non-rated activities, would have some form or organization that would not be worth their time for some of them. The ones in the middle, the ones wanting more activities can feel some peer pressure to join.