arena.myfide.net has been updated 
Maybe it is time to move beyond time controls based on individual games, and instead base them on the whole tournament? Instead of, for example, 5 rounds of G/30, you’d be given 150 minutes at the start of the tournament, and you can split that among your 5 games however you want. Everyone’s clock starts at 150 for round 1. Whatever time they have left of that becomes the time they start round 2 with, and so on. This would be denoted on the tournament announcement as T/150.
How can the organizer rationally schedule rounds with this structure?
Then again, the hilarity of watching players who, in distressingly many cases, can not even set their own clocks for a "traditional’ time control trying to set the remaining time appropriately for subsequent rounds. (Well, as a TD, let’s just say the hilarity would be lost on me.)
And do you expect to just take a player’s word for how much time that player has left for the remaining games? Remember, after a clock is used for a game, it provides evidence of the remaining time … but that clock goes with one player (the owner), and there are two games affected. (And, not to accuse a player of cheating, but just how can you be sure that the clock’s owner didn’t “adjust” the remaining time after the game finished?)
Honestly, while the thinking behind this idea may be interesting, I really don’t see it being practical.
Isn’t it obvious, Ken? You pair round 2 immediately based on EXPECTED round 1 results, and players who choose to spend lots of time on the first round run the risk of their 2nd round game starting before their first round game is completed.
But what do you do about subsequent rounds, as the disparity between finishing times increases? In an extreme case, do you end up pairing round N where there are games from round N-1 that have not even started? How would adjournments work in this structure?
Round robins would mitigate some of these problems.
But no thank you to organizing/directing this, sounds like a real headache. I’ll let somebody else take the lead.
You quite obviously go with an ASAP schedule. The first round starts at 8 AM. After one long-running pair finally finishes their first round game at 12:30 PM you do the pairings are start round two at 12:40. When a different pair (that blitz out their first round games) finishes at 4:40 PM you do the pairings and start round three at 4:50 PM. When a pair that each blitzed their first two games finally finishes at 8:50 PM you do the pairings an start round four at 9 PM. When the last round four game end at 12:20 AM you do the pairings and start round five at 12:30 AM. Then you pay the prizes once the final game finishes around 3:30 AM.
Oh wait, you probably were wondering how a player could put up with the scheduling that the organizer would have to do.
An alternative would be to start round one at 9 AM. Start round two at 10:30 AM based on those finished by 10 AM. Start more of round two at 11 AM, more at Noon, and the last of round two at 1:30 PM. Start round three at Noon based on those finished by 11:30 AM. Start more of round three at 1 PM and the last at 1:45 PM. Start round four at 1:30 PM based on those finished by 1 PM. Start more of round 4 at 2 PM and the last at 2:30 PM. Start round five at 3 PM based on those finished by 2:30 PM and the last at 4 PM.
Have fun watching how people try to speed up or slow down their games around the cut-off times depending on whether or not they want to make those cut-offs.
Note that this method still has problems if two players are paired in round three after only using 15 minutes each off of their clocks (the game might not finish until 4:30 PM).
Also note that the partial pairings risks leaving you forced to re-pair players who already played each other in earlier rounds.
I’d just space the rounds at equal intervals. If games aren’t finished by 10 minutes before the next round starts, pair them based on expected results.
It’s not impossible to think that some players in a 4 round event might have 3 or even 4 games going simultaneously. It’d make great TV, but not as much as the idea we came up with in the backroom at one US Open: Roller Derby Chess!
Man, I miss all the fun being a delegate and going to the workshops.
Alex Relyea
Since a player is only supposed to have a total of 150 minutes, the round two game would have to have the continuing round one time usage deducted from it. Otherwise some players could end up with more than a total of 150 minutes.
Maximum used time could be: 9 AM - opponent arrives 55 minutes late and uses 30 of the next 35 minutes - so the round two clock starts at 10:15 AM with 2:25. Round three starts at 11:30 AM with 2:20 (the round one game has 2:25 hours left for the player versus 5 minutes for the opponent and the round two game has 2:20 remaining – with no way of telling what the starting times were for round 2 solely by looking at the clock). The round four game starts at 12:45 PM with 2:15 (round 3 still shows 2:15 left, round 2 still shows 2:15 left, round one finished at 12:25 when the opponent flagged – but you no longer see that all but 5 minutes was used by the player for round one). The round five game starts at 2 PM with 1:00 on the clock (the lowest amount of time left on the three currently active clocks). The round one game is won at 12:25 after spending 2:29, the round two game is won at 3:05 after spending 2:24 (with the clock showing only one minute left), the round three game is won at 4:15 after spending 2:19 (with the clock showing only one minute left), the round four game is won at 5:15 after spending 2:14 (with the clock showing one minute left) and the round five game is won at 5:15 after spending 0:59 (with the clock showing one minute left. Thus the player went 5-0 using almost 10 and a half hours of time in a time control set for 2.5 hours total. The total wall clock playing time was 8 and a quarter hours with a time control that would indicate a max of 5 hours.
You need to get radio-synchronized clocks (with each side of the clock settable to different frequencies and different IDs) so that one second used for the round one game (ID 1 for that frequency) automatically and simultaneously deducts one second from the time for rounds two through five, and one second used for the round two game (ID 2 for that frequency) simultaneously does such a deduction for rounds three through five. The times would be maintained on a server so that even if the round five clock is currently undetermined, when it is determined it will automatically pick up the remaining time.
Ah…that brings me to part 2: how the USCF can deal with clock setting AND make some money!
To make T/ easier to deal with, we’d need a new kind of chess clock: the docking half-clock. A docking half-clock looks like half of a “normal” chess clock. Two docking half-clocks can be joined together to function as a single clock. The clock automatically carries over the unused time to the next game.
Since docking half-clocks do not yet exist, the USCF can specify how they must work, and have a mandatory certification program for clocks using in T/ tournaments. Clock manufacturers must pay a royalty to the USCF for certification.
One of the things the USCF can require is that the half-clocks also support docking with a special TD Dock, which can be connected to the TD’s computer and download the time control information into the T/ clock. The TD’s computer can also download pairing information, and upload timing information from the player’s clock. TD Docks could allow several player clocks to dock with them at once. Docking clocks can also store player information. They player is expected to program his clock with his USCF ID.
With these clocks, players can register for the tournament by simply briefly putting their docking half-clock in the TD Dock, uploading their information to the TD’s computer. After the pairings are done, players can get their pairing and board assignment by again briefly touching their clock to the TD Dock. When a game finishes, they can enter the result into their clocks, and report it by again briefly touching their clock to the TD Dock.
If the docking with the TD Dock is done by some kind of near field communication instead of physically docking, players would only have to wave their clocks near the TD Dock to register, report results, and receive pairings and clock settings.
If T/ becomes popular, all active players will need to by a new clock (or rather, a new half-clock), and if USCF does this right, USCF can ensure that the best deal on this is via the USCF store, getting the USCF a cut on this.
There is no reason to limit docking half-clocks to T/ tournaments. The TD Dock could just as easily download conventional single game only time control settings to the clocks for non-T/ tournaments. Make docking half-clocks the preferred clocks for all USCF events to encourage their use.
(I hope I don’t need to explicitly say that this, and the original T/ proposal are tongue firmly in cheek)
Why not simply have rounds every hour on the hour, with a time control (per game) of, say, G/60 inc/30? If a game isn’t finished within the first hour, those players must begin round 2 while still playing round 1. After another hour, they would have to start a third game, etc.
A player may end up playing up to (theoretically) three games simultaneously, or up to (in practice) four games simultaneously.
But there would be no worries about time being accumulated from one game to the next.
How to make pairings in rounds 2 and thereafter? Simply count all unfinished games as wins for both players for pairing purposes.
Bill Smythe
If the reason for including G/30 as regular is to cater to the scholastic segment, they why not just have G/30 to G/59 affect scholastic tounaments only as duel rated?
That is, if a scholastic player is not playing in a scholastic event, then a g/30 time control would be rated the same as the adult players: Quick only.
FIDE has different time control requirements based on skill level. So a GM’s minimum time allowed for a game is significantly longer than players with a much lower rating.
So I don’t see why the USCF can’t make exceptions for the scholastic crowd. Not based on skill level, but just the fact they’re scholastic players, playing in a scholastic tournament.
As has been stated many times in various threads, G/30 was regular rated BEFORE the scholastic boom. So, the conditional statement above does not apply.
Somewhat more seriously, I’ve always thought for matchplay or knockout style matches, or even if you want to abolish draws, you play with a regular clock. Lets say each side gets 2 hours total (delay/increment is optional, what isn’t optional is getting extra time at some magic number of moves… well it could be but it gets trickier).
Lets say: white uses 45 minutes and black uses 65 minutes and a draw is agreed or forced.
Instead of half a point… the sides are switched. The side that had black now has white, but they only have 15 minutes vs 35 for black.
If that game is drawn, switch back and play again.
There will eventually be a winner, especially without delay or increment. It could also make some high comedy.
Obviously the idea is flawed, but if I were a billionaire i’d run some high level knockout tournament with these exact conditions.
My bad. I knew that.
Maybe all we really need to do with duel rating is just have it apply to scholastic games. Looks like enough adults don’t like it, regardless if in reality it doesn’t affect their standard rating that much anyway. Logically, duel ratings would only help quick ratings, and not be a factor in a person’s regular rating, since all duel ratings do is give their quick rating longer times controls that are available, which in theory should help someone get a better quick rating if they’re playing mostly duel rated time controls, because they’d have more time to think in duel rated games.
I am correct that duel ratings apply to 30 to 59 minute games?
Time controls from game in 30 minutes to 65 minutes are dual rated, after adjusting for the delay or increment. The adjustment is to add the delay or increment in seconds to the time period in minutes. For example, both G/25 d5 and G/60 d5 are dual rated (because 25+5=30 and 60+5=65) but G/25 d0 is quick rated only and G/60 d10 is regular rated only.
No. Games are dual rated (currently) where the base time in minutes plus the increment or delay in seconds is between 30 and 65.
Alex Relyea
In the same way that G/30 was regular rated before either quick ratings or dual rating existed, G/60 was dual rated before we started including the increment/delay in determining what rating system a section was.
But as noted by others, under the rules in effect today (4/21/2014) when MM+SS is betweeen 30 and 65 (and MM >= 5), then the section is dual rated.
Perhaps it shouldn’t, but the lack of knowledge of USCF rules and procedures by Forum participants sometimes totally amazes me.
Maybe we need a forum poster certification exam akin to the TD certification exam. If you can’t pass the exam you can’t post. 