The two main tournaments I run (Portland Chess Club Quad 45 and Rose City Sectionals) have been using 10 second delay (and the Quad 45 used 5 second delay when I first started running it). The 10 second delay has helped mitigate time pressure and given the players a few more minutes of overall time for the game without it expanding the round times too much. I decided to start using 15 second delay to enhance these advantages even more. What are your thoughts on 15 second delay?
The longer the delay (or increment), the more likely it is that the later rounds won’t start on time.
To calculate the probable amount of time one round will take, start with the main time in minutes, add the delay or increment time in seconds, double that total, and add 15 for good measure. Allow that many minutes per round – more if there is to be a lunch break.
For example, for G/60 d/15, it would be (60+15)*2 + 15, or 165. So assume 165 minutes per round, which is 2 hours 45 minutes, excluding any lunch breaks.
Even then, expect some games to go over 60 moves from time to time, so the best laid plans of mice may still go astray.
Bill Smythe
True, but I think the advantages of a longer delay (or increment) outweigh this disadvantage, especially since it only occurs occasionally.
We know you think that. More relevant will be what the players think, and how they vote (with their wallets). If your results going from 5 to 10 were good, then the collective views of the forum posters won’t matter. If you think experimenting with 15 seconds is a good idea, give it a shot and see what happens.
Somewhere, there is a point in which the benefits you perceive will be outweighed by the increased length of the round. Obviously you aren’t going to ever try 15 minute delay. Where that sweet spot is may vary from area to area (and playing site to playing site - if the site closes at a specific time you may not be at liberty to take risks on long rounds).
15 second delay should add 30 minutes or less to the round, assuming that games go to 60 moves. Key features to determine whether long games will impact the following round is initial time control and the amount of time you are giving players between rounds to refresh themselves.
For example, if you are using Game 45 as your base time with a 15 second delay, then round times can be at 10 am, 12:30 pm (extra time added for lunch break), 2:45 pm, and 5 pm. The event can be finished around 7 pm. If you don’t have time constraints for the use of the site, then adding an additional 15+ minutes to the starting time of rounds 2 to 4 will still have a finish by 8 pm. You have a time cushion for the long games; only games past 80 moves will cause the following round to start late. Faster played games will leave a lot of time for many players between rounds. They are sure to fill that time with blitz and bughouse. A Game 60 tournament could have rounds at the usual 10am-1pm-4pm-7pm slots. Only when you have Game 75, d15, will you have problems with setting round times, as each round is likely to require 3.5 hours max to finish while still giving the players time to rest and eat. That would be a long day. With that time control, you may have to go back to using 5 second delay.
It stinks even worse than 10 second delay, which also stinks.
Neither stinks as much as d0, but too much of a good thing defeats the purpose of the good thing.
I don’t think 15 is too much. When I switched from 5 to 10 second delay for the Quad 45, the feedback from my players was positive and the feedback has already been positive about switching from 10 to 15.
In the St Louis blitz tournament on Thursday they played G/5 d/3. Assuming a 60 move game, that means the base time was 6 seconds and the delay was 3. If you assume a 40 move game, the base was 5 seconds. Thus proportionally the delay was incredibly large. It didn’t seem to hurt anything.
OK, blitz is blitz, so it’s not exactly a valid comparison. But while philosophically Mr. Price is correct that too much of a good thing defeats the purpose of the good thing, it has not been demonstrated that 5 seconds is the sweet spot. Certainly it gives time to play out the 100% clear winning positions but not much more than that. You can’t hesitate much. If that’s your objective, 5 seconds is the right delay. If you want to allow some time for reflection for every move, you need more, at which point the amount of time between rounds and how late you want the event to run become more relevant.
Now I would probably not play in Mr. Smith’s events, because he clearly does not believe that players should be guaranteed some down time in between rounds. (yeah, the fact that Portland is a long way from Atlanta might factor in too…). I insist on down time. YMMV. So might his players’ and that’s what matters.
OK, that’s three rounds at a shorter base time, and it’s predetermined pairings so players can begin the next round when ready. Put another way, if two players decide to milk that 15- second delay for all it’s worth, the worst case is they affect five people: their own quad, plus the TD. And we already know the TD is cool with that.
As either a player or a director, I would not want to be in a Swiss with that time control.
What was the feedback on again advertising five sections for a tournament that only drew 25 players last year? Unrealistic sectioning, unrealistic prizes and unrealistic schedules are the types of things that will give an organizer a bad rep.
Why wouldn’t you go to G/110 from G/120 if you want 15 second delay, just to avoid having someone have only a half-hour break (or even less) after a four-plus hour game?
Giving players some time off in-between rounds is very important to me and I schedule the round times at my events accordingly. For my G/45;d15 event, the rounds are scheduled for 10am, 12:15pm, and 2:30pm. Based on how long the games went when the time control was G/45;d5 and G/45;d10, I think the longest games will usually go around 1 hour, 50 minutes (A 60 move game could go 2 hours but most players won’t use the entire 15 second delay every move. Plus, most games don’t go 60 moves). Thus, my schedule gives players at least 25 minutes in-between each round. Sure, it’s theoretically possible for a game with any delay or increment to go longer and in these rare instances we allow the players some extra time off before the next round, as the publicity for the tournament states.
We’ve made some good additions and changes to this year’s Rose City Sectionals so we expect a good turnout
Because we also wanted to give players a little more time for the game overall. Also, as the advertisement states, we all the players some extra time off if they have a game that goes on long.
I don’t think Mr. Mulford meant 25 minutes. Maybe it is just me, but I fail to understand the benefit of asking what people think of an idea only to respond to their answers with why your idea is superior.
Alex Relyea
I think 25 minutes is adequate for a faster time control event.
I am simple sharing my opinion to help generate discussion.
Another topic where it looks like the OP is seeking suggestions/comments, but turns to basically the OP knew it all along.
Hope you get 50+ players then at your tournament!
Ummm. You do realize that the opponent also can’t start the game on schedule. People don’t pay $40 to have to wait extra time to start a game because the Local TD organizer wants to experiment with a too-tight schedule.
Such as…?
I’m not experimenting with a too-tight schedule. The rounds shouldn’t be scheduled based on a theoretical possibility that is very unlikely to occur in practice. Also, if we spread out the round times, then the opponent would also have to wait extra time before starting the next round, so it’s the same thing either way.
Scheduled it two weeks after the Oregon Scholastic Chess Federation State Championship instead of one week like last year, made it a Northwest Chess Grand Prix event, will rate it in the NWSRS (in addition to US Chess), added U2100 and U1100 prizes, expanded the time control from G/120;d10 to G/120;d15.
Other than the choice of date, the others will have effectively zero effect. And have you factored in how many people won’t show this year because you missed your targets last year? A number of people warned that you were overoptimistic last year. I guess you don’t learn, do you?
It takes time and effort for a new tournament to grow. We shouldn’t abandon it after one try.
I’m not saying that. It’s just that you are again scheduling five sections when there is little reason to believe that you can run five sections. You should have aimed for a realistic attendance.