30 second delay

[Smythe_Dakota]

@srdudley

… Everyone has to record their moves the WHOLE GAME, and a 30 second delay allows that with comfort. …

There may be a problem here.

Apparently, the rule requiring scorekeeping right down to the finish with an increment of 30 seconds or more does not also apply to a delay of 30 seconds or more.

It ought to, but apparently it does not. Perhaps Ken Ballou can weigh in here.

Bill Smythe

[wilecoyote]

@Smythe Dakota

@srdudley

… Everyone has to record their moves the WHOLE GAME, and a 30 second delay allows that with comfort. …

There may be a problem here.

Apparently, the rule requiring scorekeeping right down to the finish with an increment of 30 seconds or more does not also apply to a delay of 30 seconds or more.

It ought to, but apparently it does not. Perhaps Ken Ballou can weigh in here.

Bill Smythe

Indeed. I am composing e-mail to the rules committee with a proposal to correct this right now. I’m guessing that no one particularly thought of a 30-second delay when making the change to rule 15C.

[wintdoan]

@srdudley

We had several instances of players trying to claim draws (50 move rule, 3rd repeat of position), but with no scoresheets (because they had stopped recording).

There are alternatives to a complete scoresheet for 50 move and triple occurrence claims.

[eastside]

@wilecoyote

@Smythe Dakota

@srdudley

… Everyone has to record their moves the WHOLE GAME, and a 30 second delay allows that with comfort. …

There may be a problem here.

Apparently, the rule requiring scorekeeping right down to the finish with an increment of 30 seconds or more does not also apply to a delay of 30 seconds or more.

It ought to, but apparently it does not. Perhaps Ken Ballou can weigh in here.

Bill Smythe

Indeed. I am composing e-mail to the rules committee with a proposal to correct this right now. I’m guessing that no one particularly thought of a 30-second delay when making the change to rule 15C.

As I posted upthread, I believe the rule can, as currently written, be read to apply to d30 time controls. Having said that, the reading I would use could be called hyper-technical (though it would be based on the reasonable expectation that 30-second delay should carry the same scorekeeping requirement as 30-second increment). Clarified rule verbiage here is a good idea. (Now if I can just get out of the back room long enough to vote for it…)

[relyea]

@srdudley

Speaking for The Permian Basin CC (TX), the G/40 d30 (3rds), G/30 d30 (4rds) controls have worked out very well for us as a replacement for the previous G/60 D5 (D10). The controls solved several problems, most of them mentioned in this thread. We had several instances of players trying to claim draws (50 move rule, 3rd repeat of position), but with no scoresheets (because they had stopped recording). We have always posted that we play without rule 14H (Insufficient Losing Chances Claims), but that just made some players angry when under extreme time pressure they lost in a 5 second delay what they thought a “won” game. Everyone has to record their moves the WHOLE GAME, and a 30 second delay allows that with comfort. The end result seems to be that the games are played out ENTIRELY over the board, to a conclusion, no adjudication, much less of a “rushed feeling”, fewer hurt feelings.

No one has mentioned this so far, but 14H doesn’t apply EVER when a delay is being used.

Alex Relyea

[Micah_Smith]

@relyea

Many clocks do not display the delay time, for example displaying flashing colons or hyphens. The lamentable ZmartFun flashes the remaining time alternately with the delay time. It is very annoying to move and not know how much time will be left at the end of the move, which you never know with delay, unless you happen to remember how much time you started with.

and this has never been an issue at any tournament I’ve run where the delay was more than five seconds

[wintdoan]

@Micah Smith

@relyea

Many clocks do not display the delay time, for example displaying flashing colons or hyphens. The lamentable ZmartFun flashes the remaining time alternately with the delay time. It is very annoying to move and not know how much time will be left at the end of the move, which you never know with delay, unless you happen to remember how much time you started with.

and this has never been an issue at any tournament I’ve run where the delay was more than five seconds

This (eight month’s moribund) thread is about 30 second delay. 30>>>10 to not know how much time you have left.

[Micah_Smith]

@wintdoan

@Micah Smith

@relyea

Many clocks do not display the delay time, for example displaying flashing colons or hyphens. The lamentable ZmartFun flashes the remaining time alternately with the delay time. It is very annoying to move and not know how much time will be left at the end of the move, which you never know with delay, unless you happen to remember how much time you started with.

and this has never been an issue at any tournament I’ve run where the delay was more than five seconds

This (eight month’s moribund) thread is about 30 second delay. 30>>>10 to not know how much time you have left.

Yes but Alex doesn’t like 10 second delay for the same reason

[wintdoan]

@Micah Smith

@wintdoan

@Micah Smith

@relyea

Many clocks do not display the delay time, for example displaying flashing colons or hyphens. The lamentable ZmartFun flashes the remaining time alternately with the delay time. It is very annoying to move and not know how much time will be left at the end of the move, which you never know with delay, unless you happen to remember how much time you started with.

and this has never been an issue at any tournament I’ve run where the delay was more than five seconds

This (eight month’s moribund) thread is about 30 second delay. 30>>>10 to not know how much time you have left.

Yes but Alex doesn’t like 10 second delay for the same reason

And your point is…? It might be one (perhaps) minor reason to prefer 5 seconds delay (with a slightly longer base time) versus 10. But it could be (and in fact probably would be) a major problem at 30 seconds for someone playing with the wrong type of clock.

[Micah_Smith]

@wintdoan

@Micah Smith

@wintdoan

@Micah Smith

@relyea

Many clocks do not display the delay time, for example displaying flashing colons or hyphens. The lamentable ZmartFun flashes the remaining time alternately with the delay time. It is very annoying to move and not know how much time will be left at the end of the move, which you never know with delay, unless you happen to remember how much time you started with.

and this has never been an issue at any tournament I’ve run where the delay was more than five seconds

This (eight month’s moribund) thread is about 30 second delay. 30>>>10 to not know how much time you have left.

Yes but Alex doesn’t like 10 second delay for the same reason

And your point is…? It might be one (perhaps) minor reason to prefer 5 seconds delay (with a slightly longer base time) versus 10. But it could be (and in fact probably would be) a major problem at 30 seconds for someone playing with the wrong type of clock.

My point is that I don’t see 30 second delay as a problem at all, even if you are playing with the wrong type of clock.

[Mulfish]

For a change I would agree with Micah. With a 30 second delay, if I’m short on time, I’m looking at the board, not the clock.

[wintdoan]

@Micah Smith

My point is that I don’t see 30 second delay as a problem at all, even if you are playing with the wrong type of clock.

The problem with a 30 second delay is that there is no real point to it and no real demand for it. I know a number of players who, if someone running a regular G/50;d10 tournament decided it would be cool to try G/30;d30 as a change, would find something else to do that day. Do you know a single person who would feel the reverse? Even ignoring the fact that some clocks can’t handle it well, it’s just a weird time control. I can see where some people might prefer d10 to d5—you generally only drop five minutes of main time and through much of the game if you’re keeping score, you probably use more like 10 than 5 per move anyway even on reflex moves. You can’t extrapolate that if people prefer 10 to 5, then 30 is even better.

[Micah_Smith]

@wintdoan

@Micah Smith

My point is that I don’t see 30 second delay as a problem at all, even if you are playing with the wrong type of clock.

The problem with a 30 second delay is that there is no real point to it and no real demand for it. I know a number of players who, if someone running a regular G/50;d10 tournament decided it would be cool to try G/30;d30 as a change, would find something else to do that day. Do you know a single person who would feel the reverse? Even ignoring the fact that some clocks can’t handle it well, it’s just a weird time control. I can see where some people might prefer d10 to d5—you generally only drop five minutes of main time and through much of the game if you’re keeping score, you probably use more like 10 than 5 per move anyway even on reflex moves. You can’t extrapolate that if people prefer 10 to 5, then 30 is even better.

There is a point to 30 second delay, it mitigates time pressure better than d10 or d5. There is starting to be a demand for time controls that mitigate time pressure better. It’s been stated in this thread that there have been no complaints about 30 second delay after people have tried it.

[wintdoan]

@Micah Smith

@wintdoan

@Micah Smith

My point is that I don’t see 30 second delay as a problem at all, even if you are playing with the wrong type of clock.

The problem with a 30 second delay is that there is no real point to it and no real demand for it. I know a number of players who, if someone running a regular G/50;d10 tournament decided it would be cool to try G/30;d30 as a change, would find something else to do that day. Do you know a single person who would feel the reverse? Even ignoring the fact that some clocks can’t handle it well, it’s just a weird time control. I can see where some people might prefer d10 to d5—you generally only drop five minutes of main time and through much of the game if you’re keeping score, you probably use more like 10 than 5 per move anyway even on reflex moves. You can’t extrapolate that if people prefer 10 to 5, then 30 is even better.

There is a point to 30 second delay, it mitigates time pressure better than d10 or d5. There is starting to be a demand for time controls that mitigate time pressure better. It’s been stated in this thread that there have been no complaints about 30 second delay after people have tried it.

Since you obviously think it’s a great idea, how did it go? You’ve had nine months since the original post.

[tmagchesspgh]

As has been stated before in other threads, GM David Bronstein’s original idea for the use of delay in rapid play was to have a 15 second delay, not the 5 second delay that became the norm after the CCA started using delay timing. With 15 seconds a player had time to have a quick think and make a move. While his original proposal was for 20 minute rapid games with delay, he was not averse to giving players 120 minutes and delay, if that is what they preferred. He said having a delay was logical and kept the games going apace. He thought Fischer’s idea of increment, which was not actually original, was poor. He felt you should not receive time for nothing, for merely shuffling pieces.

[relyea]

@tmagchesspgh

As has been stated before in other threads, GM David Bronstein’s original idea for the use of delay in rapid play was to have a 15 second delay, not the 5 second delay that became the norm after the CCA started using delay timing. With 15 seconds a player had time to have a quick think and make a move. While his original proposal was for 20 minute rapid games with delay, he was not averse to giving players 120 minutes and delay, if that is what they preferred. He said having a delay was logical and kept the games going apace. He thought Fischer’s idea of increment, which was not actually original, was poor. He felt you should not receive time for nothing, for merely shuffling pieces.

Did Bronstein ever test this? Note that standard for “rapid” play is 3 seconds, not 5 or 15.

Alex Relyea

[tmagchesspgh]

Yes, the idea was tested in Russia. A tournament with his delay time. was set up and was accidentally rated by FIDE. Bronstein won the tournament, BTW. There was as yet no rapid play in FIDE. The idea caught on and is one of the reasons we have Quick Chess and FIDE has Rapid Chess. Why we have used 3 seconds or 5 second delay as the “standard” is a mystery which can only be explained by the fact that the CCA used those delay times to cram more games into a day. Since CCA did it, it became the norm to use fast delay times as other organizers emulated the CCA. Bronstein promoted 15 second delay as the standard to be used for amateur and even GM play. See “The Sorceror’s Apprentice” for details and interviews of Bronstein and his many ideas to improve chess for the masses.

[cassidy42]

A very long running tournament (68 years!) that I am now managing used to be run (IIRC) as a 40/120, 20/60 repeating tournament. When I first entered in 1995 I believe it was 40/120, 20/60, SD30. There aren’t many opportunities anymore for a decent time control, so I insisted on honoring the tradition as closely as I could and ended up with 40/120,SD30;d5 last year. I also noticed that millionaire chess was using that format and figured if people were willing to play that for $2000, it would be acceptable for $35

But delay 5 just wasn’t enough to prevent a devolution of the game. Carefully crafted masterpieces turned to ash in front of my class-C eyes.

I couldnt help but try to do something - but there was resistance in switching to a shorter time control to accommodate extra delay - also resistance because of clock types not supporting increment - still a number of analog clocks in use.

I suggested 40/120; inc 30 or the fide standard 40/90, SD30, inc 30 from move 1, but in the end went with 40/120,SD30,d10. I was reading the rulebook literally - that sudden death is not applicable for > increment 30 (not delay), so I saw some benefit in going to 40/90,SD30;inc 30… maybe next year?!

So far, I’m not sure the d10 helps much. But the situation did get me asking some questions - like “where did it get decided that d5 was enough to eliminate the no-losing-chances situations?” and “who decided d5 was the standard?” … so thanks for adding the background Tom and others!

[relyea]

@cassidy42

So far, I’m not sure the d10 helps much. But the situation did get me asking some questions - like “where did it get decided that d5 was enough to eliminate the no-losing-chances situations?” and “who decided d5 was the standard?” … so thanks for adding the background Tom and others!

I think the idea behind insufficient (not no) losing chances was that a position where a player could almost instantly react to his opponent’s move with a playable one should not lose based just on the clock.

Alex Relyea

[scottrparker]

@relyea

@cassidy42

So far, I’m not sure the d10 helps much. But the situation did get me asking some questions - like “where did it get decided that d5 was enough to eliminate the no-losing-chances situations?” and “who decided d5 was the standard?” … so thanks for adding the background Tom and others!

I think the idea behind insufficient (not no) losing chances was that a position where a player could almost instantly react to his opponent’s move with a playable one should not lose based just on the clock.

Alex Relyea

…and the point of d/5 is that if it takes you longer than 5 seconds to come up with a move then the position is not such that you have little chance to lose it.