Why start a new thread and thus have two different threads on the same subject? Also, the discussion here has shown the changes are still worthy of consideration.
My reading of the discussion is that it has shown there is still no clear consensus on what the rules should say, which may be part of why the idea went nowhere in the first place. Your mileage may be different.
As to why a new thread is helpful, perhaps it helps demonstrate that this is a current viable idea, not one that was abandoned years ago.
I agree and I think inc30 is simply superior to d30 for various reasons. The change from inc30 to d30 reduces my enthusiasm in playing in CCA tournaments.
Well, I just played in a CCA tournament with a 30 second delay (Western Class Championships). Itâs the first tournament Iâve played in with a 30 second delay. I liked the 30 second delay a lot better than the 10 or 5 second delay Iâve played with in the past but still prefer 30 second increment. (As a side note, except for one game where my opponent was black and wanted to use his DGT NA, I used my trusty VTEK 300 in all my games which shows the delay countdown in digits that are big enough to easily see and doesnât cover up the base time while showing the delay countdown).
Also, now that CCA is using 30 second delay regularly, it should really be clarified in the US Chess rulebook if notating is required for every move. At the tournament they said it was, even though the US Chess rulebook only states itâs required for an increment of 30+. (This didnât affect me because I was in a FIDE rated section using FIDE rules).
I wonder if CCA even realizes that the DGT NA â perhaps the most popular clock owned by players â cannot even be set for multiple controls with delay â only single controls with delay or multiple controls with bonus.
This confusion stems from an unfortunate accident. In the FIDE glossary, increment is defined as either bonus (time added cumulatively) or delay (time added non-cumulatively). But in the USA, increment is generally thought of as meaning just bonus.
For this reason (and others), U.S. Chess should phase out the use of the word âincrementâ entirely, and just say âbonusâ when time is added cumulatively. In my experience, more players use âbonusâ than âincrementâ already, and âbonusâ is already the word used by most clock manufacturers (Chronos being a notable exception) in their manuals and on their screens. In fact, if a TD verbally announces âgame 60 increment 30â, itâs almost a sure bet that some player will raise his hand and say âyou mean bonus, right?â.
Bill Smythe
DGT NA can do more than you think.
Setting 20 is delay with one time control.
Setting 23 is delay with multiple time controls.
Maybe you have a different DGT because at the Western Open there was one (not NA) that could do multiple time controls with increment but only one time control with delay.
Why? CCA has an extensive document as to how its tournaments will deviate from The Official Rules of Chess. How does it benefit U.S. Chess to attempt to codify everything that CCA is attempting? What if the Delegates come up with the exact opposite solution to any problem that CCA does? Surely CCA wonât arbitrarily follow the Delegates, so your solution would only make things worse.
Alex Relyea
Nevertheless, the question of whether, in âyou are still required to keep score under 5 minutes if there is an increment of 30 seconds or moreâ, the word âincrementâ means âbonus or delayâ or whether it just means âbonusâ, has come up often in many non-CCA tournaments as well. And these tournaments mostly do not have an âextensive documentâ to go with them the way CCA does.
So, yes, this U.S. Chess rule should be clarified. Preferably by replacing the word âincrementâ with the phrase âbonus or delayâ in the rule regarding scorekeeping when the main time goes under 5 minutes.
And it gets worse. FIDE is not even consistent within its own documents whether âincrementâ means âbonus or delayâ or whether it just means âbonusâ. In the FIDE glossary, it obviously means âbonus or delayâ. But in certain other FIDE documents (where there possibly has been some American influence), âincrementâ seems to mean just âbonusâ.
U.S. Chess should do its part by phasing out its use of the word âincrementâ, and using only âbonusâ and âdelayâ. Already in the USA, players seem to be clear what âbonusâ means. That word is in just about every chess clock manual, as well as on the clocks themselves. And all three of the major online servers use the word âbonusâ to mean time added cumulatively, and â+â rather than âincâ as a standard abbreviation for âbonusâ. But if, in the USA, some TD makes an opening announcement that âthe time control is 60 minutes with a 5-second incrementâ, players are likely to respond with a demand for clarification. âYou mean bonus, right?â
Letâs do the right thing.
Bill Smythe
No one suggested that US Chess should attempt to codify everything that CCA is attempting. Also, CCA isnât the only one who has used a 30 second delay time control and there have also been times where the time control is a 30 second increment but the players used a 30 second delay since the clock they used doesnât do increment. Therefore, I think it makes sense to clarify in the rulebook whether notating is required for every move with a delay of 30+.
Interesting. In my experience, I rarely hear players use the word âbonusâ to mean âincrementâ.
Yes. Unless itâs been changed quite recently, the DGT NA supports multiple controls with delay. I saw quite a few DGT NA clocks do just that at the USATE last month.
I donât remember hearing anyone refer to increment as bonus.
The rule is definitely intending to refer to either delay or increment of 30 seconds or more. Itâs just that when they wrote the rule no one was evening considering using a delay this long. From a practical perspective, it is definitely implied for both. Any ârules lawyersâ arguing against it are arguing the letter of the rule versus the spirit of the rule.
Sure, this should be clarified and Iâm sure it will be soon. I suspect, though I do not know for sure, that it will be an ADM brought up at this yearâs delegates meeting. Likewise, I would expect it to pass overwhelmingly with enough votes to be implemented immediately at the beginning of next year.
I donât know if itâs really this clear. National TD Steve Immitt ruled at a previous tournament that you donât have to keep score with a delay of 30+ and I donât think he was trying to be a ârules lawyerâ.
8 posts were split to a new topic: New/Existing login issues
A post was merged into an existing topic: New/Existing login issues
Part of the proposed ADM to clarify that notating is required for every move if there is a delay of 30+ says:
â15B. Scorekeeping in time pressure, non-sudden death time control. If either player has less than five minutes remaining in a non-sudden death time control and the time control includes less than 30 seconds of time increment or time delay, both players are excused from the obligation to keep score until the end of the time control period. Doing so, however, may make it impossible to claim a draw by triple occurrence of position (14C) or the 50-move rule (14F) or a win on time forfeit (13C). When the time increment or time delay is 30 or more seconds, players must keep score through the end of the time control period. Scorekeeping by both players must resume with the start of the next time control period, and missing moves should be filled in (15F).â
It seems odd to say âWhen the time increment or time delay is 30 or more seconds, players must keep score through the end of the time control period.â and then right after that say âScorekeeping by both players must resume with the start of the next time control period, and missing moves should be filled in (15F).â The order of the last two sentences should be switched around.
Itâs been stated in this thread that there have been no complaints about 30 second delay after people have tried it.
Let me be the first. My complaint centers on the scorekeeping requirement associated with both 30 second increment and delay. This is quite onerus for someone who needs up to 15 seconds to complete a move and up to 10 seconds to properly record one. Delay is much worse than increment, because I cannot accumulate time with fast replies.
I understand that my disability is unique and that I could request assistance for moving and/or scorekeeping (before the tournament). That said, I never actually needed assistance before now. I am fast enough that ceasing the scorekeeping at 5 minutes allowed me to survive long enough with even a 5 second delay. Alas, the multitasking drives me nuts in time pressure.
Michael Aigner
I read that as âWhen the time increment or time delay is 30 secondsâŚâ being (in effect) a parenthetical remark. Actually putting it in (âŚ) might make it marginally clearer, but switching the two sentences within the paragraph is a bad idea. The âWhenâŚâ should be in a separate paragraph if it isnât where it is.
That makes sense.
On a slightly different note, there is still nothing in 15C (or in any other rule) about scorekeeping not being required in quick chess.