Delay for only one player?

Running Chess Tournaments
21

The idea of the delay clock just to stop a flag fall, will not stop the flag fall in all situations. The game has to end, in some type of situation. The idea is to learn time managment skills not have the delay clock help you out with poor time managment skills.

Would not ask scholastic players to first learn with a delay clock. As teaching how to play the game, is also teaching time managment skills. The skill to learn with the clock, is the managment skill of the clock. Do not see how delay clocks help scholastic students, or regular adults the time managment skill not to get into time trouble.

22

wholesalechess.com/chess/che … hess+Clock
wholesalechess.com/chess/che … hess+Clock

The difference in price between the two clocks is only $2. The prices between digital and analog has gotten a lot smaller. Now if you want the Chronos Clock, yeah you will pay a lot more money. But you can get the Saitek and Excalibur for $35 which is a lot cheaper than 3 years ago and that has almost as much functionality as the Chronos.

Also, it seems that Analog prices have been going up while digital prices have been coming down. The price is also fairly small, being only about 1/2 a year of USCF membership now. ($25 for the Bonus Timer Digital chess clock I provided the link to.)

The USCF should not say that you must have a digital clock, but it should be the prefered clock with all the problems that are solved by the delay.

23

We are in agreement with that John. The analog or delay clocks should be equal to each other. Delay is nice, but the reason for having delay when in time trouble: should not be common practice to be in time trouble as a norm.

24

I suspect, however, that our reasons are not the same. I regard that rules change as an abuse of power by the Rules Committee, since it was an attempt to influence players into doing something “for their own good.” But it would be foolish to deny that sudden-death time controls have produced a problem, in the form of 14H-type positions, which needs to be solved.

25

There are a number of reasons, your reason is one of the reasons why delay is a problem. The only reason for pointing out extreme situations, even if I do not support them. The rule with delay clock under 14H, can be twisted into abuse of the rule. The only way to prove a rule needs adjustment, is to show the most extreme situations of the rule.

26

rfeditor wrote:

WHOA! wait just a minute here. The Rules committee did NOT ‘abuse’ their power.

Yes, you hit a sore spot here.

The Rules changes had to be approved by your representatives at an annual delegates meeting. Quite often rules were changed (different from what was first proposed by the committee) during those meetings. If you want to blame anyone, blame the delegates.

However, let’s look at a little history.

When I started playing tournament chess the fastest rateable time control was 30 moves in 60 minutes, 15 moves per 30 minutes thereafter. There was no such thing as “sudden death”
(digital clocks were not yet around, and time delay was not even thought of.)

I was directing a tournament where the third round of a weekend tourney (saturday night) went on until 6:00 AM.
The Sunday morning round started at 9:00
I did not want to adjourn the game (now there’s a word you don’t often see these days, adjournment?!) as it would have had to be playeds out before the last round pairings, and both players were notorious for getting into time trouble.

The rules committee (at the time) was dead set against sudden death, along with many of us “old timers” but the delegates forced the abomination on us.

This is the root cause of all this fiddling around with the clock.

Then, no matter how bad time trouble was, you always had the “light” of perhaps making the number of moves to get yourself out of that trouble.

Now, along come the youngsters. They are DEMANDING sudden death. They outnumber us oldsters, and it is forced upon us. The first compromise reached was to not allow SD until the 3d time control, the primary and secondary controls still had to be (at the fastest) 30/60; 15/30; SD/30.

But that’s not all, folks. NO, They are also demanding faster time controls! Well, there goes any skill needed for an endgame!

What is the result? Well, up until someone thought of the delay feature, faster games, and sudden death in the primary control eventually reaching G/30 (heavens!) all totally unheard of in the 1970’s, and well into the 80’s, the clock now becomes a vicious weapon.

The vast majority of us (young and old alike) abhored the situation.
Games were being decided not by their skill on the board, but by who could beat the clock the fastest. Half the games turned into blitz games, and the other half were so low in quality that it didn’t matter anyway.

It’s not all bad. TDs got used to the idea, and organizers grew to like it. Rounds times became predictable, and you could leave the building at a reasonable hour. All good things, but at what sacrifice?

The game of chess should be (MUST be) a contest of skill between the players. It must not be solely a battle of the clocks. Some people (myself included) thought, “Hey! He got himself into that situation, TOO BAD”. Well, I learned that attitude left a lot to be desired.

The first attempt to rectify the situation was the advent of “insufficient losing chances”. A player (who might even be winning on the board) but whose flag was ‘hanging’ could claim ILC and at least eek a draw out of the situation.
However, that put us TDs in a very poor position. We now had to adjudicate positions between players who are two, three or even four classes above us in playing strength. VERY BAD.

Digital clocks, in general, were making the scene. And these clocks are programmable (if only in the factory). We can make them do anything we want them to, if we program them properly.

Then someone (Bronstein, I think) came up with a workable solution… Delay time (or add-back)! (another try was RJ Fisher with adding time for each move, but that idea works for internet chess, but OTB is is dubious)

Frankly, I was opposed to ILC claims and Delay time (at first), like the poster above. But after seeing them in practice, they work! Much better than any alternatives I know about.

Now, all we have to do is come up with a set of “rules” that work in all situations, and that everyone is happy with!
ROTFLOL
Well, at least a set of rules most players can live with, and get the delegates to approve. This, I think we have arrived at the most workable solution for a problem foisted on us to begin with.

The real solution?
Let’s go back to 1974.
Go back to the “good old days” of innaccurate mechanical wind-up clocks.
Go back to the ‘fastest time control’ of an average of two minutes per move. (Heck, and your complaining about 5 seconds as being too long!)
Go back to rounds being posted 30 minutes to an hour late because two people are playing ‘forever’.
Go back to adjournaments in an attempt to getting the next round paired. Only having to try to squeeze the ending between two other rounds.
Go back to 3AM to 6AM games, and no sleep till the next round.

This is what you would have to do in order to eliminate the root cause of the time delay problem. Unless you have an alternate sulution that EVERYONE can agree to. We, as a rules committee have never tried to force rules on a populace that were an ‘abuse of our power’. If you don’t like a rule as it is written, make a positive suggestion, and we will consider it.

You can’t afford the $5 extra for the cost of a digital delay clock? It was surprising the number of players it the GCC who didn’t even own any clock. They can afford a $400 entry fee, but not a $30 clock?

The real power in these rules lie with your elected delegates and policy board of the USCF. If you want to exercise your power, VOTE in the upcoming election. Quite frankly, I don’t give a rat’s a** who wins. All of the candidates sincerely wish to improve the game of chess. They only disagree as to how.
Make your feelings felt. VOTE.

I am willing to bet less than 5% of the membership will actually cast a ballot.

Find out who your delegate is. Make your wishes known to that person. If he (she) won’t listen, you have the power to run for the privelige yourself or to vote for someone who agrees with you.

Keep in mind, that being a delegate is a great, and expensive proposition. We are not reimbursed for our travel, food or hotel expenses in order to attend the annual meeting. No one on the Rules committee is paid, and only reimbursed for actual expenses (occasionally) if they choose to claim it (which I never have).
All we get out of this is POWER (LOL)! We’re going to make you peons SQUIRM with arbitrary and insufficient rules. After all we don’t PLAY the game we just force you to (WAH HA HA HAH)

Seriously.
I think the rules we have, in this edition, are workable, understandable and fair. Are they perfect? Of course not! If they were, there would be no need for a rules committee at all. We are constantly debating minutae in the rules to make them better. And having serious disagreements about them.
The rules cannot possible cover every situation imaginable. Well, most of the situations have not even ben imagined yet! In 1974 no one could even imagine a delay clock and its use in sudden death time controls. Why? Because they did not exist, and the technology wasn’t there yet.

Chair, US Chess Federation Rules Committee, and National Tournament Director.

27

I don’t think anyone will seriously dispute that the purpose of replacing “Black gets his choice” with “time-delay takes preference” was to encourage players to use time-delay clocks. One of the earliest and strongest proponents of this change put it to me this way: Eventually digital time-delay clocks will replace analog clocks as the old ones wear out. This is good (whether the players realize it or not). By changing the rule now, we can make thishappen sooner.

That is what I object to. The Rules Committee does not have the moral right to tell the players what to do. Look at it this way: If both players want to use a time-delay clock, there is no dispute. If time-delay is really a superior method, all the players should agree to this. What the framers of the rule seem to be saying is that either their argument is too weak to prevail on its merits, or the players are too stupid to accept the decree of their betters.

I agree that sudden-death time controls created a problem which needed to be solved. I even agree that time-delay clocks are a good solution. But the fact that you or I believe this does not give us the right to impose our view on the players. The Rules Committee has considerable power (since the Delegates meet once a year, and most of them neither know nor care about the subject). The most responsible thing they can do with this power is refrain from using it.

28

Glad you are debating the ethical problems of the rules. Glad I’m not the only one opening the can of dog food of the debates. :laughing:

29

Here is where we strongly disagree. The rules committee DOES have the “moral right” to tell the players what to do. In fact, the rules committee has the moral OBLIGATION to propose rules that tell the players what to do! It is the charter of the rules committee to propose changes to the rules that make sense, are fair, apply to all equally, that enhance the game in general, and that most of the players will agree to.

If the rules can’t tell you what kind of clock is preferable, then the rules can’t tell you what design chess set is preferable. Come to a tourney with a blocky Mexican Onyx chess set, and see how far you can get (even if you are black). I am being serious here.

Leaving morals behind “Never let a sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.” (Isaac Asimov)

The delay clock rules were hashed out by the Rules Committee, by a special advisory board in revising of the rulebook, and by the Delegates.
We could not leave the rules as they were. They were incomplete and in many cases not workable. It was a painful process. Pros and cons were discussed, hashed out, and a workable solution was arrived at. We are still discussing some of the ramifications. The delegates can and do tell you, the player “what to do” in EVERY rule in the rulebook, in the structure of other committees, in how to submit a tournament for rating, in requiring all players to be members, etc…

The delay clock IS the “standard” device to use in games involving sudden death time control BY THE RULES. Rules painfully arrived at by a cross-section of serious players and organizers, and approved by the delegates (your “peers” NOT your “Betters”). Many of the recommendations of the rulebook sub-committee and by the Rules committee were modified by the delegates. We did not impose anything on the players, but something had to be done to relieve the situation.

WRONG
ALL players will never agree to anything. As stated above, the so-called “staunton” chess set design is the only approved and “standard” set to be used in tournaments. When that rule was introduced there was a great reluctance to the imposing of the rule. Of accepting “the decree of their betters.” This discussion as analogous.

The vast majority of players DO accept the time delay rule, and not just because “they have to”. In tournaments I direct, I have not had anyone complain about it. Does the majority have the “right” to impose its will in the rest of us? Yes, that’s democracy in action!

The arguement that I gave in my last post is hardly ‘weak’. If you have a better solution, let’s hear it. By the way, whatever you come up with better take into account that the clock is only a device to aid in the timely completion of a game, and is not, and should never be, as important as any piece on the chessboard. The clock is not and should not be a primary weapon in the decision of a game.
The rules state that the player with the black pieces has the right of choice of set, board and clock, but only if that equipment complies with the standards set forth in other rules. Standardization is important. It gets everyone to play on the same field. Even if that standardization is forced.

30

David Kuhns:

The problem I have with delay clocks, it does not work well with category D events. As category D events are in most part one day events, making time managment problems for the organizer/director. The delay clocks are not a problem, in fact a great help with larger events. If going to be the director of a category C, would want as many players have the delay clock. As I only want to be the director of only one day events, the rational chance of that going to happen are slim.

When checking the format of the round times, have to understand the chance of the delay clock going to a accepted amount of moves. Since the delay clock set at 5 seconds, every 6 moves can add 1 minute more to the whole game. The delay game should not go over 120 moves, have granted in the past under G/60 or G/60 (t/d 5) 20 minutes plus 10 minutes extra for rest. It was nice having 30 minutes between rounds for rest. The players wanted to go home or felt they had way to much rest and wanted to play.

If it was not for adding extra time for a possible delay game going so long. The analog players or the players without delay, could play a G/70 not a G/60 and still have the last round at the same time. Since I have gone to the G/60 or G/55 (t/d 5), could grant the players if they only have analog clocks the time control of G/65. Since the directors/organizers have to add extra time for the rounds. It makes the tournament last much longer for the same time control.

If you can ask the analog players why they are leaving the federation. They would have to play with faster time controls with longer time between rounds. The delay clocks are a huge problem for the managment of the the total tournament time of the one day events.

If the players are asking why the time controls are going faster, the organizer/director understands the delay clock eats up the time. If I’m forced in some time seeing delay clocks with 10 seconds or 15 seconds, going to have to cut the time control of the G/60 down to G/40 or G/30.

31

Douglas, your views on time delay clocks and the rules involving them have been well-aired. Time to move on to more productive topics.