These days nothing about me is little.
What are the practical arguments against having the increment applied before move 1?
Some clocks automatically give the increment time prior to move one when you set increment on the clock and some do not. It seems to me itâs easier practically to have the players with clocks that donât automatically give the increment prior to move one to manually add the increment time to the base time rather than having the players with clocks that automatically give the increment prior to move one to manually remove the increment time that is automatically given for move one.
I donât have any specific practical arguments against it, but I think this whole discussion is a tempest in a teapot, or âmuch ado about nothingâ. Except for very short time controls (like blitz), in the context of the total time you have for all your moves, 30 seconds more or less is such a small fraction as to be irrelevant (and even in blitz, it wouldnât be 30 seconds â it would be something like 2 or 3 seconds, which again is not enough to be worth worrying about). I only play G/90 or longer, and I literally donât care whether or not the increment is added before move 1. It makes no practical difference. Even as a TD, I donât care if some people do it one way and others do it the other way. When the time control comes around 3 or 4 hours later, nobodyâs going to remember or care whether or not they had that extra 30 seconds at the beginning. It just doesnât matter enough to be worth fussing over.
I agree itâs not the biggest issue in the world. Thus, I like the part of the TD Tip after rule 16B2 that says âIf a game is started without the increment applied for move one, it is recommended that the TD not allow the clock to be subsequently adjusted to add the increment for move one. This failure to adjust the clock initially should not be allowed as grounds to contest a later time forfeit claim.â
Do you think adding Bronstein delay to this TD Tip would be a good idea? The VTEK 300 does not give automatically give the Bronstein delay time for move one if it is in the US Chess or Custom modes and the Saitek Competition Pro does not automatically give the Bronstein delay time for move one.
TD TIP: Not all digital clocks correctly give the increment or Bronstein delay for move one when you set increment or Bronstein delay on the clock. For clocks that donât, the increment or Bronstein delay time in seconds should be added manually to the base time, if possible, so each player gets the increment or Bronstein delay for move one. For example, for G/3;inc2, each player gets 3.02 (three minutes and two seconds) to complete move one. If the clock only gives 3.00 for each playerâs first move when the clock is setâwith a base time of three minutes and increment of two secondsâthen, if possible, two seconds should be added to each playerâs base time when setting the clock. If a game is started without the increment or Bronstein delay applied for move one, it is recommended that the TD not allow the clock to be subsequently adjusted to add the increment or Bronstein delay for move one. This failure to adjust the clock initially should not be allowed as grounds to contest a later time forfeit claim.
Considering how few players use Bronstein delay, my first impulse is to say no, donât bother. But â
Do these two clocks also have the straight-up (two-display) form of delay? If so, then again Iâd say donât bother. But if not, then maybe it might be worth it. Maybe.
Bill Smythe
Yes, the VTEK 300 and Saitek Competition Pro also do simple delay.
Then itâs probably not worth it, because nobody will ever use the Bronstein option anyway.
Or at least, instead of adding âor Bronstein delayâ in six different places in a long paragraph, just add one sentence at the end, something like âFor clocks that offer Bronstein delay, the above remarks apply to that mode as well as to increment.â
Bill Smythe
I think I have seen the Saitek Pro set for Bronstein delay at tournaments a couple of times but Iâm sure simple delay is used far more often on the Saitek Pro. You probably wonât see Bronstein delay used much on the VTEK since itâs found under an increment setting. To use Bronstein delay on the VTEK, you have to set the clock for an increment time control and go into the preferences and change the increment setting from âFischerâ to âBronsteinâ.
I donât see the VTEK or the Saitek Pro much at tournaments anyway since the VTEK is really expensive and the Saitek Pro has been out of production for a while now. This could be another reason not to bother with adding Bronstein delay to the TD Tip.
I suspect if anyone set a Saitek Pro to use Bronstein it was probably an error and they meant to use regular delay. The only times I have seen Bronstein used were on clocks where delay wasnât an option. Iâm sure there are might be a few that actually prefer Bronstein to delay for some reason, but my guess is that the number is insignificant enough to not worry about it. Those cases can easily be handled by the TD if any action is required, which it probably isnât.
My Chronos can do it either way, and even adds the extra 5 seconds for the first move. If any opponent ever asks me to set my clock for Bronstein rather than straight-up delay, I would happily comply. I even keep it in my presets, just in case. So far, though, no opponent has ever asked.
Bill Smythe
How about pretty much nuke the whole thing and say:
âNot all clocks properly handle delay or increment for the first move. It is permitted to adjust such a clock in advance to allow for the missed time (by adding the first increment or delay to the base time), but failure to adjust the clock initially will not be allowed as grounds to contest a later time forfeit claim.â
[size=200]YES !!![/size]
Except, say âincrement or delayâ rather than âdelay or incrementâ, since it is mainly increment where this problem arises.
Bill Smythe
This doesnât make it clear if the first increment is applied before move one. The main point of the TD Tip is to explain that the first increment is applied before move one.
How about:
âNot all clocks properly add the increment or delay for the first move, as they should. It is permitted to adjust such a clock in advance to allow for the missed time (by adding the first increment or delay to the base time), but failure to adjust the clock initially will not be allowed as grounds to contest a later time forfeit claim.â
(Changes italicizedâŚ)
It always matters. It is this sloppy sort of thinking that consistently comes back down the road to cause confusion. These conversations arenât always remembered. Down the road it will cause some absurd issue.
We need to quit treating certain things, like rules, as though they are immaterial so we can be casual with them. Treat rules with respect and be thorough. If we decide to treat something as immaterial, document it. Itâs this fuzziness that causes the meaning of rules to be lost years later, people do with the wording as is, and suddenly something doesnât make sense.
Good collaborative work, all (+ Bill Smythe)
Mr. Bachler is, of course, correct. We have a serious problem with allowing organizers to use âhouse rulesâ almost without restriction. People donât need to follow rules they donât like, which causes all kinds of problems when different organizers decide to suspend different rules.
We need to determine a list of rules and require all rated games to use them. Unfortunately, there is no will for that among the delegates.
Alex Relyea
For some reason people think that different rules are appropriate for small club tournaments, scholastic tournaments, large Swisses for adults and kids, invitationals, etc.
The cell phone penalty for a friendly club tournament may be very different from one at the US Open.
The pairing considerations for team or family avoidance may be different.
The spectator rules at a scholastic may be different from those at a large Swiss. Particularly one where young kids may be interspersed with adults.
etc., etc., etc.
If there are going to be variations then they need to be listed with guidelines for when they may be appropriate and with a requirement that all variations for an event must be posted. (the variation 11H1 about the TD not calling illegal moves would have to be posted even though most people think that is the standard rule)
No. Mr. Bachler is still correct. Do we really need someone with K+R vs. K+N and seconds on the clock with maybe a five second delay having to remember if this is one of those tournaments in which he loses if his flag falls or one of those in which he draws?
I would ask Mr. Wiewel if it makes sense to have one number which purports to represent a playerâs demonstrated ability under each of those conditions, and yet we do.
I will offer that while chess is for everyone and even that everyone should be playing chess, not everyone should be playing tournament chess. For example, players who canât regularly make legal moves shouldnât be in tournaments. Weâve gone too far in the direction of trying to be something for
everyone.
Briefly, if it is considered that a ringing phone is evidence of cheating, then someone who possesses a ringing phone should be given a loss. Cheating is no more acceptable in a club tournament than at the U.S. Open. If it is considered behavior that annoys the whole tournament, then there should be some sort of severe penalty applied. It doesnât matter if it is a quad being annoyed or a 500 player swiss. Should we also consider allowances for the first five minutes of the game when no one has gotten settled yet? What about late in a round of the 500 player swiss when there are only five players to be annoyed? Does it matter if one of the five is in severe time trouble? What if that player is not on move? Why should a player come from out of town to the tournament and have to guess or attempt to remember from mumbled instructions several rounds previous what will happen now that his opponentâs phone has just rung? Better for everyone to silence their phones or expect severe consequences.
âThe tournament organizer will consider all âdo not pairâ requests, but may not honor them.â
I donât see spectator policy as a âruleâ. To the extent that rules must be made about spectators, for example that spectators may not suggest moves, one hopes that that would be enforced at all tournaments.
Etc., etc., etc.
Regarding TD intervention without player request, it is the TDs job to enforce the rules. No TD will notice all violations, but each TD should enforce the violations that he notices. This is similar to a police officer stopping speeders even though on other streets at other times other drives are speeding, maybe even more flagrantly.