Personally, I would like G/5;inc5, but I could see quite a few people thinking that, whether it’s blitz-ratable or not, that’s not blitz. I could even see people who are particularly adept at G/5;d0 blitz having the same reaction to G/3;inc3.
I see the bolded phrase as expressing his pinion that it’s better. If it’s a sales pitch, it’s strictly soft sell.
The phrase was bolded not by the person to whom the phrase is attributed, but to one of those who quoted it.
Bill Smythe
Sometimes it’s better if leading organizers try to mold public opinion, rather than simply following it.
A classic example of this is the whole idea of delay (or increment) itself. Back in 1996, delay (as opposed to no delay) was made the standard, but it was necessary to get organizers on board. Organizers were typically announcing their time controls as simply G/90, or 40/90 G/60, with no mention of delay. So US Chess got clever and changed the rule so that a 5-second delay was assumed unless specifically announced otherwise in pre-event publicity.
This got the movement going, as a few players insisted on the delay and organizers eventually caught on. Only much later did it become possible to adopt the present policy, that the increment or delay must be explicit even if zero.
This was opinion molding, on steroids. But it worked. Now pretty much all organizers accept that increment or delay, even if zero, must be explicitly included in the TLA.
Today we have a chance to mold opinion in favor of what is already quickly becoming the international blitz standard, G/3 inc/2. As a major organizer, Micah, you should get on board with this. The same goes for those organizers who are stubbornly sticking with G/5 d/0.
Bill Smythe
In the recent match tournament in St. Louis, the participants played matches at Game 5, Game 10, Game 20, and Game 30 without the use of increment or delay settings. The article in New in Chess concerning the tournament indicated that there were no problems and the players were satisfied playing this format without extra time added. Maybe this will become the standard for blitz and rapid chess tournaments in the future. If the top players can play Game 5, d0, which many of us regard as the “traditional” way to play blitz, why not accept that as the standard? Game 3, inc2 when it was introduced seemed like an artificial and arbitrary time control. The use of 2 seconds rather than 3 was a way to distinguish between blitz and rapid/Quick. 2 seconds is barely enough time to move a piece and press a clock. Some time always seems to spill off when using this setting. When played using a clock that has LED, like the ZMF clocks, all you see is flashing lights and numbers when playing blitz.
I’m with you on increment or delay being a standard for regular-rated or quick-rated chess, for all manner of reasons. (Raise your hand if you are happy to be done with Rule 14H.) And your point about US Chess leading the standard is well-taken. That has worked out remarkably well.
Blitz is another thing. For some players and in some chess cultures “blitz” and “no delay or increment” are inseparable. Straight five, no chaser. In other cultures 3/inc. 2 has emerged as the standard.
It’s reasonable for rated chess to offer both “flavors” of blitz. I’m glad US Chess continues to do so.
My experience has been that when top players play blitz against each other, they tend to respect the game on the board (resigning when they’re busted, agreeing draws when the position is drawn) rather than playing clock to the bitter end (except of course for Armageddon games which are cut-throat by design). If everyone played blitz that way, G/5 would probably be fine. The +2 time controls are enough to tame the worst instincts of blitz players.
I agree. I suggested trying G/3; inc 2 at one of our blitz nights and everyone looked at me like I was crazy. Then there’s the practical reason for using G/5;d0…most of the club’s clocks don’t support increment.
My hand is definitely raised!..You can definitely count me in the camp of the “if there is delay or increment it aint’ blitz!” crowd. Adding delay or increment seems to defeat half the purpose of the game. I have played G/3, d/2, and didn’t much like it. I have never played “blitz” with increment, but it seems like that would only exacerbate the problem. I have no problem with organizers offering “blitz” with delay or increment. If someone want to play one of those time controls, I have no problem with that. But when it comes to blitz, as Patrick Henry said, “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me no delay or increment, or give me death!” (I’m pretty sure that quote is accurate…)
Even with increment?
On another note, I once directed an IM at G/5;+2. He was down to one second at one point, but was up to 18 by the time he won.
Alex Relyea
Alex, that reminds me of the days of the USCF Quartz Clock, some local experts could set it to 1 minute, play an entire game, and still have that minute left at the end, because it didn’t tick until a full second had elapsed each time.
I disagree that there were no problems, youtube.com/watch?v=tWVuO66JnlQ
That’s easier to do online, given premoves and the ability to pick up a piece before the opp has moved. It requires considerably better gross-motor skills to do OTB, or else moving before the opp has hit the clock, which many, many players get away with in a blitz time scramble.
Very likely. I think that clock likes to go into tenths-of-seconds mode when under 5 minutes of main time. In delay mode, I think it also goes into tenths-of-seconds mode for the delay, when under 5 seconds of delay time. With increment, there would be just one display, but it might always be displaying tenths.
Bill Smythe
As if I needed another reason to dislike those clocks. . .
Alex Relyea
I’m pretty sure the ZMF II go into tenths-of-seconds mode when under 1 minutes of main time. Also, I don’t think it ever shows tenths of a second on the delay time.
This, perhaps surprisingly, is not against the rules.
That is because a legal move is completed by releasing the piece, not by hitting the clock. You are still allowed to hit the clock after your move even if your opponent has already released a piece after responding to your move.
Opponents’ attempts to keep you from hitting the clock (since they are already done with their moves) would be illegal.
Fast moving players can fall afoul of their own gamesmanship.
1a) slow guy makes move and reaches for clock
1b) fast guy makes move and reaches for clock
1c) slow guy hits clock
1d) fast guy hits clock 0.1 seconds later and waits for slow guy to make a move
2a) slow guy makes move and reaches for clock
2b) fast guy makes move and reaches for clock
2c) fast guy hits clock (futilely) and waits for slow guy to make a move
2d) slow guy finally hits clock and is now getting ready to make a move while the fast guy’s time is running
3a1) slow guy makes move after chewing up fast guy’s time
or
3a2) fast guy looks at clock, sees his time running, and illegally makes a second move in a row without allowing slow guy to move
Better yet:
4a) slow guy makes move and reaches for clock
4b) fast guy makes move and actually presses clock
4c) slow guy, knowing he is still entitled to a clock press, presses clock now, even though slow guy is on move
4d) fast guy doesn’t notice, and waits for slow guy’s next move
4e) slow guy takes his time, while fast guy’s clock is running
I love it when the punishment is inherent in the crime.
Bill Smythe
I know. And if it was against the rules, it would be pretty hard to rule on accurately, given how fast a blitz game moves. Thus the “player always gets to hit the clock each time s/he moves” rule is probably the best solution.
I don’t recall getting this kind of claim in a blitz game, perhaps because both players are guilty of it and both are so caught up in the speed of the game it doesn’t occur to either to pause the clock and make a claim.
Still, the textbook example of how ugly this can get is the Armageddon playoff of Krush vs. Zatonskih in the 2008 US Women’s Championship. http://www.uschess.org/content/view/8475/473/