I hesitate to speculate on what someone else’s motives may be, especially since this information is coming to me third-hand.
First, are you sure you have your facts correct? Earlier you said you weren’t sure that these TDs demanded no delay. Possibly they just won’t use 14H, putting the burden on the players to furnish and use delay clocks.
Second, it’s just possible that these tournaments use the old-fashioned repeating controls, such as 40/60, then 20/30, then 20/30 etc indefinitely. In this case there is no requirement to use the delay, and less reason to do so.
Third, it’s possible they prefer increment (cumulative addback) over delay (non-cumulative addback). Increment is sort of a “super” delay. That is, delay can be regarded as somewhere in between increment and no delay. Increment is popular outside the USA, so if one of these TDs is an International Arbiter, there is a strong possibility he prefers increment over delay.
Finally, there is the worst possibility, which is that these TDs really don’t like delay, period. There are still a few TDs and players who like games to be decided on the clock alone. “If a player fails to make the time control, he has not met his obligation to complete the game in a certain time” is a common explanation given by those who don’t like the delay. I can’t wait until they get into a locked bishops-of-opposite-colors ending, with an easy draw on the board, but with only 10 seconds left to their opponents five minutes.
In the case of clocks, this rule kicks in only if the other rule doesn’t decide the issue – the rule that says delay clocks are preferable to those without the delay.
If both players have a delay clock, then black gets his choice. Or, if neither player has a delay clock, then black gets his choice.
Which specific issue are you arguing with the Rules Committee about? From your other posts, it seems you agree with the current rules for the most part. Is it, by any chance, the preference of analog clocks over non-delay digitals?
I only named names because these two TDs are well known and highly respected around here. Hence, “they are not considered neandertals!” I thought you would have appreciated that description as you like the double negative…
Anyway, they do state no rule 14H and/or no time delay as you can see in the links I listed.
For example, if you look at the current issue of Tournament Life, under New York you will find:
Aug. 26. 58th Freeport G/10. 7SS, G/10. (Rule 14H and time delay not used).
A lot of people seem to feel that Blitz should be played without delay. Although I don’t agree with this, the clock unquestionably becomes a bigger factor in fast controls than in slower ones. I can see how some players might prefer to let the clock become the ONLY factor in some situations.
What do these TDs do (about delay and 14H) when they run game/60 events?
OK, after carefully looking at the Nassau website, I see that Mr. Stenzel does not use Rule 14H on any tournament that he runs. Most of his tournaments are not of the G/10 sort. His latest event had a 40/80 time control. I don’t see anything about not using time delays.
It would seem however, that most of Mr. Mirabile’s Freeport events advertised in Tournament Life are G/10 or G/15 and use neither Rule 14H nor time delays. I suppose this is OK in QC which is primarily what I run at the BHCC, so I may follow suit.
I could have swarn, however, that the Freeport club had originally followed the lead of the Nassau club, so the Nassau club also had similar restrictions. I don’t see any evidence of this now.
You took that a little out of context. This specific reference was to the question of whether a lot of players still believe that Black has the choice of equipment, or else think that Black should have the choice.
This is really peripheral to the main argument I had with the Rules Committee, which was that the USCF should not impose a change on the players without an overwhelming consensus in favor of it. Arguing that a rule change is “for their own good” is not acceptable, in my view.
This is not an argument about time delay versus analog – I don’t think I’ve ever objected to any equipment in a game. It’s about social engineering.
If he’s not using the delay, he had better say so in the TLA. Same goes for 14H.
If he is using delay in the 40/80 events but not in the quick, then he seems to be in compliance, because his quick TLAs apparently mention that there is no delay. If he is not using 14H in ANY tournament, this should still be OK if he mentions this fact in ALL his TLAs, which he apparently does.
Same goes – if he is using neither 14H nor delay, he needs to mention this in the TLA (which apparently he does). This applies to both regular and quick.
Of course, you can follow suit, if you mention these variations in all your pre-tournament publicity. I think it would be MUCH better, however, to go ahead and use the 3-second delay in all games where either player furnishes a delay clock and wants to have the delay.
Sometimes a change has to be forced, or at least pushed, to get people to try it. In this case, it worked beautifully, as nowadays 60 to 90 percent of tournament games are played with delay clocks, and almost everybody seems to like the idea.
This is approximately the argument made by Bill Goichberg and the Rules Committee when they put in the “time-delay preference” rule. I reject it completely. Organizers and politicians do not have the right to impose their opinions on the players. This is not an argument about time delay; given sudden-death, I agree that the use of a time delay clock is a good idea. But that’s for the individual players to decide, not a pack of arrogant bureaucrats.
Time delay clocks are nice, time delay clocks will always be around. Digital clocks are better, they are and will be better then the clocks of the past. Having a digital clock set at G/90 or at G/90 (t/d 5), anyone with a digital clock will use time delay if both times are equal. A 40/120 SD/30 be equal to 40/120 (t/d 5) SD/30 (t/d 5), someone that needs extra time because they feel they are going to be in time trouble during the first time control: only needing 40 moves in 2 hours. If a person has problems making the first time control, it would be like telling everyone that their brain are so slow its’ like they are on dial-up and windows 95.
Demanding to have time delay is telling everyone you just have problems making a move. Myself, if my game is poor will resign: it is only a chess game. Case in point, went to a tournament with a car pool: during the last game could been in the prize money for something. The game could have been a draw or if spending the long hard fight could have won the game. The person in the car pool came to me and told me he was done, told the person that he won the game and just resigned. They were both shocked, the one that was the one that drove me back talked all the way into Michigan that he could not understand why resigned the game. My idea it is only a chess game and have little designs other then having a nice time.
Time delay is nice, just needing time delay for making every last seconds to win a game is strange.
That can work both ways. Thank goodness, in this case the “arrogant bureaucrats” were more visionary than thousands of TDs or hundreds of thousands of players likely would have been, and the vision prevailed.
On the other hand, these same “arrogant bureaucrats” (maybe I shouldn’t put it in quotes this time) apparently tried to make the Excalibur the official (and most preferred) clock, despite production delays and many early flaws.
When ideas are forced down people’s throats, the good ideas will soon take, and the bad ones will fall by the wayside.
Would have to say yes. The excalibur is a nice clock, having the excalibur be the official and preferred clock would have hurt players and the federation in the long run. If both players have a time delay clock, it should be the choice of black. Most players that have black, if it is a time-delay clock and a set that is standard – most players that are black just do not care if white wants to set the board and clock.
If anyone can say that the excalibur is a better clock then a chronos II, then we need to talk. Have little idea what the people from excalibur was going to give the federation for this ‘most preferred clock’ standing, it just sounds a little strange.
I maybe out of place in this topic, but I thought I should post my opinion from a non-chess-player’s point of view.
I’m a mother of three scholastic chess players. We did not buy their clocks all at the same time due to several factors 1. My kids did not get involve with tournaments at the same time 2. Money is tight - clocks are expensive 3. etc…
I bought their clocks when the need arises (all clocks less than a year old - bought months apart)
First clock for my 9 years old, bought last January. It is “Excalibur II”, it was on sale for $28.95 when I bought it.
Next was for my 7 year old, bought in March. It is “Saitek II”, was also bought while on sale at $29.95.
Last is for my 5 year old, bought last month. It is “Chronos II”, not on sale and spend $86.95 for it.
My experience (since I’m the one pre-setting this things for my kids).
Excalibur - I have the best luck setting this clock. It was very easy to set, and the battery last longer. The problem… NOT recommended for children or players that likes to bang the timer too rough. Our Excalibur stll works as far as keeping time, but one of buttom already broke off. And most tournament directors would not like to use broken clocks on the tournaments. Which means I will be needing to buy another clock.
Saitek - If you are not going to use the preset time, I recommended to always bring the instructions booklet. Timer was not that easy to set at the beginning. But got use to it. The plus side… looks very sturdy. My daughter drop this clock in few occassion and still in great shape. And the buttom are metal, which I’m sure can stand all the bangings it’ll get.
Chronos - The best one. Easy to set, and very sturdy. I bought this clock upon the recommendation of my child’s coach. Quite expensive for an scholastic player though.
Finding a ‘Chronos II’ for $86.95 was a deal, as knowing people asking for this clock for $110.
The reason why myself have a ‘Chronos II’ then the ‘Chronos’ is when you make a move you have too use your hand to press the clock. The button is a round and flat, needing the heat from the body to make the move, and there is not clicking of the clock when the person makes the move.
If a person use a captured pawn, ect., the clock will not change. It saves the clock from someone in a blitz game too use a captured queen, ect., to smash into the clock; if someone wants to press the clock like that in a blitz game, they are going to use there hand and that is going to hurt their hand first before the clock.
The ‘Chronos II’ was designed for the tournament player, if the player does turn off the sound, after the clock is press you hear nothing from the clock. The ‘Chronos II’ will last longer then any of the other clocks, as it needs body heat to make the move: will make anyone that wants to beat on the clock have one one heck of a black and blue mark on their hand.
The problem when looking at the ‘excalibur’ it is just way to plastic. With any digital clock face needing to be black and the body being black it is just black on black. What the ‘BHB’ clock is to the analog clocks the ‘excalibur’ is to the digital clocks.
Personally, I like the Excalibur, because it’s easy to set and still quite readable. I have no business buying a Chronos. Heck, I can’t even use the VCR… Know your limitations!
I provide my club 4 Game Gear Chess Sets and 4 Game Time II Chess Clocks from Excalibur. I must say that all the products we’ve used from Excalibur have been very high quality!