Question on Mandated Game Time Delay Advertising

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Hi Folks:

I have been hearing things along the lines of mandated increment time controls in advertising for USCF tournaments (“Mandated” might be too strong a word, but I’ll go with it for now). I have heard that to be completely kosher a tournament has to advertise increment time controls at a minimum, and then analog time controls. Thus, it is no longer completely kosher to advertise a tournament as:

G/60

but it should be advertised as:

G/55 +5s or G/60.

Is this true? I have been hearing this on USCF forums, but I can’t seem to find an official reference to it. Obviously its not in the 5th Edition Rulebook, and its also not in the 5 May 2011 Rulebook Changes.

So, am I going crazy (quite possible after last night’s tournament loss!) or can someone give me a reference on this?

THANKS!

System Administrator’s Note: [i]Changes to the time control rules were authorized earlier this month by the Delegates, but those changes do not take effect until January 1, 2012.

The USCF office is currently assuming that TLAs for 2012 events will have to indicate what their delay/increment setting is.

According to Tim Just, who is working on the 2012 version of the rules update document, an event in 2012 advertised as G/55d5 (Game in 55 with 5 seconds of delay), which would be dual rated since the minutes+seconds total is between 30 and 65, would have an analog clock setting of G/55.

Organizers who want to specify a different analog clock setting would have to make that part of all pre-tournament publicity, including the TLA.[/i]

2

You really should look at the extensive discussions of this topic in the following four threads:

G/29 vs G/30 (in All Things Chess)

5Fa (Shortened Time Control) in 2012 (in Chess Tournaments)

Dealing with sub-standard clocks (in Chess Tournaments)

Rules proposals from Delegates Meeting (in USCF Issues)

The idea is to strongly discourage (but not quite flat-out prohibit) organizers from having different time controls for games played with and without the delay.

If an organizer used to advertise “G/60” when he meant “G/55 d/5, or G/60 if d/0”, he is strongly urged now (effective 1-1-2012) to advertise “G/55 d/5”. That would mean that games played with analog clocks will now be played at G/55, not G/60.

If, however, an organizer who used to advertise “G/60” meant “G/60, with or without d/5”, he should now advertise “G/60 d/5”. In this case games played with analog clocks would be played at G/60.

In other words, organizers should no longer deduct 5 minutes in games played with the delay, nor add 5 minutes in games played without.

An organizer who still insists, even in this day of modern technology, on maintaining the 5-minute difference, would have to announce it explicitly in all pre-event publicity, perhaps with a cumbersome phrase like “G/55 d/5, or G/60 if d/0”.

Eliminating the 5-minute difference improves truth-in-advertising, encourages the use of delay clocks, and ceases to reward players with extra time if they furnish obsolete equipment.

The main purpose of this requirement seems to be to avoid ambiguity as to which events are regular and which are quick. Without specific mention of the delay, G/25 could mean either G/25 d/5 (regular) or G/25 d/3 (quick).

Another (probably secondary) reason for the requirement might be to get all the TLAs to toe the truth-in-advertising mark fanatically. This is laudable, I guess, but something worries me:

Organizers are in the habit of listing their time controls as, for example, “40/90 SD/60” when they mean “40/90 SD/60 d/5”. Beginning in 2012, will “40/90 SD/60” mean there is to be no delay? Let’s hope not. An organizer who intends no delay (shudder) should be required to say so explicitly, such as “40/90 SD/60 d/0”. Without this requirement, I’m afraid there will be a lot of unintended no-delay tournaments.

So, if an organizer omits explicit mention of the delay/increment (or lack thereof), what should be done? Possibilities include:

  • Return the TLA to the organizer, and require corrections before it can be published.
  • Or: As above if the main control is G/29 or faster, but assume (and insert) “d/5” if G/30 or slower.

Any thoughts?

Bill Smythe

3

Bill, thank you for all the references! I’d read most of them, but did not see the details with regard to deleting the references to delay time periods. I have since learned that this was part of the 2010 Delegate’s Meeting and was suspended until 1 Jan 2012 as well as referred to the Scholastic Committee. More recent posts here on this forum, as well as your very nice review, have served to clarify the issue in my mind. Thanks!

You have an interesting point with regard to the TLA truth-in-advertising clause. Taken at face value I could see that we may have a lot of no delay tournaments starting in January. I agree that this is not acceptable. Unfortunately I don’t think its quite practical to catch all the offending TLAs and send them back to the organizer. I would propose a solution where it is mentioned at the top of the TLA column in Chess Life that games advertised as non-delay at face value, if they correspond to one of the new “standard game times,” which include delays, the corresponding delay is assumed.

This is not a perfect solution because there is at least one “standard game time” where the delay determines whether the event is Dual or Quick rated, if I remember correctly.

Thoughts?

4

Tim Just is working on the new Updates Rules document for 2012! Thanks, Tim! You just made my day! :slight_smile:

5

Technically, the delay could determine whether an event is Dual or Quick at anything from G/5 to G/29. (G/5, Increment-30 would be Dual, as of 1/1/12; today it would be Regular-only, strange as that seems.)

In the real world the confusion concerns G/25 through G/29: what appears in the TLA, what delay is used, (three or five seconds can make the difference), how it gets reported on the tournament report form, etc.

It will take time to sort out, but someday all will be clear. Maybe. I suspect at some point next year a club that runs unadvertised G/29, delay-3 events as Quick Chess will submit a report that fails validation, and the TD and players will get a shock to their surprise.

Progress…

6

In practice, that may be necessary (for a while). In theory, it’d be good if all organizers could somehow be arm-twisted into specifically mentioning the delay/increment, or lack thereof.

Yes. G/25 could be either d/3 (quick) or d/5 (regular). And G/29, which used to mean G/29 d/3, won’t be legal at all as quick. I hope organizers of G/29 d/3 quick events will switch to G/26 d/3 rather than to G/29 d/0 (shudder).

The problem will occur not only with rating reports, but also with TLAs.

Already there are at least three 2012 TLAs on line (Grand Prix events) which do not list a delay or increment:

  • January 13-16 (CA) Golden State Open (CCA).
  • January 13-16 ¶ Liberty Bell Open (CCA).
  • February 23-26 (NM) Southern Rocky FIDE Open (Wired Kings chess club).

I’m sure all of these were intended to be used with a 5-second delay. (One of them even spells out “no 5-minute deduction with delay” without explicitly mentioning the delay.)

I can see that Tim Just, in working out the new TLA regulations, is going to have his hands full, and will need the wisdom of Solomon. Those who proofread and approve TLAs in the office will have their hands full as well.

Questions to wrestle with:

  1. If the main control is 30 minutes or more, and the TLA does not mention any delay or increment, should (1a) a 5-second delay be assumed, or (1b) zero delay be assumed (let’s hope not!), or (1c) the TLA be rejected and returned to the organizer for correction?

  2. Similarly, if the main control is 29 minutes or less, should (2a) some kind of weird algorithm be developed to assume whether the delay is 3 seconds or 5 seconds, or (2b) same as 1b, or (2c) same as 1c?

Good luck with that one.

Bill Smythe

7

Hang on, I missed something. Is there no more dual rating?

8

No, you didn’t miss anything. G/25 d/5 would be dual rated. (However, it may or may not be duel rated, depending on local gun control laws.)

9

I was referring to the tournament type, regular vs quick. (In regular tournaments scorekeeping is required, in quick tournaments it is not.)

Some regular tournaments are also quick-rated. These are called dual-rated.

I prefer to maintain the distinction between regular and quick tournaments (and rules) on the one hand, and regular and quick ratings on the other. It helps clear the thought process (for me, at least).

Bill Smythe\

System Administrator’s Note: The USCF office is currently working on a policy statement with regards to the implementation of ADM 11-36, including how to abbreviate time controls in TLAs, what will be required to be included in time controls for TLAs in 2012, and a guideline for organizers, TDs and players. This policy statement will need to be consistent with the updated wording in the rulebook for 2012.

10

Update (September 3, 2011): The first two still have not been changed. The third has apparently added a 30-second increment (or maybe it was already there, and I didn’t notice, in which case I apologize to the organizers).

I fear that, if specific mention of delay / increment becomes required as of 1-1-2012, there will be a lot of tournaments in violation of this requirement. Will zero delay be assumed in these cases? (I certainly hope not.) Or will 5-second delay be assumed? (That would be better, but it would fly in the face, slightly, of truth-in-advertising, which is one of the stated goals of the new regulations.) Or will the TLAs be returned to the organizers for correction? (That would be the purist’s approach, but it’s likely to result in many returned announcements for a month or three.)

Maybe, for a few weeks at least, a compromise approach may be necessary: Assume (and edit the TLA to include) a 5-second delay if the main control is 30 minutes or more, return the TLA to the organizer if the main control is 29 minutes or less.

It looks like a tough call, in any case.

Bill Smythe

11

G/30 + td/0 using an analog clock is a different time control than G/30 + td/5 on a digital clock.

12

Okay, okay, so I should have said:

Bill Smythe

13

If the organizer has not sent in enough information concerning the time control and whether delay or increment is beeing used, the USCF office should just use the default delay settings in publishing the TLA. The organizer then has the onus of making a further change. If it is too late for him to make the changes, then he is stuck with what he sent in and will be more careful next time he sends in a TLA.

14

That’s a good suggestion, except for one important point. If the organizer does not specify delay/increment explicitly, it may not be possible to figure out whether the tournament is regular or quick. And that, in turn, will make it impossible to determine what the default settings are.

I’m thinking especially of the G/25 case.

Bill Smythe

15

Tough. If the TD is too careless or lazy to specify his settings, then he gets the default. What, did the dog eat his homework? The USCF office should not be put into the position of being mind readers or having to waste time playing e-mail or phone tag with the organizer. It takes time to post TLAs online and coordinate with the magazine to publish TLAs as well, and then do all of the other office business. All the organizer has to do is write “d/5”, “d/3”, or “30i” in the appropriate box.

16

I think there should be something posted VERY PROMINENTLY on the homepage of the website to the effect of:

“ATTENTION ALL ORGANIZERS AND DIRECTORS! THE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT CHANGES ARE COMING TO YOUR TOURNAMENTS!”

17

– And perhaps an email blast to TDs and affiliates, as well.

And, to decide what the “default” is, perhaps an algorithm along the following lines:

  • If G/30 or slower, assume d/5 and regular.
  • If G/26 through G/29, change to G/26 and assume d/3 and quick.
  • If G/25, assume d/5 and regular.
  • If G/24 or faster, assume d/3 and quick.

This looks a bit kludgy, but it lines up with what the organizer probably intended.

In the second case, G/26 d/3 through G/29 d/3 will now have to be changed to G/26 d/3, because (for example) G/29 d/3 will no longer be quick-only (29+3 equals 32).

In the third case, I’d be interested in knowing how many G/25 d/3 quick events there have been during the past year, compared to the number of formerly “G/30” regular events that have actually been played at G/25 d/5.

Bill Smythe

18

The New Hampshire Quick Chess Championship was played at GAME/25, d/3.

Alex Relyea