Why do we have increments? Why don’t we just have 40/120, then 20/60, for example? I mean, just let the player manage their time. Fiddling with a clock to set up the basic control and then the increment must be a PITA.
Is this “increment” stuff a relic of the Fischer Disaster? Because if it is, it’s surprising, seeing as how he rarely had time pressure.
Thanks for any insight.
i agree! still have to manage the clock no matter the time control.
cheers, …scot…
To force games to end in a reasonable amount of time (i.e. forestall adjournments) while at the same time giving a player with a winning (or drawn) position a chance to convert even if the position is not trivial. With engines as strong as they are, it can be unfair to give players an adjournment. Because it can be very difficult to schedule rounds unless there is a SD control. Not as much as you would think. The DGT 3000 takes about 3 seconds to set foe a 30 second increment than it does for base time. Your suggested time control would require more fiddling on most clocks, including in-game on some.
Alex Relyea
Two examples why SD controls are good. The following both had a repeating secondary TC of 20/1
In the mid 70s my wife Joan was playing a R+k vs R+K+p in an obviously drawn end game in the last round. Her opponent did not agree and continued to play it out. Several hours later the only ones left at the site were me, Joan, the TD, and her opponent. Joan was coming out of the tournament area, talking with me and the TD and drinking a beer. The game was finally drawn. The game had no effect upon prizes!
In 1990 I was directing the New Hampshire Open. Two strong players not in contention for prizes were playing a R&p end game in the final round. Late in the evening after all were gone the Hotel notified me that they had to reset the ballroom for a function the next day. The got a wooden pizza device used to take pizzas out of the oven and I used it to move the game to a side room. Again the game was a draw which had been obvious to the observers for quite awhile.
As Alex noted it was not that infrequent that repeating controls would delay rounds while the game played out. Adjournments had downsides as they affected the pairings and the players had to finish the game after their next round games finished.
As for me, I prefer increment to delay. A +30 time control makes it easy for me to walk the room at regular times and ensure that the clocks are working properly. I just take the time control, subtract the number of minutes that have elapsed since the start of the round, and add the number of moves made.
So if the control is G90+30, and a half hour has elapsed, the times on each clock should add to 150 minutes plus the number of moves made. (This also allows me to point out to the scoresheet hiders that players’ scoresheets must be visible to me at all times.)
The scoresheet must be visible, but not necessarily so that you can see how many moves have been made. There is no rule specifying that the score must be visible, just the sheet.
True, but the arbiter does have the obligation to check that rule 8.1(a) is being obeyed. The Arbiter’s Manual even says, “The habit of concealing the written on the score sheet moves with a pen does not violate this article. But still the arbiter has full right to remove the pen from the score sheet, whenever he wants to check the number of the moves played by the player.”
If they have their book closed, or the scoresheet turned over, or whatever, I will still check their scoresheet. I have even been such a pain as to warn a player that he must use algebraic notation. When he persisted in using descriptive, I informed him (and his opponent) that I would not allow him to use his scoresheet for any claims whatsoever, since he refused to keep a legal scoresheet according to Article 8.1(a).
A player who refuses to follow any rule should eventually be forfeited.
Alex Relyea
I guess we should have clarified which set of rules we were talking about. You clearly were talking about FIDE. I was talking about US Chess. You are correct in saying that FIDE allows you to do what you are doing.
That being said, I’m not sure that it’s a good idea as a matter of principle to force needless confrontations with players. Just because you can do something is not a good reason to do it. It is good policy for a TD to check just after a round has begun to make sure that all clocks are set for the proper time control. But checking periodically to make sure that the clocks are functioning properly after that is overkill. There is no good reason to intrude on the games at regular intervals just for that purpose. In the rare instance that a clock does malfunction after being properly set one of the players will bring it to your attention at that time, and you can deal with it then.
Yes, I was speaking of FIDE. Actually, I check the clocks before I start the round, if at all possible. And I have had instances in which the clocks were not running correctly. The FIDE Arbiters Manual recommends checking every 30 minutes (though I do not record the times):
No dispute about what FIDE asks of the arbiter. IMHO this is an example of where the US Chess rules are superior. Disturbing the players every 30 minutes just on the off chance that some clock will be found to have malfunctioned is a case where the remedy is far worse than the disease.
Officials overseeing gaming or sporting contests should intrude on the play as little as possible. No one comes to the baseball park to see the umpires, and no one comes to the basketball stadium to see the referees. They are not the reason for the contest. The same goes for the TD, or Arbiter, or whatever you want to call the person overseeing the chess tournament. Without TD’s the players could still have a tournament. They could come up with their own pairings and arbitrate their own disputes. It wouldn’t function as smoothly without TD’s, but it could still happen. But with no players there would be no tournament. The TD is just the grease that makes the tournament wheels turn smoothly, and should try to stay out of the way and just let the players play.
No arbiter interrupts a game to check the clock without cause. It’s a glance at best. Did the round start 30min ago? Is there 25-30min elapsed from the total clock time (depends on increment)? OK, clock is good.
FIDE attempts to work at global scale and reach arbiters of all backgrounds, many of whom have very little “chess culture” about them. In this case being more prescriptive on the tactics is more helpful than anything.
I only have to interrupt them if they are hiding their scoresheets.
If by “hiding” you mean the scoresheet is not visible, then you should interrupt them to rectify that. If by “hiding” you mean that the writing is not visible to you, then interrupting them is a pointless intrusion into the game.
The Arbiter’s Manual disagrees with you: “The habit of concealing the written on the score sheet moves with a pen does not violate this article [8.2]. But still the arbiter has full right to remove the pen from the score sheet, whenever he wants to check the number of the moves played by the player.”
i admit, i used to do that, write my move down, put my pen over it, think some more, make my move, hit the clock. all that is not allowed anymore. now, i have to make the move, THEN, write the move down. so, no big deal.
…scot…
Unfortunately, some coaches still teach the kids to do that, too.
Actually this statement in the Arbiter’s Manual doesn’t disagree with me. I never said that the Arbiter didn’t have “full right to remove the pen from the scoresheet, whenever he wants to check the number of moves played by the player.” What I said was that IMHO it makes no sense to do something that intrudes pointlessly into a game just because you can do so. Which is why, as I said before, FIDE asking you to do this is why this rule of theirs is inferior to it’s US Chess counterpart.
I’m not saying that you’re violating a FIDE rule by doing what you’re doing. I’m saying that the FIDE philosophy espoused here is wrong-headed.
What US Chess Counterpart? Rule 16O says, “A clock with an obvious defect should be replaced…”
So shouldn’t a TD look for such defects?
If you have to disturb the players to figure out if a defect exists, it isn’t “obvious”.