Time Delay - a case

Running Chess Tournaments
1

From The 2004 U.S. Class Chess Championships: uschess.org/news/press/uspr0423.php

"An interesting piece of tournament “theory” was put to the test at the U.S. Class, when Kansas Expert Tim Steiner proved why the time delay clock is now an indispensable component of the serious tournament player’s competitive regimen. With his time running out, Steiner’s lone White Queen was compelled to distract the opposing King, Rook and Bishop from otherwise shepherding the Black f-pawn to an inevitable coronation. Through an amazing, whirlwind series of checks, pins, and “quiet” threats of forks and skewers, Steiner was able to stave off the advance of the f-pawn for over 60 moves-- despite having exactly ONE SECOND left on his time-delay chronos! His opponent, rated over 500 points higher and with over ten minutes remaining, was unable to prevent a successful 50-move rule draw.

The time delay was absolutely necessary to prevent a brilliant drawing motif from coming to a tragic end. No claim of “insufficient losing chances” could ever be considered, as the chances for either side to lose were mind-boggling indeed, let alone “sufficient.” Without the time delay, White’s flag falls well before he can rattle off even a fraction of the 50 required moves. With the time delay, he proves, over the board for all to see, that his opponent can make no progress beyond his half of the point".

2

Terry:

The way you put the action of 1 second left with the 5 second delay – it makes chess feel like a video game. Think how those millions of males that play hours after hours video games. Think of the skill they need to make a move in less then 5 seconds. Larry Evens did say that action chess is ‘fast food chess’. With time delay during time trouble, we have changed it into a video game.

Thinking how PS2 will make the chess video game!

3

Terry Winchester has given us a fabulous example of delay at its best, and has demonstrated why no serious game should ever be played without it.

For that matter, no blitz game should be played without it, either.

Bill Smythe

4

Bill:

All right Bill, make you a deal. Play you a blitz match with me with G/5 (t/d 0) and will give you a delay of 5 seconds. With the 5 second time take back the match will be like this. Me G/5 (t/d 0) you G/0 (t/d 5), lets see whos flag will fall first.

5

People like faster time controls, 5 seconds is pleanty of time to draw or win a game. I’d take that anyday.

Welcome to the next decade, computers are here to stay and chess has changed for the better. Popularity has climbed more with the internet.

I would give Terry 50 minutes to my 2 seconds and I would still crush him for he is weak.

6

Please meet me on ch 319 and we will discuss your future

7

well, to be clear, this was not penned by me. I found it at the above USCF link. I could only hope to write so eloquently. But thanks, Bill!

8

Well, a delay clock can be better then not having delay. It does make my case: a delay clock is only needed during time trouble. During time trouble is only during the endgame, if and only if the player is late from being at the board. It is not the error of the clock that the player could be 55 minutes late, it is only the error of the player.

In my judgement, depending on time delay during the game only states the player is having time managment problems. Asking Terry and Bill: are you having time managment problems if you are given 40 moves in 2 hours?

9

No/Yes/Sometimes!

As to the rest of your comments, I guess it just comes down to philosophical differences of opinion. Whether or not you wish to have a delay started from move one in mixed time controls, I suppose, is up to you (as the TD/Organizer). I refer you to Rule 5Fb, and the TD Tip which follows. Perhaps this rule is ambiguous, as the main rule b[/b] states that the delay is to be used from move 1. However, in the TD Tip (which, BTW, is only a Tip, not a rule), the editors imply - or actually state - (without the main rules specifically stating) that having the delay set for the SD period only is a variation. I don’t find this as a written variation. My interpretation is that the delay is to be used from move 1 in mixed controls.

This seems like a case which needs to be argued to the Rules Committee. I am simply trying to interpret the rules as are currently written, thereby answering the questions of new TDs here in this forum. I’m not trying, at this time, to ague that they need to be changed, or that they are good. Only that the rules are the rules, and we need to abide by them until they are changed. Arguing, in this forum, whether or not a rule is good seems irrelevant and monotonous (I hope I spelled that right).

I’m not sure if this addresses your question, Douglas. If not, let us know.

Cheers

10

The point on delay time, have little problem if some person wants to use this. The time delay at the start of the game, does nothing for both players. The time delay does nothing for both players if they still have more then 20 minutes left on the clock. If the game is close to checkmate or the game is lost for one side, with both parties having so much time the can get up and walk around.

The problem seeing time delay, only makes people have worse time managment problems. With time delay or without time delay: the player should not get themselves into this problem, with most players never or have very few games with time trouble.

With time delay with long time controls, just makes the players use the time to find the best move; then in the end of the game the player just slaps the clock just to make a move. With a 40/2 SD 1, should not end like a blitz game.

11

In theory, it might not be so bad to have the delay in use only during the last 5 minutes, or the last 10, or the last 20. In practice, there might be a few pitfalls, such as how to answer the question “when one player is under 5 minutes, do both players get the delay?”. As you say, when both players have plenty of time, the only effect of the delay is to lengthen the main time control slightly, but that’s a small price to pay for uniformity.

Time trouble is anytime you don’t have much time left on your clock. This condition is most likely to occur during the endgame, but it can occur at other times. Even in an endgame, it can occur when a whole bunch of additional moves can still be expected.

Bill Smythe

12

When the delay rules first began in about 1995, a few major organizers (such as the U.S. Open one year) decreed that the delay should be used only during the final control. This policy has given way to the current rule, that the delay should be in effect from move 1.

Of course, the delay was introduced to mitigate some of the ill effects of sudden death, so I guess it can reasonably be argued that the delay is necessary only in the sudden death control.

I would argue, however, that it is preferable to have the delay turned on from move 1, as the current rule states. Here are some reasons:

  1. Clocks may vary as to when they start giving players the delay. If, for example, the time control is 40/120, SD/60, some clocks may award the delay when move 40 is reached. Others may do so only when the initial 120 minutes is used up. In the latter case, the players may begin to receive the delay at different times. If white passes the 120-minute mark at move 42, while black does so at move 56, then for 14 moves white may get the delay while black does not.

  2. Having the delay throughout the game provides a more uniform “look and feel” to the various controls. Otherwise, a player with only a few seconds remaining in the first control is in worse time trouble than if he were in a similar situation in the final control.

  3. In the first control, a player may assume the delay is turned on, when it is not. This can lead to unnecessary forfeits and acrimonious disputes.

  4. Without the delay, player behavior tends to deteriorate near the end of the first control (imagine having to make five or ten moves in 2 seconds, without the delay!). A desperate player may knock over pieces without replacing them, move using both hands, press his clock before he has released the piece, etc.

  5. The delay makes the game less of a distraction (due to the kind of behavior mentioned above) for players in surrounding games.

For all of the above reasons, IMHO, having the delay turned on from move 1 is a good idea.

Bill Smythe

13

I am the guy who got the draw against that stronger player, and I can tell you without hesitation that the draw was well earned. I’d like to see how other players might measure up trying to draw an IM with less than 5 seconds on his clock in a questionalby drawn position, which is now established as conclusive by the way. I dare say players stronger than myself might have lost on time.

I think the discussions that are going on are quite irrelevant. Nobody was abusing the other player during the match. It was clearly a theoretically drawn position. There was no way my opponent could make any headway in the position. He was playing for the win, I was playing for the draw. Would you allow a K+R v K+R endgame to continue until someone lost on time? Logic dictates the answer is no.

And for your information the moves were recorded (but only for my moves) done so by the TD’s. There was absolutely no doubt that I had passed the 50 move mark. To boot, I have about 20 witnesses that can support that information.

Consider this… what if you had a forced mate in 10 and you had 1 second on your clock. Naturally someone would stop the clock, bring over the TD and you would make your case that you have a forced mate. We all know that you can’t make that number of moves with 1 second. So does it seem right that the player with with mate is denied and possibly loses on time. I know they used to allow a position like this be declared a win for the claimant, however, I am not sure what the USCF rules state today.

How about giving the little guy some credit instead of trying to protect the master’s precious rating points.

As for the time delay… well I haven’t broken the law. I suppose time delay is debatable, but that should not take away from the accomplishment. I have not gotten burned when the shoe is on the other foot, but I believe time delay is fair. It doesn’t allow a TD’s subjective opinion to change the course of action. Isn’t that what we tell scholastics - “There can be no outside interference during a game”?

I for one support time delay because I have had many an encounter with a master where all they did was “sit” on you just waiting for your time to run out. I don’t think that’s very sporting, and this is a game of high etiquette, don’t you think?

Isn’t the ultimate test taking the position over the board over time? What if you delivered checkmate and your flag falls a split second later and your opponent calls time on you. What takes precedent? After all, I did prove beyond a shadow of a doubt ( a lot longer than I had to, I actually played about 80 moves with 1 second on the clock) that the position was drawn or that I can force a relative perpetual.

14

That was my impression, too. Congratulations!

I guess I’m a little surprised at what seems to be your negative attitude here, since we all seem to agree with you already. (Well, Terry and I do anyway. Of course Doug Forsythe is a bit hard to figure out sometimes.)

This is not correct, I believe. I’m quite sure USCF rules never allowed a player to claim a win (and avoid a time forfeit) just because he had a forced mate in N.

Of course, that’s still another argument in favor of the delay.

Amen.

Here the rules are on your side. As long as the mating move is determined (player has let go of the mating piece) before the flag falls and is called, the mate takes precedence.

Anyway, congratulations, once again!

Bill Smythe

15

Hi Tim,

Welcome to the board, and congratulations on the draw! I just wanted to answer some of your questions here.

Currently, there is no rule that I’m aware of that allows a player to claim a “win” based on a forced mate in x number of moves. However, there might be the possibility of a 14H draw claim (Insufficient Losing Chances) in such a case. The TD would need to use rules 14H3 and maybe 14I1 while considering the claim. But here’s one catch: the player in this situation would have to tell the TD that he is in fact claiming a draw (not a win) based on Insufficient Losing Chances. If a player erroneously claimed a win because he has a forced mate in 10, for example, but has insufficient amount of time to make the moves, the TD would correctly deny the claim (because there is no such rule), and the player may flag before realizing that he has made an erroneous claim. It’s the “be careful what you claim” thing.

This is exactly why we have the delay clock: to keep the game between the two players involved in the game. Incidently, if a delay clock is being used, there is no 14H claim available.

Yes indeed!

The checkmate would be valid if the player delivering the mate had determined the move giving mate before the flag falls. If however, the flag falls before the player had determined the move, then the flag fall would be valid. Rules 13A1, 13A2, 9E

Again, congratulations on your play. And I’m glad to see you post here. Just one thing before I go! I’m not sure that anyone was demeaning your play. I placed the original post just to make a point to some who didn’t seem to understand the delay clock, etc. In no way did I mean to detract from your win.

Cheers

16

Time delay should be used from move one, it should never be added during the game: unless the director is unclear about the position, then place a time delay clock down: with taking half of the time from the player that made the 14H claim.

During the first move of a G/90 event, most players would use less then five seconds: then on the second move would still show 90 minutes left during the game. Have seen scholastic players with G/7 (t/d 3), make a move so fast with time delay that they blunder the move – as they wanted to make a move in less then 3 seconds. Even scholastic players would make a blunder with a 5 second delay: as they wish not to use the clock time.

Having a time delay clock for a scholastic event, in my personal emperical evidence would say the scholastic players would play much faster. As they want to beat the time delay clock, they have gotten into a mind set of turning a classical time control into a blitz game. During the 30th move it does not matter if the clock shows only 31 minutes or 31 minutes with a 5 second delay.

If faced with a scholastic player with a G/90 contest – would get a better game from the scholastic player; then a scholastic player with a G/90 (t/d 5) – would find more blunders from the other player, would have a better chance of a win. The reason for a win with a scholastic player is better with a G/90 (t/d 5) then a G/90 contest – as the scholastic player wants to beat the time delay clock, making more blunders only helps me win the game. Myself want to enjoy the game and the tournament, not win the game because the players is making blunders all over the place, because they want to beat the time delay clock.

How many times have a player notice the other player making a blunder during the opening or middle game. How many times during a time delay clock, the person making the blunder did so because they want to beat the time delay clock. Before the blunder and after the blunder, the person still has the same amount of time: because they made the blunder during the time delay. Having a scholastic tournament with time delay only makes the classical time controls into a blitz game. Time delay only defeats the meaning of a classical time control during a scholastic event.

17

Is there any way to write a TD modification of the rules which allows the addition of a delay clock, without the conditions of an Insufficient Losing Chances claim (2 minutes left, draw offer, halve the claimant’s time, watch for lack of progress or allow the game to unfold)? I suppose there is wisdom in not allowing the placement of a delay clock just because someone wants it. It is unfair to the player not in time trouble to simply give the troubled player relief from his own slow play. But suppose a successful TD gets 400 players to come to his tournament with time controls 40/2, 20/1, SD/30. Half the field brings Chronos clocks and sets delays from move 1 as instructed by the TD. Half the field brings BHBs with no delays. 190 boards finish well in time, but 10 boards have someone in time trouble in the last sudden death time control. Five have delay clocks and five have no delay. The TD is offered 5 delay clocks from spectators that have already finished their games. The five players in time trouble with no delay clock claim ILC and their opponents all immediately accept the draw. Rules are rules and there doesn’t seem to be any foul, but it seems slightly tragic that there is this heterogeneity of outcome because the resources in having delay clocks at every board to begin the round are limited.

18

You have found the partial answer to your question. I would have to ask why you would want to insert a different clock on a game where there seems to be no problem (no claim from one of the players). Perhaps you’re stricken with an “attack of the heart”, that is you’re feeling badly for the person who may be in time trouble. My answer to this problem, is that if a player has a problem with time management, he should avail himself of USCF’s player’s rights to own a time delay clock. Many TDs find themselves ruling with their heart, and not with their head. If this is your case, I would sugest that you should concentrate in making objective (not subjective) decisions. Perhaps, on the other hand, you’re simply not comfortable with ILC rulings. If this is the case, then simply follow the rules, and if you’re unable to make a fair and “objective” ruling, then you should insert a delay clock. I would turn down the spectators generous offer.

Here’s the deal: Unless you’re capable of, and willing to furnish everyone a delay capable clock, it is the player’s rights/responsibilities to have on hand standard equipment, which they can use as the TD directs. The TD should generally not be concerned with equipment choices absent a player complaint.

I would just re-emphasize that TDs must make “objective”, within the framework of the rules, decisions. Don’t get trapped in ruling from the heart, because then you’re making subjective decisions which can in no way guarantee consistency.

Cheers!

19

Having a tournament with a long time controls, only have very few players that would use that much time. When at the “2004 Michigan Amatuer Championship”, only a few boards were still going during the last hour. Do not recall or know anyone during the tournament ever being in time trouble. Number of games were finnished within the first hour of play, the majority of the players were finnished even before there first time control was over. During the tournament, only had one player that used any time from sudden death.

Feel the reason that players like long time controls, it is not the issue of having a long game just to make it a long game, it is the down time between rounds to talk with the other players between rounds. During the tournament, there was one player on the lower boards that liked the long time controls. Even during the last and final round, it was not board one that used all their time on the clock, it was the boards in the middle of the field that used the greater amount of time.

There are very few players that want to play a game to the last second of a three hour game or more. Do know that Terry and Bill love the time delay clocks. Feeling if Terry and Bill are paired up against each other in a 40/120, 10/60, 10/60, SD/60 and they are on the 59th move they have been at the board for almost 8 hours and both in time trouble. As they know they have time trouble problems, then they should know they need a time delay clock. For the players that get into time trouble with two different controls, they are not that active as the tournaments designed for them are once or twice a year.

For any director that has a tournament, if only a few boards are still in play with a G/90 SD/30 with 95% of the games finnished during the start of the last hour of the round – the director should lower the time controls in the next tournament. Time delay is nice, time delay is cute, but the majority of the players will never get into any game with 5 minutes still left during the game, when the round started more then 4 hours ago.

20

It’s nice to hear examples of clear thinking. Lucky for the chess public I’m only a club TD right now :slight_smile: . I overheard the NTD and the Senior talking about buying 10 Chronos clocks for the sudden death. Are you saying, Terry, that they shouldn’t bother with the expense since it’s the player’s duty?

On a slightly different topic, has anyone used the Saitek for the delay? I read Michael Atkins’ page on clocks for the Saitek at members.cox.net/arlingtonchesscl … saitek.htm. It seems to use the Bronstein method which counts down the time first, then adds it back when the time used is less than 5. If you have 1-3 seconds left of main time, won’t the Bronstein method cause you to flag before you get the add-after delay? I would venture to say the Chronos is better because the delay time is used first.