No, I wouldn’t say that exactly. Yes, it’s the player’s duty to provide their own equipment, but that doesn’t necessarily preclude an organizer from providing equipment. It is a very nice touch for the organizer to provide sets and boards - they should all have the algebraic notation along the borders of the boards. If an organizer so desires and can afford to supply equipment, then he/she should do so. One thing to think about, however, when it comes to clocks: with the many different brands on the market, and the expense that players go through to purchase these clocks, the organizer/TD may find himself in a claim from some players who wish to use their own clocks instead of the ones provided (so long as they are standard). Afterall, the players having paid for their clocks, are probably familiar with their own clocks much more than what may be provided by the organizer, that I would be hard pressed to deny a player’s right to use his/her own clock. If I were to set down at a board with a clock provided by the organizer that I wasn’t familiar with, I would probably request to use my own, within the guidelines of the rules, that is, black having preference with regard to standard equipment. Of course, if the TD directed that I must use his equipment, then I guess I would go along with it! In all the tournaments I have played in and directed, the only equipment provided by the organizers were sets and boards. I don’t think that even CCA provides clocks. They can get very expensive! But again, if an organizer wants to pay the expense, more power to them. Just be aware of complications when it comes to clocks-what’s good for one isn’t necessarily good for the whole world!
As to the Saitek and other clocks on the market, I will have to defer to other posters more familiar with their operation. I prefer and own the Chronos, but the Excalibur is also a straight delay clock.
I don’t see how this lengthy post addresses renochess’ question at all! Your tangent on how his situation is most unlikely offers no help. He is speaking “theoretically”, or “what if”.
I can’t speak for Bill, but, YES, I do like the delay clocks, not because I have poor time management, but because it keeps the game between two people: the players in the game - no possible subjective erroneous rulings from the TD.
That’s not quite the way Bronstein works. If you have 3 seconds left, when your opponent starts your clock it immediately jumps to 8 seconds. (As opposed to time-delay, which doesn’t start your clock for five seconds.) It seems to me Bill Smythe and I went through this on a different thread last June. Delay and Bronstein are essentially equivalent except when a player has under 5 seconds remaining. At that point there is a small difference in the way the player has to handle his time, and you should explain it to the players if you put one of them in.
As a point of mild interest, the Saitek uses Bronstein because their “chess consultant” designed it to match FIDE rules. For some reason, when digital clocks came in, FIDE settled on Fischer/Bronstein as a standard, while USCF chose time-delay.
This would, at the very least, be considered a major variation, one which would require advance notice in all pre-tournament publicity, including the Chess Life TLA if there is one.
In fact, a variation like this is SO major, that it comes dangerously close (maybe even crosses the line) to not being permitted at all.
There is also wisdom in not rocking the boat, keeping your nose out of other people’s business, not intervening when no intervention is requested, or whatever else you want to call it.
Players can create their own homogeneity by simply owning and furnishing delay-capable clocks. Those who refuse to do so are putting themselves at the mercy of all kinds of things (varying TD attitudes, varying opponent attitudes, etc). Putting pressure on players to own up-to-date equipment is a Good Thing. If this pressure takes the form of uncertain outcomes or inconsistent rulings, so be it.
I must confess I own both the Chronos and the Saitek, but was too lazy to research this on my own, preferring to let the Saitek proponents tell me how good the clock is. I bought the Saitek before I knew how great the Chronos was, but I hardly used the Saitek after two tournament games: one in which we had trouble getting the move to register (buttons too bouncy?) and one in which my opponent specifically requested we didn’t use the Saitek. I will go home and research what John said about Bronstein on my Saitek. If it jumps from 3 to 8 seconds (assuming 5 second Bronstein), do you not accumulate time if you move quickly? After 20 forced moves, and 1 second reflexes, couldn’t you go from 3 seconds to 83 seconds?
For a discussion of why Bronstein and delay are mathematically equivalent, see the (by now ancient) conversation “Pave the Way for Increment” in the Tournament Organization forum. Start with John Hillery’s (rfeditor’s) July 10 post, and read SOME of the next ten or so (you can leave out the ones by Doug Forsythe).
While you’re at it, you might want to start at the top of the conversation, for some lively discussion of cumulative addback (increment) vs non-cumulative addback (delay or Bronstein).
I’d say bring one Chronos, not ten, to each tournament you direct. It can be your personal clock, the one you use when you play in a tournament.
In the National Open a few years ago, one of the chief TDs told me there were NO insufficient losing chances claims in the entire tournament – 6 rounds, almost 1000 players. This is getting to be typical, as in most tournaments nowadays 60 to 90 percent of games are played with delay clocks.
Years ago, they did, but encountered too much theft. After one tournament, the TDs decided it was time to pack up the sets in the skittles room, only to find that somebody had already done it for them.
In Bronstein, after you move, you are given back 5 seconds or time actually used on the last move, whichever is less. If you use only 1 second, you are given back only 1 second. You will never have more time at the end of move N+1 than you did at the end of move N.
In increment mode, by contrast, you CAN store up time, going from 3 seconds to 83 seconds (in your example) by using only 1 second on each of 20 moves.
Delay (or non-cumulative addback) is standard in USA tournaments. Elsewhere in the world, increment is common.
That’s Fischer mode, not Bronstein. The latter will not accumulate – if you start with three seconds, get five added, then move in two seconds, your time at the start of your next move will be eight seconds, not eleven. Fischer mode does accumulate. It is used in many international tournaments, including the U.S. Championship. If you watch those games on line, you will often see a player increasing his time by moving quickly in a simple position.
Was not talking about what ‘renochess’ was making as a statement. If someone makes a statement about the weather, would your leap of faith be on the weather on Earth or Mars – as a statment of sunny and warm did not state time or place. If two people are talking about the weather, both can be true. As the weather could be about two different fixed points – with the points being of different time and space. Now can see why you do need a great deal of time too make a move during your game – as you look for every idea that could happen.
Actually, Terry, you ARE speaking very well for me in the above. I certainly do like delay clocks, for precisely the reasons you mention, and for other reasons as well.
I think I have relatively good time management skills (much better than my piece management skills at times). I have lost several games with the delay that I would have won without it, because my opponent had the 5 seconds and badly needed it. But I still feel justice was done in these cases.
Well, thanks for the info on delay. I only joined late August, so I missed the previous discussion on the science of delay. I thought I’d summarize what I’ve learned about time controls and give myself more opportunities to be corrected .
Delay (a.k.a. Andante) - On your move, the delay time is first used up (usually five seconds) and then your main time starts ticking down.
Bronstein (a.k.a. Adagio) - On your move, your main time starts ticking down (also usually five seconds), but when you hit your clock, either the time you used gets added back (e.g. 3 seconds) or five seconds, whichever is less. You cannot gain more time than you started a given move with.
Increment (a.k.a. Fischer) - On your move, your main time starts ticking down, but when you hit your clock, it is incremented by a fixed amount. If you move in less than the increment time, you can actually gain time on the clock.
Delay and Bronstein are mathematically equivalent as demonstrated by Bill Smythe’s elegant proof. It’s like digging a hole and filling it in(Bronstein) versus making a mount of dirt (Delay) and then removing the dirt again. Psychologically having a mound of time may be better than being in the hole.
The Saitek only has Bronstein. The Chronos has Delay/Andante as well as Bronstein/Adagio.
Increment time controls are set by using a two-stage progressive time control: 1. the main starting time (30 minutes or 2 minutes) with the moves to make time control set at 1 move. and 2. the increment time (30 seconds or 12 seconds) with the moves to make time control also set at 1.
Looks as though you’ve got it pretty well nailed, Ernest – and your summary should be a big help to many readers of this forum.
And I have never observed anyone using Bronstein/Adagio mode on the Chronos in a tournament. Evidently everyone prefers Delay/Andante.
That’s a great analogy – and probably explains why most players prefer straight delay over Bronstein.
I could add that, on the side of the clock which is not running, a display of N seconds on a delay clock is equivalent to a display of N+5 seconds on a Bronstein clock.
I assume the numbers you are quoting are the defaults on various Chronos modes, and of course the defaults can be overridden.
I guess there are a lot of ways to simulate increment on the different Chronos models. On my older version with a switch on the bottom, CH-P3 works perfectly if there is only one main control, such as game/90 with a 30-second increment.
at times). I have lost several games with the delay that I would have won without it, because my opponent had the 5 seconds and badly needed it. But I still feel justice was done in these cases.
.