The Tim Just Winter Open and the Illinois Open all had clocks provided by ChessIQ (Sevan)–Thanks Sevan! The National events held here in the Chicgoland area also have clocks provided by the organizer(s)–typically Sevan is one of the organizers, but not always.
They provide clocks at many of the tournaments in Maryland. Not just in the top section, but in other sections as well to ensure that all of the games use increment time. See the advertisements for the Chesapeake Open in January.
In Canadian tournaments they provide sets, boards, and clocks. The US Open only provides sets and boards. CCA provides a table space and score sheets. I have been at a number of tournaments that provide sets and boards. Our club provides sets, boards, and has digital clocks available so that all of the games are played with a delay setting. Were we to have a tournament with increment time control, we would acquire more clocks to cover it. While the use of increment is spreading, most of the country still uses delay. Then there are the pockets that don’t use delay and have a prevalence of and preference for analog clocks.
I find it interesting that CCA does not provide clocks; yet, they are the 700 pound gorilla of chess organizers. They seem to have a handle on what players really want–witness the numbers that beat down a path to cca events. Numbers speak.
Yes, it definitely creates a professional atmosphere when not only clocks, but also uniform-style boards and pieces, are present and set up at every board.
OTOH, I have no problem playing in the more home-spun events, either. Looking across the room and seeing many different clock brands, and different board colors, reminds us chess players of our roots in the lower middle class.
I think that’s true of today’s specimens, but some older models (such as the original Excaliburs) may also lack increment.
A DGT that supports delay but not increment?? Unlikely. The DGT’s (and FIDE’s) middle name is increment, and its third initial is “who cares about delay?”.
Yes, I suspect that very few players would stay away from a tournament based on clocks and/or sets not being provided. In the larger events, I prefer to bring a set and board anyway, for use in the skittles room.
Bill Smythe
I believe the DGT 960 does not support multiple time controls.
Alex Relyea
A significant difference is that there is exactly one person in the United States who can register players with FIDE. (In practice, I would hope there are other staff members in the US Chess office who could also access the FIDE ratings server to do so – single points of failure are very bad.) I believe the registration process is also more burdensome than is the process for allocating US Chess IDs.
One also ought to remember that the US Open stopped being FIDE rated in the year that there was uncertainty about FIDE’s proposal to license players and to require that all players had to have a FIDE ID before the tournament started or else face stiff penalties (50 Euros per player, if I recall correctly).
Yes, but that didn’t happen so that isn’t a good reason not to FIDE rate it now.
No, but what did happen is that FIDE required all TDs to be licensed arbiters. That could make the cost prohibitive, and I’d imagine a significant number of players would see minimal or no benefit.
Alex Relyea
It would also require using FIDE rules so that K+R could lose on time to K+N.
It seems to me that any delegate can make a motion to FIDE rate the US Open. Then it gets voted on.
More accurately, then it gets voted down. Even if the cost isn’t prohibitive, the multiple schedules are. And Micah will not be able to lob that out as a reason some people argue against USCF rating an event (total red herring).
A FIDE rated event can have multiple schedules. It’s true that you can’t get FIDE norms anymore if there are multiple schedules but players rarely got norms anyway from the US Open when you could in the past.
Are you suggesting that we should FIDE rate the US Open? Your position on that is as clear as mud.
Yes but the main reason for my posts was to point out that several of the reasons given here on why we shouldn’t FIDE rate it can also be made for not USCF rating events either.
Why? To put it more clearly, what is the benefit?
Alex Relyea
(I’d agree if you said Denker, Barber, and whatever the new name is for NGIT).
Some of the alternate schedules are not allowable under FIDE rules, Micah. Too many rounds/hours a day, too fast a time control, maybe even the fact that not all players play the same time control. Our FIDE experts can be more specific.
We run FIDE rated multiple schedule sections all time. Games on schedules that have a time control that is too fast are just not FIDE rated. A FIDE norm tournament cannot have multiple schedules though.
Mike Regan
The games for the shorter schedules are played at a time control that is unacceptable for FIDE (standard) rating, and it is not allowed to rate some games rapid and others standard. There is also considerable effort for the office to prepare a FIDE rating report that separates out those games.
Bottom line: It Just Isn’t Worth The Effort.
I believe the youth invitational events are going to be FIDE rated this year. I’m not certain, but I think so.
If the US Open is FIDE rated, it would be conducted under the FIDE Laws of Chess, as opposed to the US Chess Federation Official Rules. This would also mean that every TD would have to be at least a FIDE National Arbiter - which, in turn, would mean that every TD would have to be at least a US Chess Senior TD.
In addition, the US Open will almost certainly be run with WinTD (as are most other US Chess national events). WinTD does not, AFAIK, currently have the same functionality as SwissSys 9 that would ease Mrs. Vibbert’s burden in creating a Krause report.
Then, there is the question of ensuring that every US Open participant is registered with FIDE, to avoid unregistered player fees.
Were the decision mine to make, I would not submit the US Open for FIDE rating, due to the above complications.