A recent trend in chess time controls seems to be the exclusion of the common 5-seconds-per-turn delay from the all but the final time control segment.
I see no logic behind this exclusion. Yes the final segment has a form of deadline, but so does the first segment.
** Can anyone explain the logic?
Thank you.
The logic is that it is only the final second that has an unknown number of moves to be played in it, and thus that is the only one that needs delay to handle that. Personally I find it simpler for more players to understand if the delay starts with move one.
It is also easier to set the increment/delay from move 1 on most clocks.
I think that trend is regional. In many areas of the country, people think it makes more sense to go with the delay from move 1.
I’m sorry to hear that delay (or increment) is sometimes applied only to the final control, and I pray that it’s not done that way often enough to be regarded as a “trend”.
There are all kinds of problems with having delay or increment applied only to the final control.
For one thing, it gives the time control a much different “look and feel” in the preliminary control(s) vs the final control. In the final control, one can at least expect to have at least 5 seconds in which to make one’s move. In the preliminary control(s), there may be only a split second remaining.
For another thing, player behavior can deteriorate badly during the last few seconds of a preliminary control – players knocking over pieces without replacing them, players using two hands, players pressing the clock after the capturing piece has moved but before the captured piece has been removed, etc etc etc.
For a third thing, how is the clock supposed to function? For example, if the game is 40/90 d/0, SD/30 d/5, should the clock turn on the delay after move 40, or should it do so only after the base 90 minutes has expired? And in the latter case, should it add the delay for each player only after that player has reached 90 minutes, or should it do so for both when one player reaches 90? You might end up adding the delay for one player at move 42, but for the other not until move 57.
For a fourth thing, can all clocks be set for such a thing? And if so, which of the three variations (in the above paragraph) will any given clock, in any given mode, use?
For a fifth thing, the vast majority of tournaments are played with the delay or increment in effect from move one. A player accustomed to this convention could be in for an unpleasant surprise when he plays in an event that strays from this standard. Hard feelings, and unnecessary and acrimonious disputes, become likely.
All of this was discussed by the 5th edition rulebook revision committee in about 2002. I made all of the above points at that time. As I recall, Bill Goichberg responded with “I agree with all of this, and” also came up with a sixth point: Extreme time pressure in a preliminary control can cause serious disruptions for other players whose games are still in progress nearby.
Please, if anybody is doing this, please cease and desist immediately. Delay or increment in effect from move 1 is the only sensible way to go.
Bill Smythe
Excellent point.
We must remember that chess clocks cannot count moves accurately. Thus the delay (or increment) would begin only when the player’s individual 90 minutes time allottment had been exhausted. Thus the delay would be applied unevenly==unfairly, if applied only to segments after the first time control.
The 2012/September news report at the following link seems to be about this point:
http://www.chess-news.ru/en/node/9441
Agreed. Yet…
Here is a copy&paste about a 2013/April tournament’s time control. This pertains to a FIDE Grand Prix event in Zug, Switzerland (bold added by me).
Note the Increment is applied only after the first 60 move-pairs have been completed:
(I inspected the {time} data inside the post-tournament .PGN file, and it seems 99.9% certain that the 30 second increment did Not begin at move-pair 1.)
.
Actually, that article seems to be dealing with a different (though related) issue, namely, the existence of a second time control at all.
Some players were claiming discomfort when the clock did not add time after move 40, but did so only after the initial 90 minutes were up.
There are two ways you can do this: Add time after move 40, or add time after 90 minutes.
The Chronos lets you do it either way. If you use a move-counter mode, it adds time after move 40. If you use a mode without the move counter, it adds time after 90 minutes. Either way presents problems, at least for those who experience a lot of problems with inaccurate move counts.
That brings me to my other soapbox: Why should there even be a secondary control at all? As long as there is a 30-second increment, the secondary control shouldn’t be necessary. Just make the initial control a little longer, and start the increment at move 1.
I’m firmly convinced that, if increment-capable clocks had been around from the beginning, secondary controls never would have been invented. The secondary control was merely a poor man’s way of approximating increment.
Those who do not like move counters, in my opinion, should feel the obligation to be consistent, by also opposing secondary controls. A secondary control forces us onto the horns of a dilemma: Either rely on the move counter to add time, or add time in the “uncomfortable” way of waiting until the initial time has expired.
I agree with your interpretation. This seems to be more of a FIDE problem than a USCF problem. Sometimes, FIDE does it better. In this case, USCF does it better.
Bill Smythe
While the nomenclature recently changed (from 5Fb. to 5Fa.), the rules state:
b.a. A game with a mixed time control, e.g. 50 moves in two hours followed by sudden death in 30 minutes (50/2, SD/30), is to use a time-delay clock set with 5-second delay from the beginning of the game, if available. …
TD TIP: In a mixed time control game, as well as in a single Sudden Death time control, the delay clock, if available, should be set with the Delay or Bronstein mode in force from move one. Some directors announce that delay clocks should be set with the time Delay or Bronstein mode turned on only for the sudden death time control. Directors using this announced variation should expect a great deal of confusion due to the challenges involved in properly setting an assortment of different clocks from a variety of manufacturers, all with diverse time control setting capabilities.
AND
5F1. Standard timer for increment.
An increment clock (a clock with added time capabilities) is the standard timer.
a. The increment clock is set to add time for each move, called an increment. The standard increment is 30 seconds per move. For quick chess the standard increment is 10 seconds per move. A game with an increment time control should be set with the increment in effect from move one, even if the time control is mixed. (e.g. 40/90, SD/30, Inc/30) …
The logic has been explained in later posts in this thread. My question: Where do you see these tournaments? I am as inactive as I have ever been on the rated chess scene, so maybe I missed the trend—but I have yet to see such a policy in effect in tournaments I played in, in eastern PA and NJ.
Next time you come across an event that uses this policy, maybe ask the organizer/TD to explain? IMO, it makes sense for top-tier GM events, such as the Grand Prix in progress in Greece right now. For standard USCF Swisses, it be fraught with potential perils, as expertly outlined by Bill Smythe. (not for the first time)
You are right. The Grand Prix uses increment only from move 61. So did the Candidates Tournament and the last few world championship matches. Is this what you mean by “a trend”? I thought you meant USCF-rated events for mere mortals.
Interesting to see how players react to increment only in the final control as opposed to from move 1. Would Carlsen have lost the last round of the Candidates—and very nearly lost on time—had increment been in effect from move 1? Would Ivanchuk have lost 4-5 games on time in that tournament? (saving his best play for his games with Carlsen, against whom he previously had a very bad record)
Anyway, from what I have read, many of the top players like the increment at move 61 policy. It caused a ruckus when Corus (Wijk ann Zee) moved to increment from move 1, to allow norms in the C section.
Fine for them—but much easier for USCF standard events to be run with delay/increment from move 1.
To see how lack of a 30-second increment can impact games between top-tier GMs in the sixth hour in a wild position, see Topalov-Caruana, from the GP, about to wrap up right now.
I’ll be brave and give this a try. The logic behind this hybrid is to simulate the no delay, clock bashing “good old days” where one could lose an easily won position because he did not make the time control. I am still amazed that GM Ivanchuk could lose on time even with delay. The delay kicks in later to avoid the prospect of opponents playing out the most sterile positions just because they enjoy gazing into their opponent’s eyes as they hope they will glaze over with boredom and they will win the endurance battle.
I agree with this sentiment. But, really, have not reviewed MSA reports to check time controls. I would guess because of his constant access to them, and the ability, perhaps,
to examine the data base, Mike Nolan would be able to figure out whether this is a trend,
regional or national.
Rob Jones
I agree with this sentiment. But, really, have not reviewed MSA reports to check time controls. I would guess because of his constant access to them, and the ability, perhaps,
to examine the data base, Mike Nolan would be able to figure out whether this is a trend,
regional or national.
Rob Jones
We currently do not accept time controls that do not have increment/delay in effect in the first time control period, so there is no data to analyze.
There is an office interpretation that for the purposes of deciding what rating system(s) apply to an event, we will treat the event as if the increment/delay is in effect from move 1 and is constant throughout the game. (I believe every example cited of an event using a time control that did not have increment/delay until it got to a sudden death time control would have been regular-rated only.)
Accommodating time controls with increment/delay that does not apply to the initial time control period or that changes from one time control period to another is a low priority task, at best. I will be interested to see if the issue even comes up at any of the workshops in Madison.
If time controls that do not have increment/delay in effect in the first time period are not accepted, why then is there not a rule made to ban the use of analog clocks from tournament play altogether? Aren’t rules about consistency and fairness? I love my analog clock and the nice ticking noise it makes, banning my clock will force me to learn how to set my clock for the magical “Fischer inspired” current time controls.
This has been covered in some detail. The short version: it is better to have an analog clock than no clock at all.
Until fairly recently, probably the last 2 years, events where the increment/delay wasn’t in effect from move 1 were fairly rare, even in FIDE events, and older delay/increment-capable clocks may not have the ability to support such time controls, either.