In the last few days have been thinking about time delay. It looks like having time delay can stop any draw claim from my opponent. Wanting time delay, is a good idea as it stops the director drawing my game. Do understand why directors love time delay, as they can sleep or drink coffee during the round.
My questions are.
Why would the organizer want time delay?
Why would the director want time delay?
Why would the player want time delay?
The reason I like time delay, as I can tell the director to leave me alone with a draw game. Its a good idea to never resign and play till checkmate. Its a good idea to never accept a draw.
Time delays were not created by TDs, they were initially suggested by professional players. I think Bobby Fischer was the first GM to suggest them, Bronstein also suggested a time delay mode.
As to the rest of your comments, I find them insulting and not worth answering.
If you cannot post more respectfully, your posting privileges will be terminated.
Your post reads so much like Doug Forsythe, that I am forced to wonder whether Doug is using an alias.
The answer to all three questions is the same – to keep the game as much as possible a contest between the players, and to reduce the number of arbitrary decisions TDs have to make.
Suppose two players have the following position:
White: Bd5, Pe4, K almost anywhere.
Black: Bd4, Pe5, K almost anywhere.
This position is so drawn that any 500 player could draw it against the world champion.
If one player has just a few seconds remaining, his opponent might be inclined to play on, trying to win on time. Delay makes this impossible. Either the opponent will concede the draw after just a few moves, or the player will eventually be able to make 50 moves and claim the draw that way.
Delay does not eliminate all draw claims. It just eliminates 14H claims. There are other ways under rule 14 that the draw can be claimed.
The organizer, when it does come to time controls they are looking at the standard market. If the organizer is going to have a large prize fund, the time controls will be longer. If the prize fund is small, the time controls are going to be small. If the organizer are looking at time control of G/60 or faster – time delay is not a large factor. If you are talking of time controls of G/90 or slower. Then the organizer would be looking into time delay.
There are a number of directors that love time delay. I’m not going to make a player have time delay if the player has a time delay clock. There are a few that want time delay on all the time. Have used time delay in the past. Have started to look at time delay in a negitive way.
Even with natural and time delay time controls, never had any game with classical time controls get down to less then 2 minutes on my clock. Since I have never been down to less then 2 minutes on my clock, I could never make a 14H claim in the first place.
The other problem I see with time delay are the scholastic players. There have been times seeing scholastic players play fast because of the time delay. They get into a race with the clock to move faster then 5 seconds. Scholastic players will not get better if they are in a state of mind to play as fast as they can. Time delay should not be used with scholastic players, as they will play much faster.
The major problem with time delay I have is rule 14H1.
In a sudden death time control, a player on the move with two minutes or less of remaining time may stop the clock and ask the director to declare the game a draw on the grounds that the player has insufficient losing chances.
What is insufficient losing chances? Is insufficient losing chances K+R vs K+R, or K+B vs K, or what position on the board is insufficient losing chances? There is no clear answer what position is a insufficient losing position. The problem is the word insufficient in the first place.
Insufficient: Not enough to meet a demand or requirement.
If my demand and requirement is finding a human, the ape would be insufficient as a human, so would Lake Michigan be insufficient as a human. Anything would be insufficient if the demand and requirement is a human.
When we have the word insufficient in 14H, any position that cannot cause checkmate would be insufficient. As the position does not meet the demand or requirement to cause checkmate. That would mean anyone having any position on the board, that cannot cause checkmate as insufficient losing chances.
Its’ very much the time control, as I see more players with time delay clocks with slower time control. If the tournament has long time controls, with a huge prize would use time delay. If the tournament has faster time controls, in a single day event do not see the time delay clocks. With my tournaments, do not see the time delay clocks. Analog clocks run the place not time delay. Having time delay or not would be the social norms in your area.
The problem I see when I find someone wants time delay. They play much slower and get into time trouble. Have started to play much different when I play with someone that likes time delay. Have found keeping the game longer in the middle game is a huge plus. The more active pieces I have against a player with time delay, makes the player start to think longer and burn up his clock. When I see someone wanting time delay, it tells me they have a pattern to get into time trouble. Do not trade down just to trade, as I want the pieces active in the hope of time trouble. As more active pieces in time trouble makes the risk of blunders a higher risk.
If you do not get into time trouble, why have time delay? If your time managment skills are great, you would not need the extra time from time delay.
Geez, Mike. I didn’t feel his comments warranted an answer either but I have a hard time seeing anything insulting or disrespectful in them. It struck me as nothing more than opinion. Eliminate that, and you’ll need to terminate the posting privilege of everybody on every board on the internet.
I haven’t done that (yet). I took his comment as being a bit satirical but satire’s a dangerous thing on the web. It’s intended and nobody picks it up or you’re trying to be serious and nobody picks that up either. Oh well…
Dude Local Forsythe. Thanks for the help. Can you keep it down to under 40 words. It was so hard understanding what you are talking about. Ahhhh sleeping is ok with me.
In my opinion, Time delay is good for people who like to think things out during the middle of the game, then if they get a winnable position at the end, they don’t have to blow it by moving too fast. I think it increases the quality of the advanced middle, and endgame. Personally, I usually take less time than my opponent, so I like to use no delay so he/she might feel under more pressure.
I do agree that some of the comments might have been insulting to some, but I can also see how they might have been written with no harm intended
Time delay is designed for the players that like slower time controls. Do not see many players have a time delay clock at G/30 events. If the director has the time delay clock set at G/25 (t/d 5), the director removed 1/6 th of the time off the clock. If at G/10, the director can set the clock at G/7 (t/d 3), that would be 30 percent removed from the clock. Do not see the reason someone wants to play with time delay just to have large amounts of time removed.
Players that want time delay, are going to be the players that like slow games. Do know the players that like G/90 or slower, and know the players that like faster time controls. The players that like to play fast, they hate time delay. As the players that do play fast, know how to get the position set up so they can win on time. Time delay is nice, myself would only use time delay if the time controls are G/90 or slower.
Delay is most important when the time control is faster. Tim Just has just posted that there were NO insufficient losing chances claims at the Global tournament with 1500 players, and I’m sure not all games were played with delay clocks. Same thing happened at the last National Open I attended.
At a game/60 event, even a small one, an ILC claim is far more likely (as is the importance of delay), as players are more likely to be short of time. I still see ILC claims from time to time at Tom Fineberg’s quick-rated events at Tuley Park.
Can’t we, please, get rid of the atrocious phrase “time delay”? What other kind of delay is there? Height delay? Weight delay? “Delay” alone is sufficient, and “time delay” is redundant, in a way that grates on the nerves.
If the time control is G/30, and the director has time delay set at G/25 (t/d 5). The player will give up 5 minutes on the clock. The players wound need to make 60 moves before they would gain back the time on the natural time or analog clock. Never had many games that go past 60 moves. If it did my opponent was the type of player not going to resign or it was a draw game. There have been very few games that I have resigned past move 60. The most moves I ever recored in any game, was 77 moves back in 1985.
If you are going to give up 5 minutes on classical time controls, 3 minutes with quick and 2 minutes with blitz. It would make the players get into time trouble more not less. If you are in time trouble before your 60th move, then time delay would be more annoying then a help. As you would have to play at blitz speed that can end in a blunder.
How I work to win in a quick game. Is play for a draw, hope my opponent makes a blunder during the game. If my opponent wants a time delay clock. Spend more time to lock up the board with a draw game. If my opponent clock gets down to under G/0:30 (t/d 3) and myself with more then G/1 (t/d 3). Would just play the position out for a draw. My opponent is not willing to play for a draw, would risk a blunder or a technical exchange to get counter play. Technical exchanges need more time then 3 seconds to find best play. The best way to win with quick with time delay. Play for a draw with a lot of pieces on the board. Then hope your opponent makes some blunder with counter play.
Time delay is great with games at G/60 or slower. If there is time delay with quick games, play for a draw and hope your opponent does not have the time to think about the counter play. If the position is draw, there is great risk to force a win with some type of counter play. Understanding the position to change a technical draw into a do or die lost game. It will take longer to understand then the time delay clock.
This is one nasty thread! An insulting & disrespectful initial post, replies that exceed 40 words, and repeating redundant phrases repeatedly. Probably some grammatical errors as well…
The default is not to subtract the delay, so each player would get 30 minutes and for this with delay clocks an additional 5 seconds for move. I think that you will find that delay is very popular with the players if you use the default. Subtracting time should only be done when there is a very tight schedule.
Did set it one time with G/60 and G/60 (t/d 5). Now if you want the last round to start at 5:30 pm then 5:00 pm, that is your choice. Most people that drive want to go home some time that day. Only know of one player in my area that likes time delay. If you do have an analog clock, you start to wounder why the rounds start so late.
Im thinking of a area that sets the time delay at default. I know the Lansing Chess Club sets the clocks at G/90 or G/85 (t/d 5). The Kalamazoo Area Chess Club, they have it both ways. The Michigan Chess Association has and will subtract from the time delay clock. As the 2005 Michigan Open will subtract five minutes from the first time control.
It could be the reason why subtracting is more common in my area. As the players are few and drive a long distance. Even in the past fews years, have started to see players not have time delay. The reason players have told me they do not like time delay, as they have a long drive and want to go home. That was the reason I cut the lunch from 60 minutes to 30 minutes. Then cut the time delay clock from G/60 (t/d 5) to G/55 (t/d 5), so I can cut an extra 30 minutes between the rounds.
Found it a little strange in my area, analog clocks are the majority by around 80% of the boards. The last six state wide events in Grand Rapids, only know of one player demanding a time delay clock on the board. If the players do not want time delay, why have the last round start so late. Did have the time controls at G/60 or G/60 (t/d 5), it was the market forces that force me into G/60 or G/55 (t/d 5).
The players do not care about the 14H rule, or any rule for the time delay clock. They understand the rule about time delay clocks. The majority just do not care about it. They just want to play the 4 rounds and drive home. It was very shocking seeing how the players on the west side of Michigan do not like time delay.
The only reason I can understand why time delay is not common. The last time any director had tournaments in my area every month: that was in 1997. Having no organized tournaments every month from 1998 - 2004, could be the reason. The players in my area wanting time delay is very weak.
Perhaps a waste of time, but I’m going to attempt to answer the original question.
What do you suggest as an alternative to time delay? Given sudden-death time controls, there are really only three options:
A player whose flag falls loses, no matter what the position. This is simple and logical, but most players will not accept it.
A player may ask the TD to adjudicate the position under certain circumstances. This is what the “insufficent losing chances” business really boils down to after you subtract the verbiage. If you want a weak player adjudicating your games, by all means play in such tournaments. Most of us find the idea distasteful.
Do something else. The only “else” invented so far is the time-delay clock. I don’t especially like the idea (chess should not be dependent on technological gimcrackery) but given the choices already made I don’t see a better alternative. (Are you willing to go back to 40/2, 20/1 with adjournments?)
Before someone starts arguing about this, I am aware that the time-delay concept was proposed by Bronstein and Fischer quite independently of the USCF craze for sudden death. Until then, however, it was merely a novelty, a solution with no known problem.
The insufficient losing chance claim, when has anyone been at any tournament and seen someone make the insufficient losing chance claim? How liberial do we become with the word insufficent. Can say I have insufficent chance to become President of the United States; my truck has insufficent chance to become President of the United States also. There is a difference between myself and my truck.
If the position has the white pawns on a4, b5, c4, d5, e4, f5, g4, h5 king on e1; then the black pawns on a5, b6, c5, d6, e5, f6, g5, h6 king on e8. If your opponent wants to play it out with a time delay clock. White and Black can only move the king 50 times before asking a draw. If White was under 2 minutes on the clock, then you are asking White to play out the last 50 moves as a boring blitz game.
Bronstein and Fisher would never dream to play any rated game under G/90. When Bronstein and Fischer proposed time-delay, they would never play any rated game if the hotel room and tournament hall was not in the same building.
If the time controls are G/60 with 4 rounds, with an analog clock it will be a G/60. If the time controls are G/60 (t/d 5), if both players make 60 moves it would be equal to a G/65. If the time controls are G/60 (t/d 5), if both players make 120 moves it would be equal to a G/70. When I did have G/60 (t/d 5), did set the rounds between each other with 2 1/2 hours. That did make a much longer day for the people with analog clocks.
If you go to any tournament with the policy the next round starts when all the games are done. If you have an analog clock and did play out the G/60. The next board has the time delay clock set at G/60 (t/d 5), if they did play 120 moves before someone ran out of time, then the other player has 15 seconds on the clock. That game was equal to a G/70, meaning you will leave to go home with that analog clock 20 minutes then you made plans for.
That was a nice game going 120 moves with a G/60 (t/d 5). Since you got to drive home and home is an hour drive. Bronstein and Fischer never had the problem to drive home. They just went upstairs to their hotel room.