On Mar 25, 9:34 pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
wrote:

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

I am not saying this is a good idea as it stands,
but rather I am throwing it out there as a thought
experiment to see if someone comes up with a better
variation.

For comparison, let's start with a 40/120, D/60 time
control with a USCF-Style delay of 5 seconds.

Replace the USCF-style the delay with a Fischer increment
(meaning 5 seconds are added to your clock when you hit
the button rather than the clock waiting 5 seconds
before starting to count down -- the difference being
that with a Fischer delay you can gain time by moving
quickly).

Now replace the 40/120, D/60 with SD/10 or SD/20, but
with the Fischer delay set to 3 minutes.

This, of course, wouldn't make matches end by the next
round, but when playing a club game or a game at work,
it would avoid the rather artificial "race until the
time control changes then relax" effect.

What is your reason for wanting to change how the chess
clock works?

What part of "I am throwing this out there as a thought
experiment" are you having trouble understanding?

My position hasn't changed. The FIDE rules are just fine
as they are. I and several others here enjoy thinking about
different ways of doing things, but that does not imply any
particular desire for chnage.

Well, in response to your usenet pondering, I was also asking what
benefit would be gained by it, and its reasoning. I am not
questioning your asking, just adding an additional focus. The
question I ask gives you an area that would explain why changes won't
be adopted. Alternate clock schemes are what I also have been
researching.

I hope no offense continues to be taken by my other question.

- Rich