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.

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

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

Your `USCF-style delay' is usually credited to David Bronstein, rather
than the USCF.

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

Are people not already doing this? Starting with only twenty minutes
on the clock seems a bit short for serious games, even with a
three-minute increment, but the basic idea is very sound.

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.

At work, I don't have time for six-hour games of chess!


Dave.

--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Chocolate T-Shirt (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a fashion statement that's
made of chocolate but it's perfect
for your grandparents!

David Richerby wrote:

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

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).

Your `USCF-style delay' is usually credited to David Bronstein, rather
than the USCF.

You are correct. I apologize; in my haste I mentally confused
the three major methods (Fischer, Bronstein, FIDE) and somehow
managed to insert the term "USCF" in there. Sorry about that.

http://www.dgtprojects.com/clock_tim....htm#bronstein

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

Are people not already doing this? Starting with only twenty minutes
on the clock seems a bit short for serious games, even with a
three-minute increment, but the basic idea is very sound.

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.

At work, I don't have time for six-hour games of chess!

I once did nothing but play chess for over a week while sitting
in the bunker next to a launchpad as the countdown got stopped
or reset multiple times. Got the bird into orbit at the end,
though!

Your `USCF-style delay' is usually credited to David Bronstein, rather
than the USCF.

You are correct. *I apologize; in my haste I mentally confused
the three major methods (Fischer, Bronstein, FIDE) and somehow
managed to insert the term "USCF" in there. *Sorry about that.

ARE YOU a SCIENTIST ??? This Symptom is very common among them.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit


Sanny wrote:

Your `USCF-style delay' is usually credited to David Bronstein,
rather than the USCF.

You are correct. *I apologize; in my haste I mentally confused
the three major methods (Fischer, Bronstein, FIDE) and somehow
managed to insert the term "USCF" in there. *Sorry about that.

ARE YOU a SCIENTIST ??? This Symptom is very common among them.

Sorry, I don't answer questions asked by known spammers.

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

On Mar 24, 10:13 pm, 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?
I can see one main reason, and it isn't for the players. The reason
is for the spectators, in order to keep a chess game more evenly
paced. I would recommend the Bronstein version without the time bonus
that the Fischer clock adds. Unless you are catering to spectators, I
am not sure why you want to do it.

- Rich

"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...



David Richerby wrote:

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

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).

Your `USCF-style delay' is usually credited to David Bronstein, rather
than the USCF.

You are correct. I apologize; in my haste I mentally confused
the three major methods (Fischer, Bronstein, FIDE) and somehow
managed to insert the term "USCF" in there. Sorry about that.

4. There is also Kasparov delay, which doesn't add time, but doesn't count
time for X seconds. Phil Innes

http://www.dgtprojects.com/clock_tim....htm#bronstein

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

Are people not already doing this? Starting with only twenty minutes
on the clock seems a bit short for serious games, even with a
three-minute increment, but the basic idea is very sound.

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.

At work, I don't have time for six-hour games of chess!

I once did nothing but play chess for over a week while sitting
in the bunker next to a launchpad as the countdown got stopped
or reset multiple times. Got the bird into orbit at the end,
though!

Chess One wrote:
"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...



David Richerby wrote:

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

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).

Your `USCF-style delay' is usually credited to David Bronstein, rather
than the USCF.

You are correct. I apologize; in my haste I mentally confused
the three major methods (Fischer, Bronstein, FIDE) and somehow
managed to insert the term "USCF" in there. Sorry about that.

4. There is also Kasparov delay, which doesn't add time, but doesn't count
time for X seconds. Phil Innes

http://www.dgtprojects.com/clock_tim....htm#bronstein

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

Are people not already doing this? Starting with only twenty minutes
on the clock seems a bit short for serious games, even with a
three-minute increment, but the basic idea is very sound.

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.

At work, I don't have time for six-hour games of chess!

I once did nothing but play chess for over a week while sitting
in the bunker next to a launchpad as the countdown got stopped
or reset multiple times. Got the bird into orbit at the end,
though!


Why would you attribute that method to Kasparov? It's the USCF
standard, and has been so since the early 90s.


There are essentially three "delay" methods. The USCF ("time delay")
doesn't start the clock for x seconds after the button has been
pushed. The "Bronstein" method starts counting down immediately, but
adds x seconds when you stop your clock, up to a max of the time you
had when you clock started. The effect is _almost_ identical to the
first, though there is a tiny difference if you are very short of
time. The "Fischer" method is the same as Bronstein, except that your
time can accumulate without limit. If you want to argue about the
names, go ahead (though I don't plan to listen), but these are the
options available if you want to design a new time control.

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.

wrote:

Chess One wrote:

There is also Kasparov delay, which doesn't add time, but
doesn't count time for X seconds. Phil Innes

Why would you attribute that method to Kasparov?

For the same reason he calls Turing machines "Turing engines"?

The Kasparov delay does exist, but has only been used once, on
the 26th move of game 2 of the 1987 Karpov vs. Kasparov title
match. It never really caught on, and even Kasparov himself
avoided it after that one experiment.

It's the USCF standard, and has been so since the early 90s.
There are essentially three "delay" methods. The USCF ("time delay")
doesn't start the clock for x seconds after the button has been
pushed. The "Bronstein" method starts counting down immediately, but
adds x seconds when you stop your clock, up to a max of the time you
had when you clock started. The effect is _almost_ identical to the
first, though there is a tiny difference if you are very short of
time. The "Fischer" method is the same as Bronstein, except that your
time can accumulate without limit.

Please read the following URLs:
http://www.dgtprojects.com/clock_tim....htm#bronstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_clock#Delay_clocks

If you disagree with them please provide your sources.

If you want to argue about the names, go ahead (though I
don't plan to listen)

You should care whether Bronstein gets credit for what Bronstein
invented and whether Fischer gets credit for what Fischer invented.

(And I should have checked before my original post rather than
going by memory...)