All,

I would like to thank Roland Brockman of Australia for his thoughtful post
in response to the Chris Roberts opinion poll. I hope this reply finds its
way to Mr. Brockman. For those who did not see his original post (in a
thread titled "New chess player opinion survey"), it is reproduced in its
entirety below, at the end of my comments. In the portion which immediately
follows, I have excerpted Mr. Brockman's post and inserted my comments.
__________________________________________________

Dear Chris Roberts,

Thankyou for the opportunity to participate in your survey which I found
out
about via the Australian Chess Federation email bulletin.

I would like to comment if I may on question 19 on time controls:

"I AM MORE LIKELY TO PLAY IN A TOURNAMENT WITH SUDDEN DEATH TIME CONTROLS
VS. TIME CONTROLS THAT MIGHT LEAD TO AN ADJOURNED GAME."

You seem to imply that there are only two choices. However it might be
worth
noting that in Australia virtually every tournament is nowadays played
with
a 'Fischer mode' time control which avoids both sudden death finishes and
adjournments and their associated problems.

In the USA a roughly similar concept, which we call a "delay", has been
standard for about eight years. This is a bit different from "increment"
but it has roughly the same goals. The delay was developed in the USA about
the same time the increment was developed elsewhere.

1. With increment, or "Fischer", or cumulative add-back, a fixed amount of
time (such as 30 seconds) is added to the player's total time after each
move.

2. With delay, the player's main time does not start (on each move) until a
fixed amount of time (such as 5 seconds) has elapsed.

3. There is also a third mode, known as "Bronstein" or "Adagio" or
non-cumulative add-back, in which a fixed amount of time (such as 5
seconds), or time actually spent on the move, WHICHEVER IS LESS, is added to
the player's total time after each move.

A little thought will show that delay is mathematically equivalent to
Bronstein, i.e. the TOTAL amount of time remaining after each move is the
same either way. (To make the two precisely the same, you would also have
to add the delay time, e.g. 5 seconds, to BOTH clocks once at the beginning
of the game, e.g. set the clocks initially at 1:00:05 instead of 1:00:00.)

Most electronic clocks nowadays have increment capability, and also have
either delay or Bronstein capability. (The Chronos has all three.)

For some reason, "5 seconds" and "delay" seem to go together by tradition,
just as "30 seconds" and "increment" seem to go together. There is,
however, no inherent reason for these associations. One could just as well
reverse the traditional combinations by having a 30-second delay or a
5-second increment.

It has sometimes been estimated that a 5-second delay is roughly equivalent
to a 4-second increment, when it comes to the total amount of time a game is
likely to require. Such comparisons, however, overlook some fundamental
distinctions between the two. For example, with increment, a player's
remaining time can increase with each move, whereas with delay, a player's
remaining time will never exceed what it was after the previous move.

If either increment or delay is in effect, there is less reason to have
multiple time controls, such as 40/120 followed by SD/60. This statement is
even more true for increment than it is for delay, and more true for 30
seconds than for 5 seconds.

One problem, especially with increment, and especially with 30 seconds or
more, is that not all games may be played with electronic clocks. Perhaps,
in Australia, the tournament organizer furnishes the clocks, but in the USA,
the players do. At present only about 70-90 percent of games in a typical
USA tournament are played with electronic clocks. We do have a rule that a
delay-capable clock is preferred equipment, i.e. if a player furnishes a
delay-capable clock, he has the right to use it instead of his opponent's
clock without this capability.

As long as some games are played with older equipment, there would have to
be an alternate time control for games played without the increment or
delay -- something like game/90 with 30-second increment if the clock can do
this, or game in 2 hours if it cannot.

Also, in the USA, it is not uncommon to have 2, 3, or even 4 games in one
day. In such cases, delay may be more practical than increment, and a
longer increment such as 30 seconds may not be workable at all.

Again, thank you, Mr. Brockman, for your thoughtful comments.

Bill Smythe

__________________________________________________


"Chris Roberts" wrote in message
...
Dear rec.games.chess, I am posting this reply to my chess player opinion
poll at the request of Mr. Brockman.


================================================== ==========================
==========

Dear Chris Roberts,

Thankyou for the opportunity to participate in your survey which I found
out
about via the Australian Chess Federation email bulletin.

I would like to comment if I may on question 19 on time controls:

"I AM MORE LIKELY TO PLAY IN A TOURNAMENT WITH SUDDEN DEATH TIME CONTROLS
VS. TIME CONTROLS THAT MIGHT LEAD TO AN ADJOURNED GAME."

You seem to imply that there are only two choices. However it might be
worth
noting that in Australia virtually every tournament is nowadays played
with
a 'Fischer mode' time control which avoids both sudden death finishes and
adjournments and their associated problems.

By 'Fischer mode' I mean each player gets a 'base time' (inital amount on
the clock) and an 'increment' (added time after completion of each move)
from the word go; with an electronic clock of course. That is all there is
to it; no control at move 40, no added time later on, the game is played
until it reaches its conclusion on the board.

The amount of the base time and increment vary according to the tournament
schedule. For example the last two Australian Championships (one game per
day) have been played with base time 90 minutes and increment 1 min, i.e.
90min + 1 min. Tournaments with two games a day are usually 90min + 30
sec;
three games a day 60min + 30 secs; rapids maybe 20min + 20 seconds etc.
etc.

The reason that the Fischer mode has swept this country is not hard to
see.
Firstly it eliminates the guillotine or sudden death finish (i.e. ALL
remaining moves to be made in a fixed time) which has insoluble problems.
Under a guillotine finish you can never eliminate the possibility of a
player trying to win on time. This means that the arbiter must decide if a
player is 'trying to win by normal means' and so on; an appallingly
subjective decision and the subject of countless disputes. I have always
felt that the guillotine finish undermines the very heart of chess. A
chess
game should be decided by whether or not one player can checkmate the
other;
not somebody else's opinion as to whether or not they are trying to!!

Secondly the Fischer mode eliminates the need for a time control at move
40.
The control at move 40 (or wherever) goes back to the days of
adjournments;
it provided a minimum number of moves before a player could adjourn and
hence get outside assistance. In a game which is not adjourned, the 40
move
control is simply an unnecessary complication. I haven't played a 40 move
control in years and all the scrambles to reach the required no. of moves,
the reconstructions, the arguments about whether or not 39 or 40 moves
have
been played now seem quite farcical.

The many Fischer mode tournaments that I have played in over the last few
years have run so smoothly it is hard to imagine playing any other way.
There are no time scrambles, no disputes, no clock adjustments; you can
concentrate on the position not the time control. In view of this it
amazes
me that in so many tournaments around the world, where electronic clocks
are
available, organizers stick to a 40 move control and (incredibly) a
guillotine finish rather than an increment at the end.

The outstanding success of the Fischer mode control in Australia, I
believe,
should be widely publicised. I would greatly appreciate it if you could
distribute this mail to anybody who might be interested.

Thankyou for your time.
Your sincerely

Mr. Roland Brockman

================================================== =
Roland Brockman.
IAG Technology Services, Level 2, CGU centre, 485 La Trobe St., Melbourne
3000
(03) 9601 8816, fax (03) 9601 8875
email:

"True progress, quietly and persistently, moves along without notice" St.
Francis


================================================== ==========================
==========

"Chris Roberts" wrote in message
...
Dear all,

I invite you to take a short chess player opinion survey at

http://home.comcast.net/~zugz/

Sincerely,

Chris Roberts
Southern California Chess Federation, Former President

The Fischer clock mode (adding time for each move played) is completely
obvious as the way of the future, as I have been saying for years. However,
most people don't get it yet.

Tim Hanke

"Bill Smythe" wrote in message
...
All,

I would like to thank Roland Brockman of Australia for his thoughtful post
in response to the Chris Roberts opinion poll. I hope this reply finds
its
way to Mr. Brockman. For those who did not see his original post (in a
thread titled "New chess player opinion survey"), it is reproduced in its
entirety below, at the end of my comments. In the portion which
immediately
follows, I have excerpted Mr. Brockman's post and inserted my comments.
__________________________________________________

Dear Chris Roberts,

Thankyou for the opportunity to participate in your survey which I found
out
about via the Australian Chess Federation email bulletin.

I would like to comment if I may on question 19 on time controls:

"I AM MORE LIKELY TO PLAY IN A TOURNAMENT WITH SUDDEN DEATH TIME
CONTROLS
VS. TIME CONTROLS THAT MIGHT LEAD TO AN ADJOURNED GAME."

You seem to imply that there are only two choices. However it might be
worth
noting that in Australia virtually every tournament is nowadays played
with
a 'Fischer mode' time control which avoids both sudden death finishes
and
adjournments and their associated problems.

In the USA a roughly similar concept, which we call a "delay", has been
standard for about eight years. This is a bit different from "increment"
but it has roughly the same goals. The delay was developed in the USA
about
the same time the increment was developed elsewhere.

1. With increment, or "Fischer", or cumulative add-back, a fixed amount
of
time (such as 30 seconds) is added to the player's total time after each
move.

2. With delay, the player's main time does not start (on each move) until
a
fixed amount of time (such as 5 seconds) has elapsed.

3. There is also a third mode, known as "Bronstein" or "Adagio" or
non-cumulative add-back, in which a fixed amount of time (such as 5
seconds), or time actually spent on the move, WHICHEVER IS LESS, is added
to
the player's total time after each move.

A little thought will show that delay is mathematically equivalent to
Bronstein, i.e. the TOTAL amount of time remaining after each move is the
same either way. (To make the two precisely the same, you would also have
to add the delay time, e.g. 5 seconds, to BOTH clocks once at the
beginning
of the game, e.g. set the clocks initially at 1:00:05 instead of 1:00:00.)

Most electronic clocks nowadays have increment capability, and also have
either delay or Bronstein capability. (The Chronos has all three.)

For some reason, "5 seconds" and "delay" seem to go together by tradition,
just as "30 seconds" and "increment" seem to go together. There is,
however, no inherent reason for these associations. One could just as
well
reverse the traditional combinations by having a 30-second delay or a
5-second increment.

It has sometimes been estimated that a 5-second delay is roughly
equivalent
to a 4-second increment, when it comes to the total amount of time a game
is
likely to require. Such comparisons, however, overlook some fundamental
distinctions between the two. For example, with increment, a player's
remaining time can increase with each move, whereas with delay, a player's
remaining time will never exceed what it was after the previous move.

If either increment or delay is in effect, there is less reason to have
multiple time controls, such as 40/120 followed by SD/60. This statement
is
even more true for increment than it is for delay, and more true for 30
seconds than for 5 seconds.

One problem, especially with increment, and especially with 30 seconds or
more, is that not all games may be played with electronic clocks.
Perhaps,
in Australia, the tournament organizer furnishes the clocks, but in the
USA,
the players do. At present only about 70-90 percent of games in a typical
USA tournament are played with electronic clocks. We do have a rule that
a
delay-capable clock is preferred equipment, i.e. if a player furnishes a
delay-capable clock, he has the right to use it instead of his opponent's
clock without this capability.

As long as some games are played with older equipment, there would have to
be an alternate time control for games played without the increment or
delay -- something like game/90 with 30-second increment if the clock can
do
this, or game in 2 hours if it cannot.

Also, in the USA, it is not uncommon to have 2, 3, or even 4 games in one
day. In such cases, delay may be more practical than increment, and a
longer increment such as 30 seconds may not be workable at all.

Again, thank you, Mr. Brockman, for your thoughtful comments.

Bill Smythe

__________________________________________________


"Chris Roberts" wrote in message
...
Dear rec.games.chess, I am posting this reply to my chess player opinion
poll at the request of Mr. Brockman.



================================================== ==========================
==========

Dear Chris Roberts,

Thankyou for the opportunity to participate in your survey which I found
out
about via the Australian Chess Federation email bulletin.

I would like to comment if I may on question 19 on time controls:

"I AM MORE LIKELY TO PLAY IN A TOURNAMENT WITH SUDDEN DEATH TIME
CONTROLS
VS. TIME CONTROLS THAT MIGHT LEAD TO AN ADJOURNED GAME."

You seem to imply that there are only two choices. However it might be
worth
noting that in Australia virtually every tournament is nowadays played
with
a 'Fischer mode' time control which avoids both sudden death finishes
and
adjournments and their associated problems.

By 'Fischer mode' I mean each player gets a 'base time' (inital amount
on
the clock) and an 'increment' (added time after completion of each move)
from the word go; with an electronic clock of course. That is all there
is
to it; no control at move 40, no added time later on, the game is played
until it reaches its conclusion on the board.

The amount of the base time and increment vary according to the
tournament
schedule. For example the last two Australian Championships (one game
per
day) have been played with base time 90 minutes and increment 1 min,
i.e.
90min + 1 min. Tournaments with two games a day are usually 90min + 30
sec;
three games a day 60min + 30 secs; rapids maybe 20min + 20 seconds etc.
etc.

The reason that the Fischer mode has swept this country is not hard to
see.
Firstly it eliminates the guillotine or sudden death finish (i.e. ALL
remaining moves to be made in a fixed time) which has insoluble
problems.
Under a guillotine finish you can never eliminate the possibility of a
player trying to win on time. This means that the arbiter must decide if
a
player is 'trying to win by normal means' and so on; an appallingly
subjective decision and the subject of countless disputes. I have always
felt that the guillotine finish undermines the very heart of chess. A
chess
game should be decided by whether or not one player can checkmate the
other;
not somebody else's opinion as to whether or not they are trying to!!

Secondly the Fischer mode eliminates the need for a time control at move
40.
The control at move 40 (or wherever) goes back to the days of
adjournments;
it provided a minimum number of moves before a player could adjourn and
hence get outside assistance. In a game which is not adjourned, the 40
move
control is simply an unnecessary complication. I haven't played a 40
move
control in years and all the scrambles to reach the required no. of
moves,
the reconstructions, the arguments about whether or not 39 or 40 moves
have
been played now seem quite farcical.

The many Fischer mode tournaments that I have played in over the last
few
years have run so smoothly it is hard to imagine playing any other way.
There are no time scrambles, no disputes, no clock adjustments; you can
concentrate on the position not the time control. In view of this it
amazes
me that in so many tournaments around the world, where electronic clocks
are
available, organizers stick to a 40 move control and (incredibly) a
guillotine finish rather than an increment at the end.

The outstanding success of the Fischer mode control in Australia, I
believe,
should be widely publicised. I would greatly appreciate it if you could
distribute this mail to anybody who might be interested.

Thankyou for your time.
Your sincerely

Mr. Roland Brockman

================================================== =
Roland Brockman.
IAG Technology Services, Level 2, CGU centre, 485 La Trobe St.,
Melbourne
3000
(03) 9601 8816, fax (03) 9601 8875
email:

"True progress, quietly and persistently, moves along without notice"
St.
Francis



================================================== ==========================
==========

"Chris Roberts" wrote in message
...
Dear all,

I invite you to take a short chess player opinion survey at

http://home.comcast.net/~zugz/

Sincerely,

Chris Roberts
Southern California Chess Federation, Former President

"Tim Hanke" writes:

The Fischer clock mode (adding time for each move played) is completely
obvious as the way of the future, as I have been saying for years. However,
most people don't get it yet.

Your use of the word "obvious" is not one with which I am familiar.


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Subject: Increment, delay, sudden death, and adjournments
From: "Tim Hanke"
Date: 6/9/2004 11:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: 5CQxc.73885$Ly.410@attbi_s01

The Fischer clock mode (adding time for each move played) is completely
obvious as the way of the future, as I have been saying for years. However,
most people don't get it yet.

Tim Hanke

I've been running the NYM as 25+5 instead of 5 second delay for several months
now. I've found the number of incidents has decreased dramatically, and games
are finishing quicker. Also, people are much more willing to bring digital
clocks to the event now.

John Fernandez

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message
news:5CQxc.73885$Ly.410@attbi_s01...
The Fischer clock mode (adding time for each move played) is completely
obvious as the way of the future, as I have been saying for years.
However,
most people don't get it yet.

Tim Hanke

But lots of players don't like it any more than Bronstein-mode. The idea of
adding time allows people to make nonsense moves in lost postions. Whereas
Kasparov mode is a true delay system. Theis mode does not accumulate time,
but simply delays the onset of time being reduced from the clock.

The entire idea of delay-systems is used to offset sealing moves and having
fritz analyse the postion all night, and returns the fate of the game to the
players. Tournament managers like delay systems too, especially in Swiss
events, since it allows a result to happen in the playing hall and hence the
fairest next-round pairings.

Tim Hanke is onto the right idea, but new refinements in digital clocks are
continuous, and Tim is a bit behind the curve.

Probably the best recent innovation in a clock is the 'silent draw offer'
button. Push it and your opponent sees the draw offer which he can accept by
pushing his own draw button, or ignore by playing normally. Useful in
tournaments and also when you are playing at a distance from chess partner.

Phil Innes

"Chess One" wrote:
.... lots of players don't like [ increment ] any more than
Bronstein-mode. The idea of
adding time allows people to make nonsense moves in lost postions. ....

Increment and delay each have their pros and cons. The above may be one of
the cons of increment. A player can sometimes repeat the position
pointlessly, just to gain time on the clock. The same is true, of course,
in traditional controls (e.g. 40/120 then SD/60) near the end of the first
control.

.... The entire idea of delay-systems is used to offset sealing moves
and having
fritz analyse the postion all night, and returns the fate of the game to
the
players. ....

That's the idea behind BOTH delay and increment.

Bill Smythe

"Chess One" wrote:
.... Probably the best recent innovation in a clock is the 'silent draw
offer'
button. Push it and your opponent sees the draw offer which he can accept
by
pushing his own draw button, or ignore by playing normally. ....

All this does is make the draw offer "silent", to eliminate the (already
minimal) disturbance for players on neighboring boards.

A better idea (requiring a slight rule change, perhaps) would be the SECRET
draw offer button. It would be a button that would say, in effect, "I would
accept a draw in this position". After each move, the player would press
either this button or the "other" button, which would simply end the move
normally. The opponent wouldn't see which button the player pressed.

If both players pressed their secret draw offer buttons on consecutive
half-moves, the clock would declare the game drawn. If the clock were
combined with an electronic board, it could also evaluate the position for
legitimate draw claims, such as triple occurrence or the 50-move rule. If
such a claim were valid, the clock could declare the game drawn as soon as
ONE player pressed the draw offer button.

How often have you wanted a draw, but didn't want to offer it because you
didn't want your opponent to know you wanted a draw? The secret draw offer
would solve this problem. To find out if you wanted a draw, your opponent
would have to offer a draw himself, risking the possibility of an immediate,
automatic, unwanted draw.

Bill Smythe

Bill, I think if you had not snipped my post it may have seen clearer where
the draw-button makes sense. The players may be at some great distance from
each other, rather than at the same table, but even if they are together
spectators on the web (eg) or in the hall can also be informed that a draw
has been offered. Cordially, Phil

"Bill Smythe" wrote in message
...
"Chess One" wrote:
.... Probably the best recent innovation in a clock is the 'silent
draw
offer'
button. Push it and your opponent sees the draw offer which he can
accept
by
pushing his own draw button, or ignore by playing normally. ....

All this does is make the draw offer "silent", to eliminate the (already
minimal) disturbance for players on neighboring boards.

A better idea (requiring a slight rule change, perhaps) would be the
SECRET
draw offer button. It would be a button that would say, in effect, "I
would
accept a draw in this position". After each move, the player would press
either this button or the "other" button, which would simply end the move
normally. The opponent wouldn't see which button the player pressed.

If both players pressed their secret draw offer buttons on consecutive
half-moves, the clock would declare the game drawn. If the clock were
combined with an electronic board, it could also evaluate the position for
legitimate draw claims, such as triple occurrence or the 50-move rule. If
such a claim were valid, the clock could declare the game drawn as soon as
ONE player pressed the draw offer button.

How often have you wanted a draw, but didn't want to offer it because you
didn't want your opponent to know you wanted a draw? The secret draw
offer
would solve this problem. To find out if you wanted a draw, your opponent
would have to offer a draw himself, risking the possibility of an
immediate,
automatic, unwanted draw.

Bill Smythe

"Chess One" wrote:
Bill, I think if you had not snipped my post it may have seen clearer
where
the draw-button makes sense. The players may be at some great distance
from
each other, rather than at the same table, but even if they are together
spectators on the web (eg) or in the hall can also be informed that a draw
has been offered.

OK, I'll buy that.

Bill Smythe

"Bill Smythe" wrote in message
...
"Chess One" wrote:
.... Probably the best recent innovation in a clock is the 'silent
draw offer'
button. Push it and your opponent sees the draw offer which he can
accept by
pushing his own draw button, or ignore by playing normally. ....

All this does is make the draw offer "silent", to eliminate the (already
minimal) disturbance for players on neighboring boards.

I don't see the need for such a button since I don't recall ever being
bothered by someone making a draw offer. And, I don't recall even the most
touchy of players sush someone for making a draw offer.

Chris Roberts