| |
Main
Date: 25 Mar 2008 02:13:43
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Alternative time clock scheme
|
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/ >
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Mar 2008 15:33:32
From:
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
On 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
|
| | |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 08:30:11
From:
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
On 25, 9:34 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> [email protected] 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
|
| | |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 01:34:18
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
[email protected] 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.
|
| |
Date: 25 Mar 2008 08:44:40
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
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!
|
| | |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 23:23:39
From:
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
Chess One wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:f9f85ee0-ba1e-41e6-8f23-6c54938293b5@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >
> > Why would you attribute that method to Kasparov? It's the USCF
> > standard, and has been so since the early 90s.
>
> And where did USCF get the idea?
>
> I helped design the Kasparov net-clock which utilised the delay, and which
> differed from Bronstein and Fischer, which added time - we know that you can
> play fast but nonsense moves and still win on time, since opponent must
> consider what you did and that takes at least a second or two, and this was
> making a nonsense of the chess position.
>
> That clock actually has Bronstein and Fischer built into it as well.
>
> > 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),
>
> You mean, you have started to 'argue' or suggest the origin of the idea as
> if it were USCF's idea, and having made your declaration to others have no
> interest in a reply. Sounds like USCF itself!
>
> But thanks for the /petit-lecture/!
>
> Phil Innes
>
> > but these are the
> > options available if you want to design a new time control.
Phil, save the hissy-fit for someone who cares. You've been completely
out of tournament chess for years, and obviously have no idea what's
actually going on. The three methods are different, and failing to
distinguish among them leads to sloppy thinking and sloppy argument.
The _origin_ of these systems is a different question, which you are
free to discuss on a new thread. Tossing this out in an attempt to
distract attention from your own ignorance is the sort of thing that's
earned you a reputation as an annoying troll.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Mar 2008 20:03:20
From:
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
Guy Macon wrote:
> [email protected] 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_timingmethods.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...)
The DGT page is probably correct, but it was obviously written by a
non-English-speaker, and probably a non-chess-player, so it's a little
hard to be sure. The Wikipedia page is incomplete, as it does not
mention non-addback delay, used almost exclusively in U.S.
tournaments. (Probably written by a Euro.) I may modify it, but it's
not high on my list of priorities.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 12:06:29
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Guy Macon wrote:
>> Please read the following URLs:
>> http://www.dgtprojects.com/clock_timingmethods.htm#bronstein
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_clock#Delay_clocks
>>
>> If you disagree with them please provide your sources.
>
> The Wikipedia page is incomplete, as it does not mention non-addback
> delay...
Yes it does! It calls it `Bronstein delay', like the rest of the
world, the USCF included.
> ... used almost exclusively in U.S. tournaments. (Probably written
> by a Euro.)
Regardless of my nationality or that of the author, I see no reason to
credit Bronstein's system to the USCF.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Carnivorous T-Shirt (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fashion statement but it eats flesh!
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 15:22:56
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
David Richerby wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Guy Macon wrote:
>>> Please read the following URLs:
>>> http://www.dgtprojects.com/clock_timingmethods.htm#bronstein
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_clock#Delay_clocks
>>>
>>> If you disagree with them please provide your sources.
>> The Wikipedia page is incomplete, as it does not mention non-addback
>> delay...
>
> Yes it does! It calls it `Bronstein delay', like the rest of the
> world, the USCF included.
>
>> ... used almost exclusively in U.S. tournaments. (Probably written
>> by a Euro.)
>
> Regardless of my nationality or that of the author, I see no reason to
> credit Bronstein's system to the USCF.
>
>
> Dave.
>
Especially because the standard USCF delay is not Bronstein.
It's *equivalent* to Bronstein - but it's not the same thing, at all.
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 20:57:09
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>the standard USCF delay is not Bronstein.
>
>It's *equivalent* to Bronstein - but it's
>not the same thing, at all.
Interesting! What is the difference?
|
| | |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 01:58:47
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
[email protected] 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_timingmethods.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...)
|
| | |
Date: 25 Mar 2008 16:26:29
From:
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
Chess One wrote:
> "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >
> > 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_timingmethods.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.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Mar 2008 20:37:26
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
>Guy Macon wrote:
>
>> Kenneth Sloan <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>>
>> >the standard USCF delay is not Bronstein.
>> >
>> >It's *equivalent* to Bronstein - but it's
>> >not the same thing, at all.
>>
>> Interesting! What is the difference?
>
>Didn't we go over this already? With "Bronstein" (non-cumulative
>addback), your clock starts running as soon as your opponent presses
>the button, but, when you _stop_ your clock, it adds back time
>(typically, though not necessarily, five seconds), up to a maximum of
>the time you had when your clock started. Under "delay," used by USCF,
>your clock does not _start_ counting down until a set period (like
>five seconds) has elapsed. Mathematically, the effects are identical,
(See the second-to-last pagaraph below)
>though there might be a small psychological difference if you were in
>extreme time pressure.
Do you have a reference showing that the name "Bronstein" is
correct for the former and that the name "Standard USCF delay"
is correct for the latter? In particular, id there any evidence
that the latter was invented by the USCF and not Bronstein?
Here are descriptions of six ways to handle delays, followed
by what I believe are the proper names for each. I welcome
any discusion/corrections/references concerning whether I
got the naming right.
NO DELAY, NO INCREMENT: When you start your clock, it starts
decrementing. (Analog chess clocks act this way).
DELAY: When you start your clock, it freezes for N seconds
and then starts decrementing.
INCREMENT AT START (IAS): When you start your clock, it
instantly increments by N seconds, then starts decrementing.
INCREMENT AT END (IAA): When you start your clock, it starts
decrementing. When your opponent starts his clock (thus
stopping yours), your clock instantly increments by N
seconds.
INCREMENT AT END WITH LIMIT (IIEL): When you start your
clock, it starts decrementing. When your opponent starts
his clock (thus stopping yours), your clock instantly
increments by N seconds or the amount of time you used,
whichever is smaller.
DUAL INCREMENT (DI): When you start your clock, the clocks
of both players instantly increment by N seconds, then your
clock starts decrementing. When your opponent starts his
clock (thus stopping yours), the clocks of both players
instantly increment by N seconds, then your opponent's clock
starts decrementing. N is half the size of the other schemes.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I believe that the following naming is correct, but I
welcome corrections -- especially with references.
DELAY is properly called Bronstein Delay. It is sometimes
called Andante, US-style or USCF-style,
INCREMENT AT START is properly called Fischer Increment.
It is sometimes called FIDE-style, bonus, or progressive.
INCREMENT AT END is, as far as I can tell, only a
theoretical possibility, not used in actual play. I can't
think of any advantage it has over Fischer Increment.
INCREMENT AT END WITH LIMIT is properly called
Bronstein Increment. It is sometimes called Adagio or
non-cumulative addback.
DUAL INCREMENT is something I just invented on the spot.
If nobody else thought of it first and it caches on,
I claim the name "Macon Increment" <grin >.
Bronstein Delay and Bronstein Increment have a subtle
real-world difference. Imagine two players, each with five
seconds left. One is using Bronstein Delay and the other
Bronstein Increment. The Bronstein Delay player has ten
seconds before he loses on time -- five seconds with his
clock frozen and five seconds as it decrements down to zero.
The Bronstein Increment player has five seconds before he
loses on time. Adding 5 seconds at the very start of the
Bronstein Increment or allowing the Bronstein Increment
player to run out of time then increment back to where he
still has time would make them mathematically equivalent,
but there would still be a big psychological difference.
Does anyone know exactly how Bronstein described his
invention? I rather suspect that he described either
Bronstein Delay or Bronstein Increment and that an
electronic chess clock manufacturer created the other
variation.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 23:16:33
From:
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
Guy Macon wrote:
> Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>
> >the standard USCF delay is not Bronstein.
> >
> >It's *equivalent* to Bronstein - but it's
> >not the same thing, at all.
>
> Interesting! What is the difference?
Didn't we go over this already? With "Bronstein" (non-cumulative
addback), your clock starts running as soon as your opponent presses
the button, but, when you _stop_ your clock, it adds back time
(typically, though not necessarily, five seconds), up to a maximum of
the time you had when your clock started. Under "delay," used by USCF,
your clock does not _start_ counting down until a set period (like
five seconds) has elapsed. Mathematically, the effects are identical,
though there might be a small psychological difference if you were in
extreme time pressure.
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Mar 2008 12:08:56
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> With "Bronstein" (non-cumulative addback), your clock starts running
> as soon as your opponent presses the button, but, when you _stop_
> your clock, it adds back time (typically, though not necessarily,
> five seconds), up to a maximum of the time you had when your clock
> started. Under "delay," used by USCF, your clock does not _start_
> counting down until a set period (like five seconds) has elapsed.
> Mathematically, the effects are identical, though there might be a
> small psychological difference if you were in extreme time pressure.
The effects most certainly are not `mathematically identical'. With
what you're calling `Bronstein', if you have five seconds on your
clock at the point when I make my move, you must move within five
seconds (which you'll get back for your next move). With what you're
calling `delay', you have ten seconds to make your move.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Crystal Wine (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ vintage Beaujolais but it's completely
transparent!
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 08:34:16
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:f9f85ee0-ba1e-41e6-8f23-6c54938293b5@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Why would you attribute that method to Kasparov? It's the USCF
> standard, and has been so since the early 90s.
And where did USCF get the idea?
I helped design the Kasparov net-clock which utilised the delay, and which
differed from Bronstein and Fischer, which added time - we know that you can
play fast but nonsense moves and still win on time, since opponent must
consider what you did and that takes at least a second or two, and this was
making a nonsense of the chess position.
That clock actually has Bronstein and Fischer built into it as well.
> 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),
You mean, you have started to 'argue' or suggest the origin of the idea as
if it were USCF's idea, and having made your declaration to others have no
interest in a reply. Sounds like USCF itself!
But thanks for the /petit-lecture/!
Phil Innes
> but these are the
> options available if you want to design a new time control.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2008 12:00:55
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> 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.
I think you're mistaken.
Wikipedia[1] says, `Bronstein delay -- when it becomes a player's turn
to move, the clock waits for the delay period before starting to
subtract from the player's remaining time,' which is exactly what you
describe as the USCF system. Backgammon Galore[2] says the same thing
(follow the link to their definition of `time delay'). Perhaps most
significantly, even the USCF itself defines a Bronstein delay by
saying, `Before the principal thinking time is reduced the player has
a fixed amount of time to complete a move.'[3]
On a brief search, I didn't find any sources that mention any kind of
delay other than `Bronstein' and `Fischer' and I didn't find anywhere
that defined `Bronstein delay' in the way that you do.
Dave.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_clock#Delay_clocks
[2] http://www.bkgm.com/gloss/lookup.cgi?bronstein+clock
[3] http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=0&PID=404
--
David Richerby Psychotic Flammable Goldfish (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a fish but it burns really
easily and it wants to kill you!
|
| | |
Date: 25 Mar 2008 17:41:04
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
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/ >
|
| | |
Date: 25 Mar 2008 08:49:51
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
> >Your `USCF-style delay' is usually credited to David Bronstein, rather
> >than the USCF.
>
> You are correct. =A0I apologize; in my haste I mentally confused
> the three major methods (Fischer, Bronstein, FIDE) and somehow
> managed to insert the term "USCF" in there. =A0Sorry about that.
ARE YOU a SCIENTIST ??? This Symptom is very common among them.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 25 Mar 2008 09:56:05
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
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_timingmethods.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!
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2008 19:05:49
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Alternative time clock scheme
|
"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> 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_timingmethods.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!
>
|
|
