Chess clocks solve everything...I think

iusedtoberich said:

I suppose another problem, is if both players are slow. Lets say one player has 10 seconds left, and the other has 20 seconds left, and they are tied 3-3 on a race to 5. They would both definitely run out of time if the match is allowed to finish. But only one will lose because of the time violation. That just seems a bit unfair to me, if both are dog slow. I don't know the solution to this.

Click to expand...

Nothing unfair. Matches do not have to finish by score. Why assume that? He who runs out of time, gets a match DQ. Or the winner is awarded a winning score automatically.

If one is a slow poke, and so is the other. If one of them has a brain, they will play slightly faster to conserve a balance of time greater than their opponent. The other guy will then run out of time and lose before the match is concluded by score if they try to continue draining the clock.

Whomever is lower on time, it is automatically against their best interest to continue to stall and drain the clock as it significantly works against them and only gets worse. The instant they are lower on time, continuation of that strategy is going to result in a guaranteed loss if they both go down that road.

The scenario above won't happen, since players are not going to want to voluntarily engage in a game of time-clock chicken. They're not going to drain the clock down to where it becomes a contest of who can end their inning by any means possible to then slap the clock. Long before that happens, one of them is going to game it and take advantage on the table and the time management.

This is how clocks force a productive pace.


The idea here isn't to generate speed pool, or pressure the players or the game into something unreasonable. But to weed out the unsportsmanlike deliberate slow-players.

Clocks could be set with a generous amount of time to complete even a hill-hill match with safety play. An amount of time that would work for the vast majority of players and be very fair to them, and also stay true to the nature of the game. That is, not putting any undue artificial pressure on the game play which results in rushed shots and hastened decision making.

Times, race length and formats can all be set to be completely reasonable for players, and give them ample time to play their best and complete a match with plenty of time leftover and never feeling rushed.

Again, the goal is to squeeze out the intentional and deliberate slow-play tactics.

Just the fact that they are put into use will be enough to control total match times. It also has a deterrent factor. There will still be some slower players, but that's ok. I don't think that even slower-than-average players ruin the game or bring harm at all. It's the stallers that do. The snails that destroy the game will have to give up this tactic or become extinct.

The clock is a great tool, because it punishes the slow player in the event that a match time has been exceeded. There was no way to discriminate before the chess clock. Who was to blame? Who decides who was slower? Who was tracking it? No one knows with certainty. The clock makes it certain.


Shot clock is inferior pool. Chess clock preserves great play, and controls match times and is low maintenance (ie, no tourney staff has to babysit timers).

Slow players are like that all the time. I tell them to find another game.

.............

what if you play significantly faster than your opponent? using a clock, you could effectively "bank" time, mid to late match you could literally take 5-10 min or more to shoot

I got half a mind...

To think there are multiple Michael Reddick Id's in this conversation.

Don Quixote!

first get a t.d that has some teeth and tells players that play slow that they speed up or be not invited to play again. and if too slow will be forfeited. put it right in the rules.

it is very apparent who they are.

it works fine in the pool room as no one will play someone too slow. and if they do it doesnt affect others.

Back when I was on the WPBA board of directors, we considered chess clocks as options, but they're really not practical. For example: when a player gets out of her chair to question something or get a call for a hit on an opponent's shot --- who stops the clock? (Players should never touch their opponents side of the time clock) Or any discussions with referees or tournament directors during a match--- who stops the clock? Does the player who's shooting run over to stop and start the clock?

Finally after a lot of research, we found that the best way was to check the scores in matches at the half-way point of the allotted time to see how they're moving along. If the scores aren't comparable to the allotted time, then a time keeper would be sent to that table.

An even better solution would be to determine if one player was the one holding back the match, then a timekeeper could be assigned to that one player rather than penalizing both players.

Having people volunteer as timekeepers who can stop and start the clock when needed is much better than chess clocks.

nope... no good..

Hobo said:

I know some tournaments are so tired of slow play that after a certain amount of time they just give the win to whomevers leading...kind of the same thing as having a clock, but a clock keeping track of each players time at the table is way better.

Click to expand...

Then you'd get players getting ahead and slow playing to get awarded the win.

Chess style clock is a good idea...

Jaden

Jaden said:

Then you'd get players getting ahead and slow playing to get awarded the win.

Chess style clock is a good idea...

Jaden

Click to expand...

Edit.. I read the post wrong for my first reply..

I don't think this will ever work, some people just have a slower pre-shot routine and thought process. Playing faster does not make someone a better player. I have seen good players take a long time to play a game because something was tied up or there was a safety battle. You need time to go over several options and should not be punished if you happen to play slower.

Anything that is changed will cause as many issues as it solves, like playing with break rules. People break soft, someone has an idea to play with 3 balls past the line. So what happens? People break hard and get an unlucky carom or hit the point of a pocket and get an illegal break when they make a ball and lose games on a good shot.

I've had pool league nights and tournaments where they had to be completed the next night due to establishments closing hours.
THAT'S some serious slow play when leagues start around 7:30 PM. and their's but 20 games total to play.
.
FOR ̶Y̶E̶A̶R̶S̶ DECADES I've mentioned using a shot clock on APA, BCA, ASAP & private pool leagues nights but the PLO always said it never work. The lower quality players will feel rushed against higher quality and blame there loss on the clock.
.
IF IT MATTERS, here's my suggestion:
. Play your game as normal until a player begins to take too much time. When an opponent calls "CLOCK" that player (not both) has 40 seconds (or whatever league/director decides) to shoot each shot until that match is over. New match, new player, play until opponent calls "CLOCK".
This "CLOCK" can be adjusted as per handicap levels. 1 min. for lowest handicaps, 30 sec. for highest levels, OR WHATEVER they feel is right.
. Of course "Clock Extensions" can be instituted.
.
One downside is, a player can be "CLOCK" hounded by everyone early in a league night, tournament, etc.. Said shot clock should be set long enough for slow players to work with.

my $0.0002

Point to all players.
Before all balls have stopped at your opponents turn, you should already be looking for your "Pattern of play". That alone gives you at about 10 seconds more to THINK,... if that's what you do.
I say that because I've seen players PONDER new patterns after every shot even if the next shot is a PERFECT leave from their previous Pattern.

I've been watching and enjoying curling at the Winter Olympics. I like the way it works.

In a ten inning match, each team has 38 minutes of thinking time and if you run out, you forfeit. Thinking time runs down when it is your turn until you execute your shot. A game consists of eight shots per inning per team, so a match consists of eighty shots per team. That mean you get, roughly, 30 seconds of thinking time per shot. Just like in pool, some shots require much more thought than others. FYI, for the curling fans out there, an inning is actually called an "end" in curling.

Curling has the equivalent of a chess clock. Works for me!

JolietJames said:

I've liked the idea of using a chess clock for a while now -for each rack. Out of time, lose that rack. This may even keep people awake during one pocket matches. Who knows, maybe even the spectators would stay conscious.

Click to expand...

lol.....during one pocket matches?
What if you're running tens of balls?
Will you just have to quit when your time is up?

Bob Jewett said:

My previous posts and an article in Billiards Digest have gone over this extensively. Anyone who is interested in the subject may want to look those up.

It works. People get used to it. They are nervous and forgetful the first several games.

Five hours for a game to 150 at straight pool? Three hours for a race to nine at DCC nine ball? People like that should not be allowed to destroy tournaments for others.

Match up singles any way you want, but in group competition keep it moving.

Click to expand...

I guess no one read my other lost about the use of shot clocks....LOL it's real simple, either player can start then30 second shot clock, but once started if a player exceeds the time limit, the waiting player gets awarded 1 win, and the player is restarted with a new 30 seconds is started on the clock again. Run out the time again, and again 1 win is awarded to the waiting player. There is no 3rd timer foul, the 3rd time is a forfeit of the match for unsportsmanlike conduct.