Chess clocks in pool
- Thread starter DaWizard
- Start date
That's basically what they do in Chinese8ball but they have to because that game is SLOW as fk. No need in 9ball. Have a ref and a 40sec clock, no extensions. These fkng sloths will get it in gear if they start penalizing them properly.
Another hot take.
1. What is complicated about "You get "X" amount of time for all your shots. If you exceed this, you lose. Now get out there and play." 2. Whoever has the most games at the time limit will lead to an INCREASE of safeties (by the player ahead) as the match draws to a close, which would be an absolute snoozefest for the viewers.
As opposed to say.. One player getting up 7-2 in a race to 9 by playing slow, but now his opponent runs a rack or 3, and now the first player is under immense time pressure to "git er dun" before his flag drops. Running around the table, getting down, and firing away like Earl reincarnate. Leading to inevitable mistakes, and a possible reversal in the latter parts of the match. Now THAT would make for good TV, more viewers. The viewers are what drives advertising dollars, which is what drives prize funds. Pool players would play in pink tutus if all the events had a $100,000 first prize. Players will NEVER stop chasing those titles, irrespective of format changes, so your comment about "less players" is as I said, a hot take.
I agree, but they should be able to setup a digital shot clock that the players control so to eliminate the need for as many refs. I honestly think the current 30 sec shot clock 60 sec after the break and 1 extension per game is fine.
I don't like that idea at all. So you want a player that is up 8-0 in a race to 9 to loose just because he took a little extra time? Thats ridiculous. The standard shot clock they use now is about as fair as your going to get. It just needs to be used all the time.
The thing is, It isn't very likely to happen that they actually LOSE on time when 8-0. What IS more likely to happen is they are forced to rush shots, which will result in turnovers, which will make the match much more dramatic for viewers if player 2 gets a few more games due to these turnovers.. Either way, it's main purpose will be to force players to get on with it in their matches, as to not ever have it be a problem. They will practice with the clocks at home if implemented...
It is not really feasible to use a per-shot shot clock without an individual timekeeper per match. And it does not stop players from playing a million safes, which no "non hardcore fan" will want to watch. A match can still go 4 hours with a per-shot shot clock.
Lotta people just jumping straight to the worse case scenario, without really thinking through how all this would play out. It would lead to players playing faster, and in the odd case where a player forgets to hit their clock and the opponent gets free playing time on their opponent's clock, it leads to self-inflicted time pressure, which is a terrific selling point for TV. Fans will know what's up, while the player who forgot to hit their clock will be clueless. Think: Poker hole cards in televised poker tournaments. All the fans know that a player is about to get a major beatdown, while player in question has no idea their opponent flopped a FH with AA.
Pool needs DRAMA (in order to get viewers) , and a super easy way to inject that drama is to insert time pressure of some sort. This is what sells the Mosconi Cup and makes it profitable. Not saying that it needs to be as dramatic as a 30 second shot clock every shot, but a set time for each player per match is a good compromise.
Twocylndr
Well-known member
We (wife,too) marshaled at a LPGA tournament several years. It was all volunteer. We had to buy a shirt, a one time investment. We were given a parking pass and entry passes for the days we volunteered for. Elbow to elbow with all the players.
It was great.
Normally the World Snooker Tour does not use a shot clock, however...
There is an annual tournament called the Snooker Shoot Out. It is a 128-player single elimination format with a race to 1. There is only the one table for 127 frames. Each frame is limited to a maximum of 10 minutes. There is a 15-second shot clock for the first 5 minutes of the frame and a 10-second shot clock the last 5 minutes. It is a ranking event.
It's not your usual snooker but it is exciting.
You have a sign type Led display clock viewable at the table and each player has a remote at their seat. Its the opponents job to reset the clock at the beginning of his play before leaving his chair. . 45 sec per shot. Variable could be player gets to call extension which either he or opponent adds. Many variables with times and extensions that Matchroom could decide on. IE After two fouls ref is called. There were Too many matches where players deliberately played slow.
DaWizard
Well-known member
This would be kind of a new game, a new variant. Id be interested to see how this works out. I can imagine the time pressure would be interesting. A "your time is up, I won" ending does not sound very spectaculair, though.
Then again, this speed chess final between two GOATs of chess, honestly had my but clenched:
(you have to know chess a little to appreciate it, otherwise it's two guys shuffling pieces around)
Speed Chess Championship 2023 Final | Magnus v Hikaru! GOATs Meet Again 2nd Year In A Row !coinbase
It's time for the biggest matchup in chess as Magnus Carlsen attempts to take down FIVE-time champ Hikaru Nakamura in the 2023 Speed Chess Championship Final...
www.youtube.com
First they play 5m+3s, then 3m+1s.
At 3h49m25s they start the final 1m+1s segment. That means both players have 1 minute on the clock + 1 second increment for each move they make. Their first game lasted 8 minutes, because they moved so quickly. This is a rare exemption though. Games usually last 2-3 minutes.
To be clear: Im not advocating Speed Pool, just argueing against my own point: (losing on) time can be a fun and exciting factor. And classical chess is quite boring to watch, while this is really exciting!
Still, in the end I think it should be a "clock per rack, with BIH if you flag", rather than "1hr for the entire game, lose if you flag". And the timesettings should allow for some pondering, just not about the entire universe.
I might be playing this or next week and see if I can bring a chess clock to try it out.
Last edited:
Nice. Give the 30 minutes per player a try, and keep track of how much pressure you feel as the set goes along. You'll need to make the race appropriate for skill level, to not have too little time, or too much. Maybe have a few peeps watching to judge whether it is fun to watch.This would be kind of a new game, a new variant. Id be interested to see how this works out. I can imagine the time pressure would be interesting. An "your time is up, I won" ending does not sound very spectaculair, though.
Then again, this speed chess final between two GOATs of chess, honestly had my but clenched:
(you have to know chess a little to appreciate it, otherwise it's two guys shuffling pieces around)
Magnus vs Hikaru: The Speed Chess Championship Final for $20K! | SCC 2022
The biggest SCC match in YEARS is here with five-time world champion Magnus Carlsen taking on four-time Speed Chess champion Hikaru Nakamura in the 2022 SCC ...
At 3h33m35s they start the final 1+1 segment. That means both players have 1 minute on the clock + 1 second increment for each move they make. Their first game lasted 8 minutes, because they moved so quickly. This is a rare exemption though. Games usually last 2-3 minutes.
To be clear: Im not advocating Speed Pool, just argueing against my own point: (losing on) time can be a fun and exciting factor. And classical chess is quite boring to watch, while this is really exciting!
Still, in the end I think it should be a "clock per rack, with BIH if you flag", rather than "1hr for the entire game, lose if you flag". And the timesettings should allow for some pondering, just not about the entire universe.
I might be playing this or next week and see if I can bring a chess clock to try it out.
DaWizard
Well-known member
@Bob Jewett : you have experience with chess clocks in tournaments? I have no read everything in the US Open thread, apologies.
What where your findings? If you're willing to share again.
What where your findings? If you're willing to share again.
'Butt clenching' chess???? This statement explains a lot. Carry on there time bandit.This would be kind of a new game, a new variant. Id be interested to see how this works out. I can imagine the time pressure would be interesting. A "your time is up, I won" ending does not sound very spectaculair, though.
Then again, this speed chess final between two GOATs of chess, honestly had my but clenched:
(you have to know chess a little to appreciate it, otherwise it's two guys shuffling pieces around)
Speed Chess Championship 2023 Final | Magnus v Hikaru! GOATs Meet Again 2nd Year In A Row !coinbase
It's time for the biggest matchup in chess as Magnus Carlsen attempts to take down FIVE-time champ Hikaru Nakamura in the 2023 Speed Chess Championship Final...
First they play 5m+3s, then 3m+1s.
At 3h49m25s they start the final 1m+1s segment. That means both players have 1 minute on the clock + 1 second increment for each move they make. Their first game lasted 8 minutes, because they moved so quickly. This is a rare exemption though. Games usually last 2-3 minutes.
To be clear: Im not advocating Speed Pool, just argueing against my own point: (losing on) time can be a fun and exciting factor. And classical chess is quite boring to watch, while this is really exciting!
Still, in the end I think it should be a "clock per rack, with BIH if you flag", rather than "1hr for the entire game, lose if you flag". And the timesettings should allow for some pondering, just not about the entire universe.
I might be playing this or next week and see if I can bring a chess clock to try it out.
He's got me on ignore, so he won't see this, but it just shows how out of touch he is. I am pretty sure these chess streams get way more viewers than pool streams. He is insistent on doing things the way they have always been done, that's led to pool almost dying in the vine in recent decades.
How many tables were used at the Open i wonder. You really only need one ref per pair of tables. That's not that many refs. As tourn. progresses the number goes down per round. MR should be able to swing it imo.
Last edited:
True, many study the breaks. Rarely are the streams only live with no chance to go back want watch the breaks all day long if that is what you like.
Granted, not much happens on the table while the replay is being shown -but it will free up a guy to do the clock.
I think Gar in the post above has a good solution. Like the local ball kids in tennis, local players would love to participate in a pro tournament in any capacity they could. Offering them food, swag, a lesson, or other goodies could get cheap help for the early matches.
Definitely worth a try.
The problem with the chess clock you propose is that when a player makes an early nine, gets left easy 1-3 ball outs, etc., they are not using their time much at all. They will then have plenty of time to stall enough to make viewers tune out. Due to this, there needs to be a per-shot clock.
I guess I don't care enough to continue this discussion. I will just watch the live scores during the first 2-3 rounds and tune in for the final 16.
It's not as bad as the NFL where people stare at their televisions for 3 hours to watch 14 minutes of football. It could be worse.
That's a major reason why hockey is so great to watch. A guaranteed 60 minutes of the puck on the ice and fast paced action.
Chess streams are popular globally.
If guys were allowed to take too much time per move they too, would lose viewership.
I prefer a classic game over speed when it comes to chess, but I'd rather watch Agadmater recap the match than watch it live in its entirety.
The search function here allows you to find all messages where user "Bob Jewett" has used the word "chess" and/or the word "clock". See if that works for you and if not I can post links to those previous messages.
Briefly, we did 14.1, 30 seconds per ball, 10 minutes for overhead, rack your own, 20 second increment. Penalty is points for the player with time left at 30 seconds per ball.
Last edited:
Agadmator for anyone who looks for him on YouTube, but I agree with you there.
DaWizard
Well-known member
Hell yeah! Hard to imagine if you don't like chess, but this speed chess final had everything. Genius play, blunders, comebacks and exciting to the last minite! And these two are icons, like Reyes/Strickland.
You can only understand if you start playing a bit for yourself, but there is so much depth and even beauty in chess... This game is a 1000 years old and is still being studied and is really fun to play on any level.
Last edited: