No Rule Change for DCC One Pocket This Year

[book collector]

I have used electronic chess clocks in two pool leagues. They are a lot more sophisticated than the old mechanical ones. There are some details of the rules you have to get right but that's not too complicated. They do speed up the slow players. The slow players do not like them, as expected.

Is there some specific problem you see?

You used chess clocks,{kept track of all of them} or people watching the matches took care of the clocks for both players, or the people actually playing the game used chess clocks?
I just want to clarify what you are talking about, before I respond.

 

[ShortBusRuss]

You used chess clocks, or the people actually playing the game used chess clocks?

I realistically don't think you've seen the new breed of electronic chess clocks. They have many many different modes that can add increments before your move, after your move, or operate with a delay that counts off 30 seconds before your time starts decrementing, etc.

It is simple... Give each player 45 minutes on their clocks, and give them a 60 second delay. This is 60 seconds per shot, plus an additional 45 minutes for walking back and forth to hit the clock, racking, + a little extra thinking time.

Make it where if a player reaches time control, the delay goes down to 30 seconds per shot. If you use up all your time and go down to 30 seconds per shot, then you better start thinking faster.

 

[lfigueroa]

For what it's worth I also would really like to see the results entered into Fargorate. I play a lot of pool and my Fargo rating reflects literally nothing I've done in the last 3 or 4 years (my number of games in their system hasn't changed).

I shall pass that along.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

My first match last year started at 10:30, and ended at 1:30 a.m. having gone hill / hill. This is the LONGEST match I have played at the DCC. To me, a three hour or three and a half hour match seems reasonable...for a race to three. After that, it would seem there might be issues with a guy taking too long to shoot (most likely) or not shooting at all.

I do not totally hate the rule change, I do hate the rule change announcement two weeks before the tournament, after my reservations are made, entry fee paid, with no time on the table to practice under the new rule...with yet ANOTHER new cue ball.

My Suggestions

I am not totally against the new rule, but I wanted more time to prepare.

I had a match last year on a diamond upstairs that had its pockets shimmed, so that they were significantly tighter than a pro-cut diamond. The cloth was a little worn, and the balls had some dust on them, and it was very difficult to pocket routine shots for players at a high amateur skill level. ALL the tables should have regular pockets. Having regular pockets on all the tables will help. If two guys at a lower skill level drew that nasty ass table I played on, I would expect the match to take 5 hours.

I don't mind a three hour limit or three and a half hour limit, but if that were to happen, I feel like there also has to be a shot clock, or else I could see guys putting the stall on at 2:45. I am not sure about the logistics of instituting a shot clock, but I would love it, if it were doable. To me, guys taking too long to shoot is the single biggest problem.

I wouldn't mind starting matches earlier in the day. I know other people might hate this, but it would allow for more time to get matches in. IF the tournament starts to fall behind, they can move tomorrow's start time up.

kollegedave

You've identified a core problem with setting a set time for matches.

Guys will get out front AND THEN go into total stall. We've all had it happen.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Bob Jewett]

You used chess clocks,{kept track of all of them} or people watching the matches took care of the clocks for both players, or the people actually playing the game used chess clocks?
I just want to clarify what you are talking about, before I respond.

The chess clocks were only used for the "inexorable slugs". I set up the clocks so all they had to do was start the breaker's clock at the beginning of the match. The players ran the clocks themselves. Among other things, that gets them back to their seats where they belong.

 

[Bob Jewett]

So it's better to punish the whole field than the 2 players holding up the tournament

No, I think it's better for the tournament management to figure out a fair efficient way to do time control. I think they don't have a good handle on that. I think your "solution" would just make things worse.

When I see the middle of a tournament with 400+ players in it and there are only three or four tables in play and the other tables are idle and players are just milling around, my conclusion is that they haven't figured out how to run a tournament yet.

 

[jalapus logan]

For what it's worth I also would really like to see the results entered into Fargorate. I play a lot of pool and my Fargo rating reflects literally nothing I've done in the last 3 or 4 years (my number of games in their system hasn't changed).

Great idea to have DCC results added to Fargorate. I'm also hopeful this can happen in time.

 

[book collector]

I realistically don't think you've seen the new breed of electronic chess clocks. They have many many different modes that can add increments before your move, after your move, or operate with a delay that counts off 30 seconds before your time starts decrementing, etc.

It is simple... Give each player 45 minutes on their clocks, and give them a 60 second delay. This is 60 seconds per shot, plus an additional 45 minutes for walking back and forth to hit the clock, racking, + a little extra thinking time.
This sounds like you are giving each player their own timer?

Make it where if a player reaches time control, the delay goes down to 30 seconds per shot. If you use up all your time and go down to 30 seconds per shot, then you better start thinking faster.

I'm about 95% sure this can not be done without resetting the clock, and who's doing this , ?

I know exactly how they work , I have played 5 to 10 games of chess every day I wasn't too sick , for the last 20 years with timers.
I do know what they can do.
I also know what they cannot do, and they cannot make the player push the button, to start his opponents timer,that is where the problem lies.
If like I put in red , you propose to give each player a separate timer , which has a slightly better chance, but many people will still forget and lose on time despite being ahead in the game.

Here's my prediction of what will happen with at least half the matches if the players are in charge of the clocks.{ Probably realistically more like 90%}
Player A will shoot and forget to hit the clock to start Player Bs clock. , {That is how the timers are actually supposed to work} Player B who is a couple of IQ points higher than player A, and just as sneaky , will notice they are still on Player As clock, and go take as long as he feels he can, without arousing player A's suspicion that something is funky in Elizabeth In.
Player A takes his turn again and we repeat about 10 times and all the while player As clock has been running, and player B still has all his time left.
Finally one of the players whos clock has been running the whole time, wakes up and smells the paint, and starts a shitstorm, because his opponents clock hasn't moved, he still probably won't realise it's his fault and will blame it on a faulty clock This will wake up all the other victims and there will be all hell to pay, while they try to find some way to fix it.
Even though in reality there should not be a peep, because the responsibility is on each player to hit the clock, at the end of his inning to start his opponents inning.
That is how they have been used since 1883.

 

[ShortBusRuss]

I know exactly how they work , I have played 5 to 10 games of chess every day I wasn't too sick , for the last 20 years with timers.
I do know what they can do.
I also know what they cannot do, and they cannot make the player push the button, to start his opponents timer,that is where the problem lies.
If like I put in red , you propose to give each player a separate timer , which has a slightly better chance, but many people will still forget and lose on time despite being ahead in the game.

Here's my prediction of what will happen with at least half the matches if the players are in charge of the clocks.{ Probably realistically more like 90%}
Player A will shoot and forget to hit the clock to start Player Bs clock. , {That is how the timers are actually supposed to work} Player B who is a couple of IQ points higher than player A, and just as sneaky , will notice they are still on Player As clock, and go take as long as he feels he can, without arousing player A's suspicion that something is funky in Elizabeth In.
Player A takes his turn again and we repeat about 10 times and all the while player As clock has been running, and player B still has all his time left.
Finally one of the players whos clock has been running the whole time, wakes up and smells the paint, and starts a shitstorm, because his opponents clock hasn't moved, he still probably won't realise it's his fault and will blame it on a faulty clock This will wake up all the other victims and there will be all hell to pay, while they try to find some way to fix it.
Even though in reality there should not be a peep, because the responsibility is on each player to hit the clock, at the end of his inning to start his opponents inning.
That is how they have been used since 1883.

First, not EVERY match will be on the clock, only those players already flagged as "slow", and their opponent.

If a slow player gets put out of the tournament on time when they forget to hit their clock, then boo-hoo.

There needs to be consequences for slow play.

 

[book collector]

The chess clocks were only used for the "inexorable slugs". I set up the clocks so all they had to do was start the breaker's clock at the beginning of the match. The players ran the clocks themselves. Among other things, that gets them back to their seats where they belong.

So, you were not giving each individual x amount of time to finish the game but just the table , am I understanding that correctly?
Also you did everything except push the button to start the game ?

 

[ShortBusRuss]

So, you were not giving each individual x amount of time to finish the game but just the table , am I understanding that correctly?
Also you did everything except push the button to start the game ?

No, it HAS to be an assigned time/increment per player. Just giving the "table" a set amount of time does nothing against a slow player who wins the first game and grinds for a few hours until the table's time runs out.

These types get heavily punished if they only get so much assigned time, because they can stall their way to a 2-0 lead and still lose if they use 4x the amount of time.

 

[BeiberLvr]

I know the purists would hate it, but allowing ball in hand on any foul would definitely speed up the game.

 

[book collector]

First, not EVERY match will be on the clock, only those players already flagged as "slow", and their opponent.

If a slow player gets put out of the tournament on time when they forget to hit their clock, then boo-hoo.

There needs to be consequences for slow play.

I agree with needing consequences for slow play, my position was that chess clocks are not the answer.
You have not said anything that makes me think otherwise, have I said anything to change your position?

Now to the slow players being "flagged'.
Alex clowns more than any other player I have watched , I love the guy and so do many other people , are they flagging him?
If they don't, how can you justify flagging someone else.
Also I I am sure there are plenty of people who would consider it an affront, to be singled out for slow play , and they might decide to get a civil liberties lawyer to take the whole shebang to court and even if they didn't win , the litigation costs would probably end, the best tournament I have ever been to.
Obviously , that won't work either.

 

[book collector]

No, it HAS to be an assigned time/increment per player. Just giving the "table" a set amount of time does nothing against a slow player who wins the first game and grinds for a few hours until the table's time runs out.

These types get heavily punished if they only get so much assigned time, because they can stall their way to a 2-0 lead and still lose if they use 4x the amount of time.

This question was for Mr. Jewett, about how he ran 2 leagues with chess clocks, although I do agree with what you said

 

[ShortBusRuss]

I agree with needing consequences for slow play, my position was that chess clocks are not the answer.
You have not said anything that makes me think otherwise, have I said anything to change your position?

Now to the slow players being "flagged'.
Alex clowns more than any other player I have watched , I love the guy and so do many other people , are they flagging him?
If they don't, how can you justify flagging someone else.
Also I I am sure there are plenty of people who would consider it an affront, to be singled out for slow play , and they might decide to get a civil liberties lawyer to take the whole shebang to court and even if they didn't win , the litigation costs would probably end, the best tournament I have ever been to.
Obviously , that won't work either.

Clocks absolutely, 100% addresses slow play. If you don't slow play, the clock will never be an issue. If you do, you may lose. Either way, the problem is 100% addressed. Just because you may not LIKE having to hit your clock, it still DOES address the slow play. Players will either play faster, or get drummed out of the tournament quickly. Spectators would rather watch a good players playing fairly quickly, than a same level player playing dog slow. Nobody wants to watch that, so them exiting the tourney early is no heatbreak...

As for Alex, Because he shoots at his hole every chance he gets and takes about 4 minutes to run 8 and out. I severely doubt Alex has been a major contributor to slow matches.

 

[Bob Jewett]

So, you were not giving each individual x amount of time to finish the game but just the table , am I understanding that correctly?
Also you did everything except push the button to start the game ?

The leagues were handicapped straight pool. The time assigned to each player was scaled according to the number of points they had to score, so the two players would generally get different amounts of time on their clocks. As with every chess clock situation I've ever seen, each player was responsible for turning off his clock and turning on his opponent's clock at the end of a turn.

 

[jeagle64]

Play best of 3 instead of race to three.


Sent from my iPad using AzBilliards Forums

 

[book collector]

The leagues were handicapped straight pool. The time assigned to each player was scaled according to the number of points they had to score, so the two players would generally get different amounts of time on their clocks. As with every chess clock situation I've ever seen, each player was responsible for turning off his clock and turning on his opponent's clock at the end of a turn.

Thank you Bob , I was confused a little.
Being responsible for starting the opponents clock after your move is my only experience with chess clocks also.
I'm curious how many people were involved and what the learning curve time was for them to get used to the clock.
I have watched many people, who have played lots of over the board chess , come to a tournament or event where clocks are used, and it takes most of them quite a while, to get where they don't forget it, off and on.
Some seem to never get used to it.
To be honest, I am amazed you had any success with it, at all.
For anyone who enjoys chess and is trying to improve I recommend this channel on YouTube, there are always some good points brought up and not only the moves that were made but improvements found in later study.
There is also historic info and player info on occasion that is really interesting to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEhV3ZPlqeM&t=14s the narrator is about 2100 or below I think, but he puts the info in a way that even much lower rated players can understand, for me watching a great player like Kasparov evaluate a game is worthless , he is too far ahead of my abilities for it to make sense to me.

 

[jay helfert]

Clocks, smocks! You guys are so funny with all the different ways to use shot clocks and how to decide when to use them. The four ball rule is very simple to implement and it will SOLVE the problem of excessively long matches. And you don't need to buy any clocks and teach players how to use them. It may take one game for a player to get used to spotting a ball when necessary.

There have been rule changes ever since I came into this game and they are usually done when necessary to either speed up play or take care of a problem with the existing rules. This is exactly what needs to be done as expediently as possible with the One Pocket division at DCC, and the four ball rule addresses that very well.

I love the game of One Pocket and have played many games with this rule in place, and I still love the game of One Pocket! It presents one more piece of strategy to an already very strategic game. If anything, it gives even more advantage to the better player.

One more time just to make my point clear. With this rule in place, there will be no more overly long matches that delay further rounds of play. And guess what, the better players will continue to win! :thumbup2:

 

[Paul Schofield]

Clocks, smocks! You guys are so funny with all the different ways to use shot clocks and how to decide when to use them

For 7 years I have had in storage a small box of 4 timers (just in case) to deal with slow play. My better instincts have told me to leave them where they are. I feel that clocks can be okay in significant televised events where they are used for EVERY match and there are referees and an official that operates the timer. Otherwise clocks are a nuisance, humiliation, and distraction for the players. I have dealt with slow play through rules and diplomacy. This has proven successful for me.

Amending rules to promote a desired outcome, in my opinion, is the best approach.