Chess clock in tournament

[ecz]

... not to use as a chess clock in chess, but just as a visual evidence of the time spent by each player during his/her turns.

It should work as a neutral assistant that says to the referee who is the player most responsible of the delay if the game does not end by the schedule. An helper to assign games when in doubt.
I'm not a fan of this idea, but I would know your opinion.

( BTW I know that the key to stay in the schedule is the scenario's list ).

 

[PresterJohn]

At some stage there will be a phone application which is used like the VASL turn wheel. A turn track and phase marker which is tapped at the end of each phase. Obviously at the end of the game there would be a log file.

 

[Paul John]

One problem with a simple clock is that in many scenarios, one side has to spend more time than the other. To make it a 50:50 question would be inappropriate or could even show that one side took 'too long', but figuring that out would be pretty impossible. I get the problem, and maybe a clock would help, but it would still be very subjective.

 

[von Marwitz]

Chessclocks in ASL are unfeasible.

In Chess, both sides have the same OoB and the same terrain. Nothing is further from the truth in ASL.

Therefore, chessclocks would inevitably fail in the task envisioned for them. This has been correctly pointed out by @Paul John .

But even incorrectly assuming, they would work, I would still not like the idea. Having a chessclock at my back would be a detriment for my enjoyment of the game - regardless of whether I would be the side using "less" or "too much" time. I would not partake in a tournament using chess clocks.

von Marwitz

 

[Jwil2020]

Perhaps some method of tracking time would be helpful. But as PJ (and vM noted), ASL is not like chess. One side might have a lot of vehicles and needs to move across large swaths of the map, while the other player sits hunkered down waiting for a good time to reveal those HIP guns.

"Hey, I've got the more difficult side." That's usually my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[gorkowskij]

“In Chess, both sides have the same OoB and the same terrain. Nothing is further from the truth in ASL. Therefore, chessclocks would inevitably fail in the task envisioned for them.”

That’s like saying you can’t determine victory in ASL for lack of symmetry in OoB and terrain, but we do. How? Playtesting ahead of time to find a “fair” metric. Just like we “test” scenarios to calibrate victory conditions, we could test to arrive at “fair time per side.” It’s easy to do. Just have each pair of testers report their time per side. Designers/developers could then calculate the average of those times to arrive at a benchmark “fair time” for each side. This would account for variations in OoB and terrain, and be no better or worse than the current process for trying to make scenario victory conditions fair. It’s all based on testing and the idea that the truth of a statistic is borne out over many trials.

Designers/developers could then implement VC penalties for exceeding fair time. A slight breach could be minor penalty, for example lose one VP. A major breach could carry a heavier penalty.
As for enjoyment, excessively slow play is an oft cited detractor. With respect to tourneys, I’ve had experienced players tell me that if they see a certain name on the roster they drop out because that player is too slow. I myself have been scolded by a future opponent for taking too long. In that case, I had to explain that I could only progress as fast as my opponent would allow.

Finally, tapping a chess clock is no more difficult than flipping a turn marker – easy to do. We might not be ready to have an entire tourney running on chess clocks, but it wouldn’t hurt to have a “chess clock mini” in which some tourney goers could participate to test/display the concept.

 

[Actionjick]

I liked speed chess. I liked speed ASL, our version without a clock. I like the Veyron. Let's play fast!!

That is IMO the only use for clocks in ASL. A couple guys with house rules and a clock who want to just go at it!

 

[Stewart]

How about you set a time for the Match?
Time to play the scenario should've been kept track of in playtesting and during the lifetime of the scenario. Not always done...but could be assessed by having average players complete the tournament games prior.... we all know that some players get a couple games in when they have the list.

Unfortunately, that info isn't held.

Finally, tapping a chess clock is no more difficult than flipping a turn marker – easy to do.

ROFL, creating VASL logs is Far easier...never done.

BTW, there are chess clocks in VASSAL.

 

[STAVKA]

... not to use as a chess clock in chess, but just as a visual evidence of the time spent by each player during his/her turns.

It should work as a neutral assistant that says to the referee who is the player most responsible of the delay if the game does not end by the schedule. An helper to assign games when in doubt.
I'm not a fan of this idea, but I would know your opinion.

( BTW I know that the key to stay in the schedule is the scenario's list ).

As an experienced TD you know who the handful of slow players are attending or you quickly learn. Why should others have to use chess clocks and drag down their own speed of play.

Have walked up to non-finished games Turn 3-4 of a 6-7 Turn scenario, and my judgement upon the slow player fault, would later prove to be a purge, never to return, the benefit to the rest of us, think I have purged out at least two slow players from my tournaments.

 

[olli]

I have seen several times over the years the demoralised state of people who have played slow players, at one tourney the scenario had been played well over 8 hours that everybody else took a max of 3 to complete, the demoralised guy in the end stood up and told the slow player that it had been the first time that he had been bored rigid whilst waiting to do his moves over the game, stood there and told the guy , congratulations the game is yours as I am going to bed, I’ve never been so bored playing a game and walked away . The slow player was a very experienced player but just deliberated waaay to long on each and every counter he moved

 

[ecz]

in fact I dislike this option that does not help to have quicker games and I never used it.
The way someone presented it to me asking for an advise is more or less:
"if one player at the end of the time scheduled for the game has used > 150% of the time used by his opponent, probably he is too slow. And this becomes a factor to assign the game, unless there is an obvious asymmetry of forces in the field."

Anyway it's not a tournament I organize, and I gave the same answers I have read above.
thanks

 

[Robin Reeve]

The problem to be adressed is when a player is so slow that he prevents a game to be ended within the time constraints fixed by the tourney.
I don't think that there is a rigid way to fix that problem, excepted observation and common sense.
The latter could convince a slow player not to take part of a competitive tournament if they know they won't respect the rythm required.
It is not a moral question - being slow can be a choice or a style of play - but an aptitude to take the measure of a situation and adapt.

I once thought of a way to measure the relative time of both sides of a scenario : compare the number of units of each side. It gives a rough idea of the difference of time to manage each side.
But there are quite a number of factors that could relativize the value of that calculation.

 

[Vic Provost]

Screw the clock idea, if I play a realy slow player, I'll shake his hand, win or lose afterward BUT I will never play that person again.

As a former tourney director many years ago, you almost could make a mental list of who was most likely to force an adjudication over slow play from those you actually knew. Chess clocks would just complicate things for all the reasons listed by others above. No Thanks!

 

[Vic Provost]

Screw the clock idea, if I play a realy slow player, I'll shake his hand, win or lose afterward BUT I will never play that person again.

As a former tourney director many years ago, you almost could make a mental list of who was most likely to force an adjudication over slow play from those you actually knew. Chess clocks would just complicate things for all the reasons listed by others above. No Thanks!

Also it is on the tourney director to have scenarios in the list that players can actually finish in 4 to 6 hours time, I have been in events where there were obvious choices that would have to be in a night round or could cause problems toward the end of the day round.

 

[Jazz]

Using a chess clock to get slow players to play faster is a fool's errand.

Using a chess clock to add a level of tactical tension between two average-fast players....now you're talking.

Each side gets allocated time based on a formula something like:

-(Squad Equivalents) * (30 Seconds) * (number of turns)
-SMC * 30 Sec * number of turns
-(Vehicles) * (60 Seconds) * (number of turns)

or something like that.

 

[bendizoid]

There is a small amount of satisfaction when two notoriously slow players play each other.

 

[gorkowskij]

Using a chess clock to get slow players to play faster is a fool's errand.

Using a chess clock to add a level of tactical tension between two average-fast players....now you're talking.

Each side gets allocated time based on a formula something like:

-(Squad Equivalents) * (30 Seconds) * (number of turns)
-SMC * 30 Sec * number of turns
-(Vehicles) * (60 Seconds) * (number of turns)

or something like that.

Yes, but the "formula" could be derived from play testing. By having multiple players track their time, for a given side, you would get an average total time to play for that side. You could stop there and say based on testing the target time is X hours Y minutes. Players who come in late could suffer a VP penalty. This might well expedite slow play, since it carries a penalty. To carry the formula further, once you have enough historical data from testing you could start to draft formulae to forecast "average time" going forward. This new emphasis on time would be consistent with the original intent of Squad Leader - a fast paced game about split second tactical decision making.

 

[ecz]

I agree with everyone saying that a chess clock is not a useful way to bypass the real problem. I just asked if someone somewhere had ever experienced or tried this before and with which result.
Take my post as an informal survey and a way to collect new responses after a decade from since someone mentioned for the first time the chess clock for ASL.

 

[Wayne]

Best tech for use in the creation of pragmatic ASL clocks...

[JMO, but concerted effort in this direction would be futility]

Intrinsically, ASL is a social experience -- sometimes cast as a tournament -- but no place for clocks.

Suggestion for the wanna-be faster player: forcibly play at 10x your "natural" speed.
You'll make 2.5x more mistakes, but will learn the game 4x faster than you will at your current rate.
Don't believe it? Try it for a year.
And, BTW, you likely will by then have slowed to a "normal-speed player," I expect.

HTH

 

[Jazz]

Yes, but the "formula" could be derived from play testing. By having multiple players track their time, for a given side, you would get an average total time to play for that side. You could stop there and say based on testing the target time is X hours Y minutes. Players who come in late could suffer a VP penalty. This might well expedite slow play, since it carries a penalty. To carry the formula further, once you have enough historical data from testing you could start to draft formulae to forecast "average time" going forward. This new emphasis on time would be consistent with the original intent of Squad Leader - a fast paced game about split second tactical decision making.

<shrug> Why introduce another source of variation based on opinions for which there is no commonly accept unit of measure? Your allotted time based on the OOB is just one more way that that balance could be affected.

I want to play the game and not become a slave to maintaining some convoluted formula to determine the time the general gaming population will spend playing individual scenarios.