First, here are some excerpts from the rec.games.backgammon newsgroup, which are taken from Carol's newsletter. My comments will be interspersed.

One reason I find clocks unappealing is that they introduce so many potentially awkward situations, which most players can debate until the cows come home, and the occasional one argues over the board. Backgammon is not like chess, where the actual time required for moves is fairly constant and the clock regulates thinking time. A backgammon clock directs the play --a player can be coerced into sub-optimal moves by time trouble, cubing early rather than risk a long sequence of single points, and playing running games and blitzes (which tend to be decided quickly) instead of backgames and hitting contests, and a player with time advantage can deliberately take the opposite tack in order to run his opponent out of time. Still they seem to be here to stay, so we had best learn to live with them.

Julian Hayward, England

Julian makes good points. Due to the nature of backgammon, more than the player's thinking time is reflected by the clock. This means that if a match were super long, say an 11-point match for which each player made 1000 moves, it would be just about physically impossible for either player to make the time control no matter how fast they played. As for the point about taking advantage of an opponent's time problems, there will be a real life illustration of this later.

Kit Woolsey

We have started playing with the clock in Dublin and it's really a great addition. The slow players have speeded up and the fast players have slowed down!. Tournament rounds tend to finish simultaneously, which is great for everyone. Backgammon is now a spectator sport, with both players playing at a reasonable speed.

There have been no arguments, though I have raised a couple of issues on the rec.games.backgammon newsgroup. All of these were settled amiably over the board, but I just want to get other opinions in case of a serious dispute in a major tournament.

Anyway I am packing my suitcases to go to the Paris Open, and I am sure I will have a lot more clock issues arising from that tournament.

Brendan Burgess, Dublin Backgammon Club, Ireland

There certainly were some clock stories at the Paris tournament, which allowed only 55 minutes per player for an 11-point match (compared to the 65 minutes allowed in the World Cup). As a result, the winner of the Master's, Donald Kahn, almost didn't survive his semi-final match. I wasn't there, but from what I had heard he was in desperate time trouble during his final game, and in fact his flag fell before he had borne off all his checkers. Fortunately for him, he had achieved a gin position in the race (he could notlose no matter what the dice rolls were), and the rules of the tournament stipulated that he wins the match under such circumstances.

Kit Woolsey

As one of the busiest tournament directors in the world, I am wholly for the use of clocks. They are a great tool to ensure the smooth running and timely ending of matches and tournaments. At BIBA tournaments they are used as a "persuader" in as much as I trawl the playing areas checking the scores atset times and issue warnings that if the points scored don't reach a certain level by my return (15 minutes later), then the remaining segment of the match will continue with clocks. I find that does the trick most of the time.

Michael Crane

I think this is a good practical approach for small club tournaments which are run on a more informal level. For higher level tournaments I don't the think this kind of subjectivity can work. Strict written rules which the directors follow are necessary.

Kit Woolsey

My only experience with clocks in a tournament has been the Japan Open, where clocks are used as a matter of course. Some people in my club like to use them, whereas some don't, so it's just a matter of two people agreeing. The main problem in our club is remembering to switch from "finished my move, so I pick up my dice" mode to "finished my move, so I leave the dice where they are and hit the clock" mode. I always pick the dice up a few times --while the opponent smiles indulgently and lets my time tick away.

Perhaps one reason why clocks aren't too contentious over here is that thetime allowed seems fairly generous. I don't know what is standard in the U.S., but in Japan each player gets 35 minutes for a five-point match (so you could theoretically have a match lasting 70 minutes). Most matches never get close to flag-dropping, so the clocks are not adding undue pressure to the game, but do serve to keep the really slow players in check.

I would definitely recommend people to get used to clocks in a club environment. They don't really affect your play, but the extra unfamiliarity in a tournament environment is definitely to be avoided. The other thing to look out for is the very chatty opponent -- he or she is more than likely chatting on your time.

Gavin Anderson, Sapporo, Japan

Getting used to the clocks just takes a bit of practice, and any serious tournament player who isn't used to them and is playing in a tournament with clocks should certainly take the time to play a practice match using them. The amount of time given to each player is not standardized -- every club or tournament chooses its own time limits. I believe that the clocks should be used as they are in the the Japan Open, with the purpose of moving the really slow players along rather than having an effect on the outcome, but many players and directors feel otherwise.

Kit Woolsey

Personally, I don't like the clocks that much, as it can create time problems if several games evolve into deep backgames with no double-outs, for example, or one of those repetitive recycling games where the primer continually sends back checkers to try to retrieve a second blot. In chess, the time limits are based on time for moves, instead of the entire match. I think the correct usage of clocks in tournaments is to apply them only to matches in progress that are already going very slowly. The tournament director or assistants need to watch the draw sheets to look for players that are holding up the brackets, etc.

We use clocks in all matches in our weekly tournaments in the Atlanta Club, mostly to make sure we finish before midnight (Thursdays). I've only lost twice on time, but I don't like some of the tactics that can be employed by the player who has more time left (such as failing to doubleat 2-away, 2-away when holding an advantage, trying to force three or four games instead of ending it with this game). I think it creates some "bad" backgammon at times.

Gregg Cattanach, Doravill, Georgia

And from the editor of the Flint Newsletter:

Club director Dave Cardwell plans to use chess clocks to pace all the matches in the Georgia State Championships & Peach Cup on June 8-11 in Atlanta. This is the first ABT event in which chess clocks will beused in a positive format rather than a punitive situation.

Flint Area BG Club members have voluntarily practiced with chess clocks to prepare for major tournaments, but mandatory clocks in all matches would inhibit the friendly social atomosphere that helps the club welcome new comers and average 20 players a week.

Carol Joy Cole

An online poll about clocks suggested by Carol Cole was conducted in November 1999 by Art Grater, and the results are on his web page.Click HERE to see the results of this poll.

Here are some more comments from a couple of top tournament players. First, from Donald Kahn, winner of the Masters tournament in Paris:

In general, though I don't mind the clock and think that if properly used it isa good thing, I state most vehemently that the times alloted at this tournament (The Paris tournament, where Donald won the Masters) were indaequate, such as to make for hurried and therefore sub-standard play. I mean, it's not supposed to be speed chess, is it?

55 minutes for 11 points is not enough when the match goes to 14 games (as did my rubber semifinal). If one or two of them are longies, the clocks start going scary. And I noticed several very good pros in time trouble, though none lost on it.

This is very easy to remedy:
1. Lengthen the allotted times.
2. Or, at a certain point, for instance after 11 games played in an 11-point match (or 17 in a 17-point match, etc.), put the clocks aside, or what amounts to the same thing, set them to 30 minutes.

Donald Kahn

And now from Malcolm Davis, unquestionably one of the top players in the world, winner of the 1996 World cup (and just about everything else).

When I started playing backgammon in 1975, the United States was the leader of the backgammon world -- the best players and the best tournaments were U.S. dominated.

Alas, that has changed. A reversal has taken place, and while I am happy that backgammon has progressed so significantly in Europe, I would certainly like to see the United States become more excellent, both in terms of quality, well-run tournaments as well as level of play.

First, let me express gratitude to the wonderful, selfless directors allover the world who organize backgammon tournaments. I was peripherally involved in organizing the Dallas Mid-America tournament in 1976, and Igained some appreciation for what is involved.

Now I respectfully suggest one very important improvement that begs to bemade. Utilizing "chess" clocks, or "backgammon" clocks, if you please,in all championship division matches. Already the major tournaments in Europe,for instance Istanbul, Copenhagen, and Paris, are all three using clocks.Monte Carlo is considering clocks for the final 64. Of course the WorldCup, sponsered by Kent Goulding and Bill Robertie, pioneered the use ofclocks. And who could imagine a World Cup, truely a great tournament,without them?

It is way past time to stop rewarding those few who basically ruin a tournamentby employing a basic strategy of never making a move -- seeming somehow tobelieve they cannot lose a match if they never finish it. Any reasonable testof backgammon skill must employ some kind of time constraints.

In talking to players around the world about the use of clocks, I find agreat majority in favor of them. Even the players generally regarded abeing slow prefer to have clocks so they can demonstrate that their speedis being unfairly cirticized. And it does seem to be true that "slow"players are not as slow as everybody thinks -- and with clocks they canprove it.

Tournament directors may be reluctant to include clocks in previously"unclocked" tournaments because it is a change, maybe some playersmay not like them, and they understandably do not want to go to theexpense of providing clocks.

I have a couple of suggestions. Make clocks mandatory if either playerelects to utilize them and can furnish a clock. The other suggestion isto provide a small voluntary additional charge in registration fees untilclocks are paid for. I would be happy to contribute.

As for the argument that some players might not compete if clocks weremandatory, I say that more will compete if they are an integralpart of the format. For instance, I am planning to attend FrancoisTardieu's Paris tournament in February strictly because he has includedclocks in his tournament format.

To expect your opponent to graciously sit for move after move while youcarefully examine the merits of how to play an opening 3-1 isthoughtless, selfish, inconsiderate, and ridiculous. A player who cannotplay an 11-point match in an hour of clock time per participant shouldenter the beginners' tournament.

Furthermore, clocks with one pair of dice eliminate many areas ofpotential disputes, i.e. whether the dice were "up", what theroll was, etc.

I could say, "Tournament Director, don't ask what backgammon can do foryou, but rather what you can do for backgammon." But that would bemisleading. Tournament directors can do something for both backgammonand themselves by instituting clocks in at least the championship roundsof future tournaments. They can begin to restore the United States'prominence as a leader in the backgammon world -- in the process, makingbackgammon more enjoyable for the players, as well as for themselves.

Malcolm Davis, Dallas, Texas

Malcolm is not exaggerating about how slow some players can be, particularlyif they are using their slowness for gamesmanship purposes. Here isan excerpt from an article written by Bill Robertie in Inside Backgammon:

There are a few players, well-known to most experienced directors, whodeliberately play slowly in an attempt to annoy their opponents. I gotmy introduction to this approach many years ago at a Las Vegas tournament.Nack Ballard had reached the semi-finals and was scheduled to play thematch at 10:00 PM on a Saturday night. I thought it would be a goodmatch to record. Was I mistaken.

Nack's opponent started with a 3-1 in the first game. Easy to play, right?He looked at making the 5-point for awhile. Then he looked at playing 13/10,6/5. A theoretical innovation? After that he tried 13/9, then 24/20, then13/10, 24/23. I was impressed, not having known there were so many realchnoices for an opening 3-1. After about two minutes, with a big sigh,he settled on making the 5-point after all. The match continued in this vein.At 1:00 AM, after three solid hours of play, the score was 8-7 orthereabouts. Then Nack's opponent got a grip on himself and buckled down tosome serious slow play. Shake the dice for a minute. Roll the dice.Oops, cocked dice. Shake for another minute. Where's that perfecta? Andso forth.

After five hours I was tempted to quit, but I'd already invested so much timeit seemed like a shame to give up. Throwing good hours after bad, I stuckit out until 6:00 AM when the match ground to a halt. Nack had won, 19-18.I had recorded the whole match, and it still sits today in my files as the longest19-point match ever played.

At the paris Open in 1990, I watched Paul Magriel's opponent, notorious forhis poor sportsmanship, drag a 17-point match on for seven hours beforewinning. At the U.S invitational in 1986, Kent Goulding had a coupleof similar horror stories.

Under the traditional rules of backgammon, a player subjected to thissort of abuse had the right to call for a monitor on a match who theoreticallyhad the right to administer penalty points. For some reason, playersrarely elected this defense, and I've never actually seen a penalty pointawarded for this sort of slow play.

Bill Robertie

To conclude this discussion, I present an article I wrote for Inside Backgammonafter the 1996 World Cup. There have been some additions to the originalarticle (in italics), such as a transcript the final game of my match against Shino whichI won on time. This article is representative of my personal views aboutclocks in backgammon.

The Chess Clock

The tension couldn't be much greater as Wilcox Snellings and James Colensquared off for what figured to be the final game of their World Cup match. The score was 2-2 in matches for this best 3 out of 5 11-point match event, andthe final match was knotted at 9-9. In addition, there was another factor --both players had about 3 minutes left on their clocks!

The use of clocks has been common in games such as chess, go, and scrabblefor some time, but clocks are relatively new to backgammon. The mechanics ofthe chess clock are quite simple. Each player has his own clock, and the twoclocks cannot both run at the same time. After a player makes his move hepunches a button, which simultaneously stops his clock and starts hisopponent's clock. It is also easy to push the button halfway, which stops bothclocks (which is done between games or during a break). When a player uses uphis allotted time his flag falls, and he must pay the appropriate penalty.

For the World Cup, the time limits were set at 65 minutes for each playerfor each 11-point match. If a player overstepped his time limit his opponentwould get two points, and one additional point for every extra five minutesthat the tardy player used for the remainder of the match. Fast players shouldnormally have no difficulty making this time control. However if the playersare deliberate and the match turns out to be a long match, it is quite possiblefor players to find themselves in time pressure. This is exactly what happenedto Snellings and Colen.

The final game got under way. Snellings doubled on the third roll, asexpected, and Colen took. Both players moved as fast as they physically could,shaking the dice and rolling them quickly and playing their moves as soon asthe dice hit the board. As one might expect, the play was less than perfectunder such circumstances. Snellings was soon forced into a well-timed 2-pointgame. Colen had to leave a last ditch shot on the three point, and the crowdwent wild when Snellings hit the ace shot. Colen had only 8 men off, so it wasanybody's ball game. Snellings worked accurately to contain the hit checker,and succeeded in building the necessary prime. He was about to walk the primehome and complete the closeout, when disaster struck. Kent Goulding, thedirector, announced that Snelling's flag had fallen. That meant two points toColen, which gave him the match. The game never got completed.

As one might expect, this result caused a lot of controversy. Pretty mucheverybody agrees that we need some sort of time control, or backgammon matchescan go on into the wee hours of the morning if one of the players is unusuallyslow. The question is whether or not the result of a full day's play ofbackgammon with plenty of money at stake should be decided by a few seconds onthe clock. There is no doubt that both players could have easily played fasterand protected themselves against this disaster, but they were inexperiencedwith the nuances of playing with the clock and failed to pace themselvesproperly.

Another question worth considering is whether the clock should be part ofone's strategy in backgammon. In the previous game, Snellings had held a 9-8lead, and Colen had sent over a strong cube in a fairly complex position. Snelling's pass was probably correct from a strictly backgammon point of view,but it may well have been wrong with the clock in play. Had he chosen to take,the complexity of the position may have been sufficient to force both playersto use up their remaining three minutes without completing the game. If thishad happened then Snellings would have won the match (even if his flag hadfallen first), since he could afford the two point penalty while Colen couldnot. Snellings had never been faced with this situation before, and failed totake the clock into consideration when making his cube decision. Mosttournaments with clock rules now add equal time to both players clocks whenone flag falls, which eliminates this ploy.

There were two other matches which were decided on time. I was involvedin one of them. My first match against Shino was a long match with severalcomplex games. I had played quickly, while Shino had been deliberate but notunusually slow. As a result we reached the score of 10-10 with Shino having alittle less than 4 minutes on his clock while I had 25 minutes left on mine. The final game started as follows:

     Shino                  Woolsey
     6-2  24/18, 13/11      6-3  24/21, 13/7*
     5-1  Bar/24, 6/1*      4-1  ?

160 159

Shino 10 11 point match Woolsey 10

There is little doubt in my mind that my correct play is B/21, 8/7, locking uptwo valuable points and leaving myself with a very solid position. Howeverwith Shino in possible time trouble I felt my best chance was to play B/24*,13/9, sending another of his checkers back and making the position morecomplex. This sort of strategy is quite common in chess where one might make apossibly unsound move to complicate the position when one's opponent is in timetrouble. Should it be part of backgammon also? My plan was successful. Ablot-hitting contest ensued, and Shino wound up with seven men back -- a verysound front-backgame structure since I never made any inner board points. However as the game went he had no chance to complete the game before his flagfell, and I won on time.

I probably took more time for this 4-1 play than I took for any other playthe entire match, as I was faced with a problem I had never seen before -- howto balance a clearly inferior move against the possibility of driving myopponent over his time limit.

For the record, the match continued as follows after I played B/24*, 13/9:

     Shino                               Woolsey
     5-5  B/21, 8/3(2), 6/1* (illegal!)  6-2  B/17*
     6-5  B/20, 24/18*                   4-2  B/21, 9/7*
     5-3  B/20, 21/18*                   5-1  B/24*, 6/1*
     6-5  B/20                           4-1  24/20, 8/7*
     6-2  B/23                           6-1  20/14*, 8/7
     4-2  B/21, B/23                     5-2  13/8, 6/4*
     4-3  B/21*, 13/10                   1-1  B/24, 17/15*, 15/14
     2-1  B/22                           5-3  24/16
     5-3  21/13                          6-6  21/9(2)
     5-2  13/8, 6/4                      5-1  16/10
     6-1  22/15*                         4-2  B/21*, 6/4
     6-2  B/23, 8/2                      3-2  13/10*, 10/8
     5-2  B/23, 13/8                     2-1  21/20, 8/6
     3-1  23/20, 13/12*                  5-5  B/15, 20/15, 14/9
     4-2  13/11*, 11/7                   6-1  B/18*
     5-3  B/22, 20/15                    4-2  18/14, 15/13*
     6-1  B/24*, 15/9                    6-1  B/18
     6-4  20/14, 9/5                     3-2  14/11*, 13/11
     5-4  B/20, 24/20                    4-4  18/10, 15/7
     2-1  23/21*, 22/21                  6-1  B/18
     6-3  21/15*, 8/5                    6-2  B/23*, 23/17
     4-3  B/21, 15/12                    4-3  18/15, 17/13*
     4-1  (his flag fell)

221 132

Shino 10 11 point match Woolsey 10

As can be seen, much of this game had nothing to do with backgammon.Shino was rushing every play, and made some pretty poor plays includingan illegal play which I condoned. My plays were chosen with the sole goalof forcing a long game (my next seven moves all hit a blot). I don't believe Shino realized the danger he wasgetting into until it was too late for him to recover. An examination of the final position shows that he would have been hard-pressed to winthe game even if he had another five minutes on his clock.

Incidentally, when I told other players about winning a match on time vs.Shino, they found it hard to believe. Shino is normally a pretty fast player,and he was not playing slowly this match. However, the match just happenedto be an unusually long match. I have several hundred 11-point matches inmy data base, and this match is the second largest of the files for all the11-point matches. This is the sort of thing which can happen even to aplayer who is playing at a normal speed when clocks are in use.

The other match decided on time was Robertie vs. Stowell. Robertie hadplenty of time on his clock, while Stowell was running short. In thepenultimate game Robertie got to a coup classique position -- Stowell had threemen on his two point while Robertie had a checker on the defensive ace point. Stowell rolled the ace, and Robertie eventually closed out the two checkers andwon the game. However this took several moves, as coup classique positionsoften do. Even though Stowell had no further play problems, simply themechanics of rolling the dice and making a legal play gobble up a few secondseach move. As a result Stowell came down to a couple of minutes on his clockfor the last game, and was unable to make the time control.

The above example points to some of the ploys which might be availablewith the clock in play. Suppose you are at Double matchpoint, and you have 20minutes left on your clock while your opponent has 5 minutes. You play an acepoint game, and hit the 15th checker when he has borne 14 men off. If youclose this checker out, you are roughly a 12-1 underdog. Assuming your primeis moderately far back, your best chance is to not close him out but try toforce him to keep hitting you and recirculating checkers. That way you canpotentially prolong the game indefinitely, and since he has so little time lefton his clock compared to you his clock will run out first even though all hisplays will be forced. You run the risk of the checker getting away, but it isa risk worth taking.

I found out later when going over the matches that Malcolm Davis employeda variant of this scheme. It was in the middle of one of his quarter-finalmatches against Colen, and he saw that Colen might be running short on timein the future. At some point Malcolm had primed one of Colen's checkers.The rest of Colen's men were on the ace and two points, so it was virtuallyinconceivable that Malcolm could pick up a second checker. Malcolm hadhis two through seven points, his ace point slotted, Colen was on the bar,and Malcolm could have covered the blot on the ace point and completed thecloseout. Instead, Malcolm intentionally didn't cover. Obviously this wasa technical error since he might roll badly and never cover. However the equitycost was small. The potential gain was that Colen was forced to roll, whichwould use more time on the clock. In addition, if Colen entered (I don'tbelieve he did), Malcolm would recirculate the checker and gobble up moreof Colen's time. Did this make a difference? We will never know for sure.However Colen was in time pressure the last couple of games of the match,and made some awful moves which he probably wouldn't have made without thetime pressure.

The use of the chess clock has many advantages. In addition to theobvious one of avoiding ridiculously long matches due to slow play, themechanics of the clock help cut down possible controversies. The way theclocks are used, both players use the same dice. A player signifies that hismove is completed not by picking up his dice, but by punching the clock. Hisopponent then picks up the dice, rolls them, and play continues. This resultsin the following advantages:

1) Tailgating is no longer a problem. We have all been faced with thesituation where we have made a move and are reaching for our dice, but at thelast minute we have second thoughts and don't pick our dice up. Meanwhile ourimpatient opponent has been shaking his dice, and thinking that we are about topick up our dice he rolls. What now? This can lead to some dishonesttactics. If the roll is a bad roll the player can pick up his dice, but if itis a good roll he doesn't pick them up and claims the roll is invalid. Withthe clocks in play and both players using the same dice, this can't happen. Your opponent doesn't have any dice to shake, since they are sitting on thetable until the clock is punched. Even if an opponent rushes and pickes up thedice prematurely he still hasn't rolled them, and there is plenty of time totell him to put the dice back until you have punched your clock.

2) How often have you had an opponent roll a 4-3, play a 5-3, and scoop up hisdice. You saw a 4-3 and say he played the roll illegally, but he saw a 5-3. Both players can be quite honest and this can happen, and if one of the playersis dishonest things can get worse -- and it is your word against his. Usingthe clocks and only one set of dice this can't happen. Your opponent doesn'tscoop up his dice to end his roll -- you do. If he makes an illegal play thedice are still sitting there on the board until you pick them up, so you haveplenty of time to point out the illegal play and there can be no question aboutwhat the roll was. This also helps if the dice are potentially cocked -- theplayer can't play, scoop them up, and claim it was a legal roll.

3) There is often a dispute about whether a player has completed his move. Therules say that he completes his move when he picks up his dice, but it is notalways clear whether he has picked up his dice or not. This often happens whena player is reaching for his dice and at the last second realizes that he hasoverlooked something. Using the chess clocks, this is not a problem. The moveis complete when the button is punched, and there can be no question aboutwhether or not the button has been punched or not -- if his clock is no longermoving, then he has punched the button.

4) The problem of penalty points for late arrivers has always been a difficultproblem, with directors not being consistent in awarding penalty points. Withthe clocks, there is no problem. If a player is late, simply start his clockrunning. When he arrives, the time his clock has run will no longer beavailable to him for his play. This will not only encourage players to arriveon time but if a player is late that will not delay the match since he will beforced to play more quickly to make up for his late arrival. The sameprocedure could be used for players who take more than the allotted time forbreaks.

There are several things which make use of the clock much different inbackgammon than in chess. They are:

1) In expert chess, the time control is generally set to something like 40moves in 2 hours. Thus, a player knows exactly how many moves he has tocomplete for the time control. This works for chess, since the moves are madeslowly and a player has the time to copy down his moves and keep a record ofthe number of moves made. In backgammon the play is much quicker, and keepinga record of the number of moves made simply isn't practical.

2) If a player is in serious time trouble in chess, he can play at Blitz speedif necessary. It is possible to make a move and punch the clock in a fractionof a second. This just can't be done in backgammon. Regardless of how fastyou are, it will always take a few seconds to shake the dice, roll them, waitfor them to land, move the pieces legally, and punch the clock. Thus, a playerin severe time trouble in backgammon has no way of protecting himself by movingquickly. In addition a player in such a position will tend to roll withoutshaking, leading to more problems about what is a legal roll and how much thedice have to be shaken.

3) In chess, a player has a pretty good idea about how long the game will go. At least, he has pretty full control over this. Not true in backgammon. Younever know when you are going to get involved in one of those super-complexgames where both sides have several checkers back and neither player is able tomake any progress for a long time. Backgammon is a dice game, and you areoften at the mercy of the dice as far as what kind of game you must play. Inaddition a match may go quickly with a couple of big cubes or fast games, or itmay go slowly with some long drawn-out one-point games. Thus, it is difficultfor a player to pace himself accurately even if he is aware of the timeproblem. For example, in my finals match against Malcolm Davis, the first gamewas such a complex game which went on and on with neither of us getting anadvantage. Both of us are very fast players, but such a game can still takequite a bit of time. I finally rolled a joker and doubled him out, so thescore was 1-0 and we had both used about 10 of our allotted 65 minutes on thisgame -- had I not rolled the joker the game could easily have taken another tenminutes on both of our clocks. Granted time was never a problem in ourmatches, but if there happened to be three or four such games we could have runinto time problems even with rapid play on both our parts.

Since it is clear that we need clocks in order to avoid slow play whichcan take the enjoyment out of tournament backgammon, it is worth looking atalternative approaches which will utilize the clock yet avoid some of thedrawbacks which occurred in the World Cup. Here are a few suggestions I haveheard -- some of which would apply only to the World Cup 3 out of 5 format,others could be used for any tournament.

1) If a player's flag falls, a monitor is called. From then on, the playermust move every ten seconds or he loses. This rule is used successfully in theJapanese game Go. Since any player can find a reasonable move (although notnecessarily the best one) in ten seconds, the punishment for overstepping thetime limit would not be as severe as losing the match but it would be felt bythe slow player. Also, this would satisfy the main objective of the clock inthe first place, which is to avoid absurdly slow play. There could be someimplementation problems, since a monitor would have to be called if a player'sflag fell. Also, there would be some subjective judgment on the part of themonitor whether or not the player moved in ten seconds. Since this wouldusually happen only for the last couple of games of the match, these problemsshould be easy to resolve.

2) For the World Cup, have a time limit on each match but give each player anadditional 30 minutes in the bank for the set of matches. Thus, if a playerruns over the time control due to an unusually long match, he can then use hisminutes in the bank for protection. This might require a little bookkeepingand resetting of the clocks when a player's flag falls, but it shouldn't be toodifficult to implement.

3) For the World Cup, have an allotted time for the entire set of 3 out of 5matches rather than a time for each match. This protects the player from oneunusually long match, and gives him plenty of time to speed up his play if hefalls behind.

4) If a player goes over the time limit, he could be penalized points forupcoming matches. This way a match will not directly be decided on time, butthe slow player gets hurt and has a strong inducement to speed up. Theproblem, of course, is that the opponent of the slow player doesn't gain fromthe penalty.

5) Use of Fisher clocks. The Fisher clock (invented by Bobby Fisher), is aclock which is constructed so that every time you make a move more time is putback on your clock. With this it is possible to recover lost time by movingquickly later in the match. The problem is simply an economical one -- theyare too expensive.

The clock is here to stay. Without it, slow play becomes a major problemat backgammon tournaments. Given that we will be using the clock, it isimportant to decide exactly how the clock should be integrated with the game. Do we want clock strategy to become part of backgammon strategy, or should weattempt to construct the clock rules in such a way that they discourage slowplay without directly affecting the result of a match. These questions aresomething which all of us must consider for the future of backgammon.