return to indexE-mail me at kwoolsey@netcom.com
The following letter from Brendan Burgess brings up some very interestingpoints about the use of clocks in backgammon tournaments. My comments willbe interspersed in boldface.
Clock issues at the Paris tournament
A number of interesting clock issues arose at the Paris tournament
Clocks were not in use for the first two rounds
I found this incredible. It was part of the publicity and it lent credibilityto the event - clocks would be used in all Championship matches. The firstround began one hour late on Thursday and without clocks. Of all the matches,the first round was the most important one to use clocks on. Many first roundmatches finished after 1 am and then the players had to sit down to a second17 point match! As I was knocked out in the first round, I don't know whattime the first round finished at. There were probably people still playing at4 am. While that might suit some people, I much prefer to play during the day.
I agree that if clocks are to be used at a tournament then ideally theyshould be used for all rounds. This is particularly true in the early roundswhen more than one match is played per day and a player may have to wait along time for another match to finish. The main purpose of clocks is toprevent this sort of delay. My guess is that it was simply a matter ofeconomics -- there probably weren't enough clocks to go around for thefirst round matches.
The clock rules were different from the normal
Two interesting innovations. When a player runs out of time, his opponent gets2 points and both players get an additional 10 minutes!!!!! If you run outof time, and your position is gin, you get the points for that game first.So Kahn was playing Eitan in the Masters. Kahn ran out of time during a bear off.However, he was awarded the game which gave him sufficient points to win thematch and so he won the match.
I think there is merit in both rules, but I think that there should be astandard set of clock rules in all tournaments.
The main reason for adding the 10 minutes to both players' clocks is toprevent certain clock ploys which might otherwise be available. For example,suppose I am ahead 9 to 8 in an 11 point match, own a 2-cube, and bothmyself and my opponent are running short on time. If I can manage to prolongthe match, it won't matter if my position is terrible. It won't even matterif my clock runs out first, since I can afford to lose two points withoutlosing the match. All that matters is that I can keep the game going untilhis flag falls, since then I would win the match. The addition of time toboth players prevents this from happening.
A standard set of clock rules would be nice. However first we have the problemof standardizing the use of clocks in the first place. Remember that noteverybody likes them or is used to them. Players who have never used a clockbefore may find themselves at a significant disadvantage. While the use ofclocks is fine for top-flight invitational tournaments, for the regulartournament with a lot of entrants they may not be so popular.
Ballard vs. Westerlund
Westerlund had 7 minutes left while Ballard had 20 minutes. The score wassomething like 16-15 so Westerlund was in time trouble. They agreed a breakand Nack Ballard was leaving the playing room when Westerlund called him back.A spectator had pointed out that Westerlund's clock was still running as Nackhadn't paused the clocks properly. ( This was very easy to do as the clocksseemed very tempermental). Very graciously, Nack increased Westerlund's clockby 1 minute which I am sure was over generous. I think tournaments will haveto invest in digital clocks which are much more accurate.
Nice in theory, but it is not likely to happen. Simply a matter of finances.
They reached double match point and Westerlund had only about one minute left.( A digital clock would have given a precise reading.) Ballard won theopening roll of 4- 2 but inadvertently started his opponent's clock. Thedirector who was watching the match stopped the clock instantly. Ballardplayed his 4-2 and the director gave Westerlund a roll where the clock wasn'trunning. Westerlund rolled a 4-4 and thought about it for a few minutes beforerunning 24 -16 with both men.
Obviously the director shouldn't have done this -- he simply should have setWesterlund's clock back a little bit if some time had elapsed. The wholeidea of clocks is to get rid of these several minute huddles. However, itshould be noted that Westerlund was facing a unique problem. Since he wasin such time trouble, he judged that his best chance to survive was to playa complete running game, so he chose the obviously inferior 24/16(2). Whetherthis is correct or not, I have no idea. However, the use of clocks can addan extra dimension to checker and cube decisions. Do we want this to be partof backgammon?
Kahn vs Levermann in the Masters' Final
Kahn came back from behind to double match point when Levermann had only 4minutes left and Kahn had about 6 minutes. Kahn offered to split the prizemoney. I thought Kahn was a big favourite with the added opportunity ofwinning from a complicated match. As it happened Levermann had still about2 minutes when Kahn won the match.
Knowing the players, I would guess that Levermann, who is young and canthink and move very quickly if he has to, would have no difficulty completingjust about any game in four minutes without any serious deterioration to hisplay.
Levermann vs. Sequeira in the Open Final
I didn't watch this match so I am reporting second hand. Sequeira moved withhis left hand and kept his right hand poised over the clock from the start ofthe match. Levermann correctly objected to this. In some versions of the rulesof backgammon, it is expressly stated that a player may only use one hand tomove his checkers. By extension, this should also apply to the clock.
An international jury of 5 honest men was then summoned to rule on where theclock should be located. I think there is a big advantage for right handedplayers to play with the clock to their right hand side. The jury ruled thatthey should roll for the placement of the clock but that it would stay therefor the whole match. They ruled that it would be too awkward to move the clockfrom side to side as it would mean resetting it. Apparently, they didn'tconsider the possibility of leaving the clock on one side and switching theplayers around between games! As it happened, time was not a factor in thematch.
I agree with the ruling. It is consistent with general procedures -- i.e. ifthere is a dispute about who plays which color or who is playing clockwise orcounter-clockwise, the players roll for the choice and it is set that way forthe entire match. I do not think it really makes any difference which sidethe clock is on. It takes virtually no more time to reach across to theleft hand side of the board to press the clock if you are right-handed thanif the clock were on the right-hand side.
The director's intervention in matches
As I have already pointed out, the director stopped the clock in the Westerlundvs. Ballard match when Ballard inadvertently started Westerlund's clock. I feltthat the director overstepped the mark. He should have waited for Westerlundto complain. That was only a small point.
I do not agree. If the director is watching a match, he should act as areferee and clear up any irregularities on his own. The reason that playershave to complain and call a director when an irregularity occurs is thatusually there is no director at the table, so the players have no choice.If there is a director there, he should do his job.
The director stopped players picking up the dice before their opponent had hitthe clock. This was understandable as it happens all the time.
It is also the rules. A player should not pick up the dice before the opponenthas hit his clock to signify the end of the play.
But what was unacceptable was that Sequeira had picked up the dice and rolledbefore Levermann had hit the clock. The director grabbed the dice out of midair and put them back on the board. Levermann should have objected as it couldhave been very useful to him to see his opponents' premature roll.
No, that is not correct. If Levermann has not hit his clock, any roll whichSequeira makes is automatically invalid. The director did the correct thingas far as voiding the roll. Levermann does not get to see what his opponent'sroll would have been. I know that in non-clock games if my opponentinadvertantly rolls his dice before I have picked up mine I will grab hisdice in mid-air if I can in order to avoid any controversy. My play isn'tover until I have picked up my dice, or, in the case of clocks, until theclock is pressed. And if the play isn't over, the next roll cannot be made.Period.
Backgammon as a spectator sport
I got much more enjoyment out of the watching matches with clocks. They wereplayed at a much faster speed and so there was no hanging about watching playerstaking 10 minutes over an opening 3,1.
And there was an added dimension to some matches as players ran out of time.
I agree that clocks prevent players from taking a ridiculously long timeover their plays, and that is definitely good for everybody -- the players,the spectators, the directors, and the tournament as a whole. Whether theexcitement of a time scramble is a good thing or not is a subjective matter.Personally I prefer to see that backgammon matches be won or lost at thetable by the dice and the skill of the players, not by the clock. Also, Ido not like the idea of the possible ploys and strategy changes which may beprofitable when the clock is involved. From a selfish point of view, use ofclocks is very beneficial to me. I am comfortable using them, and since Inormally play very quickly anyway it is virtually impossible for me to bein time trouble -- if the match is a very long match, my opponent willinvariably be the one with time problems. In addition I am quite familiar withthe nuances of the clock and the strategy modifications available, and I willnot hesitate to use them if clocks are in play. However, I would still preferthe more pure result without the clocks affecting the result.
A standardized set of rules ?
As clocks become commonplace in tournaments, a standardized set of rulesshould be agreed. Someone should also compile a list of issues arising intournaments to act as a guide for tournament directors.
This would be nice, but I don't know that it will happen for a while.
An important consideration in determining clock rules is whether we want theclock to be an integral part of the game, as it is in chess or scrabble, orwhether the clock is basically just a deterrent to avoid ridiculously slowplay. My preference is the latter, but as seen by the examples from theParis tournament the sentiment today appears to be that the clock should bepart of the game and a serious factor in determining the winner of a match.