Add a clock in the middle of a game?

Hi all,

Is there any USCF rule that allows (or forbids) the TD to add a clock to a game that is already in progress (under way with no clock)?

I have served as a floor TD or Head TD for several local scholastic tournaments that are unrated or use a local rating. It is common practice in those tournaments for many of the participants not to have chess clocks, as we are bringing in many players who are relatively new to tournament chess. The organizers have some chess clocks available but only a limited number. The games are typically G25 d/5, so most of the games finish in a timely manner just because the students play relatively quickly. So it is common TD practice to wait until approximately 30 minutes into the round and then put clocks on boards that are still in progress. Generally the clocks are set by looking at a delay clock that was properly set and has been in use since the start of the round, adding the two times together, splitting that time evenly between the two players and using the delay setting.

I have seen this same approach used at other USCF-rated scholastic tournaments with a limited number of clocks available. As clocks become available, an analog clock is set to evenly split the remaining time between both players and the clock is placed on a game that’s still in progress.

Is there anything in the official USCF rules allowing (or prohibiting) the TD from adding a clock to a game that is already in progress (a game that was started with no clock)?

I think this is a reasonable way to handle it when the players do not all have their own clocks and the tournament organizers cannot provide clocks for all the games.

16M says that if equipment becomes available after the play has already started then the time is split.

So there is a rule handling the adding of a clock to an existing game.
A clock is part of the required equipment.

So a director has the discretion to fix an equipment-deficient game by putting a clock on it and if you get a complaint you could always ask the complainer to find a rule prohibiting it.

Personally at scholastic tournaments I include opening announcements covering starting games without clocks (if neither player has one) and putting clocks on long-running games.

Jeff, this is great, thanks for the fast response!

16M covers how to set the clock mid-game where the tournament director (or anybody else) supplies one.

Curiously, I’m having trouble finding a rule which states that a director has the right to put a clock on a game where the players don’t have one (or have decided to play without a clock). There also doesn’t seem to be a rule which states that if a clock becomes available to a player mid-game, that he has the right to set and start it mid-game, the game having started without. Actually, I’m having trouble finding a rule that states that it is obligatory to play with a clock if one is available.

Having said all that, there is also no rule which states directly that you have to play a chess game with a board and pieces, rather than “blindfold”. All these things are too obvious to mention, perhaps.

Precisely. At some point, common sense really has to take over. Tournament chess is played with a time control. The chess clock is the means of measuring the time used by the player for the purpose of enforcing the time control. There is no reason the USCF Official Rules of Chess should explicitly state that players are required to use a chess clock.

As a practical matter, in scholastic tournaments, it is not unusual that new players who are playing in their first tournament will not have a chess clock (or a chess set and chess board, for that matter). It is also not unusual that games will start without a clock, especially in “novice” or “unrated” sections. Often, again as a practical consideration, such games will finish within a few minutes (with the outcome being essentially a random event). Rarely will such games last long enough to delay the start of the next round. However, when they do, the director will either borrow a clock or place his own clock (which he has cleverly brought to the tournament for just this purpose) on the game. In this case, the director will typically note the time the round started (printed on the pairing sheet, for example) and divide the remaining time in the round evenly between the two players.

Is this practice approved by the USCF Official Rules of Chess? No, it is not explicitly approved. However, as rule 1 states, the TD has discretion to solve problems not explicitly covered by the rules. The alternative in this case is to not allow new players who do not have equipment to play in the tournament. This practice seems to be a reasonable compromise.

However, having said all this, I would not accept a game in an open tournament being played without a clock.

At the Philadelphia Open we had some games played without clocks in the Under 1000 Section, and I added a clock to a game to prevent it from going on too long. In the higher sections I strongly suggested to the players that they borrow a clock or buy one from the bookseller.

When I put a clock on a game I split the elapsed time as specified in the rules but I always give the players at least 5 minutes each.

I’m curious if TDs impose a minimum time each side will have when the clock is added. A lot of times I don’t realize there are players without a clock until it’s close to the time for all games to be completed. I never put a clock on with less than 5 minutes for each side. I’d consider it pretty drastic to put a clock on a game with just a minute for each player.

I do the same thing (have at least 5 minutes on each clock when I put the clock on the game) - but then I am monitoring to see if there are games without clocks and trying to get a clock on that game plenty early. Curiously adding a clock to a game with young scholastic players frequently makes it get over very quickly.

And Jeff cited the rule that permits it earlier - 16m.

I once saw a game in the Illinois Class (used to be the weekend before Thanksgiving every year) where the players almost did not have equipment.

They were playing on a peg-in set with a board that was about 7 inches square. Their clock, by contrast, was almost a grandfather clock – actually, it was one of those old Garde analog clocks. Its width was greater than that of the board.

I just had to laugh as soon as I saw it. The incongruity was hilarious.

Bill Smythe

Did you check to see if they were using Monroi’s to record their moves?

Yeh, this was in the 1980’s or so. They were using a Monroi. The Monroi of that era consisted of 64 mechanical buttons which activated a highly complex mechanism of gears and levers. You had to have read the manual for a couple of hours to know how many button presses were required on each move, and which piece height (1/16 inch through 3/8 inch in increments of 1/16) corresponded to which piece. Brass buttons represented black pieces, aluminum white.

Bill Smythe

Sounds like a perfect complement for “The Turk.”

A little common sense, can go a long way for a good TD.

If a player REALLY objects, he can always put up a potentially refundable $25 to Crossville, for a TDCC review of any TD’s action.

All the best, Joe Lux, NTD, TDCC

Players don’t get to make that decision. They have to play the game with standard equipment as available.

Or I suppose players could decide to play without castling or en passant or use checkers stacked to differing heights as chess pieces.