I think it all depends on WHEN the error is discovered and what the current time situation is on the clocks. There are some gray areas, but I think there are some situations when the answer is perfectly clear.
Early in the game (first few moves) I see no justification for not correcting the problem. If one of the players makes a claim that the clock was set in error as soon as he discovered the problem, then just fix it.
Late in the game or near a time control, there may simply be no way to change the clock in a way that is fair to both players. Just leave the clock alone. For an extreme example, suppose the problem was discovered on the 28th move of a 30/90 game. Are you going to add delay without deducting any time (if deducting time was the standard practice for the tournament)? That would greatly favor a player in time trouble. Are you going to deduct some time (2+ minutes)? That would be a real problem to a player in time trouble. Are you going to wait for 2 more moves? Once the players INTENTIONALLY continue without a delay setting on the clock, how can you justify changing it? ANYTHING you do in this situation is bound to be unfair to one or both players – just because of the disruption in time trouble if nothing else.
I think the described situation (as near as I can tell from the description) is in a rather “gray” area. I wouldn’t change the clocks unless BOTH players agreed on the change. White waited too long to make a claim, it’d be difficult to determine how much time to remove from the clocks (and the player’s BOTH felt the “compromise” value of 4 minutes was incorrect), and any action you take is bound to make one or more players unhappy. I wouldn’t object if another TD felt differently.
I recently played in a tournament, where my opponent was unfamiliar with my digital clock. He had me explain to him how he could tell that the clock was operating properly. This is what a player is SUPPOSED to do if he’s not familiar with the clock. It is HIS responsibility to make sure he understands. Waiting until deep into the game to notice a problem, IMO, removes much of the legitimacy of the player’s claim. Unless his opponent tried to deceive him, I don’t think he has much of a case (and certainly no claim of an ETHICS violation).
It sounds to me that most of the reasons given to not just turn on delay are based on problems caused by the subtracting of time at the beginning of the game. This just seems like an additional argument for why the default of not subtracting time is to be preferred.
I agree. I never liked the practice of subtracting the time anyway.
Since the original post discussed HOW MUCH time to deduct, that’s what I considered in my discussion. If you’re not subtracting time, then just add delay and correct the problem.
Player sets the clock with time-delay off. The opponent does not object. Some time later, one of the players decides he would like time-delay after all. He asks the TD to turn it on. Answer: No.
Same as above, except that the player _ claims_ that he turned the time-delay off by mistake. My answer: No. If your answer is different, how do you intend to verify his intention? How do you plan to do so without delaying the game interminably?
Same as above except that it is the TD who notices that the time delay is off. Should the TD stop the game and rest the clock because time-delay is “standard”? Answer: Only if he’s a pompous idiot.
Your argument is based on two highly dubious assumptions: 1) That there is a fundamental difference between “placing a time delay clock on the game” and “changing the clock currently in use from non-time-delay to time-delay.” This is a meaningless distinction. 2) That setting a time-delay-capable without without the delay is “erroneous.” It isn’t. Playing without time delay remains legal in all games unless the tournament has added some special rule. And you still have not addressed my main point – if a player makes a mistake like this, he should have to live with it.
Can it be assumed that ‘some time later’ is beyond 10 moves, since 10 moves is what players have to correct an initial starting position?
In other words, if after move 6 player B notes that the clock, provided by player ‘A’, is not set for delay mode, is it appropriate for the TD to require the clock be set properly at that time, and possibly assess a minor penalty, such as giving player ‘B’ some additional amount of time? Is it then inappropriate after 10 moves?
Next issue: The standard is 2 minutes in other rule situations, is that appropriate here as well?
Finally, what happens if it is the TD who notes, within the first 10 moves, that the clock is not set for delay mode, not one of the players? Should he inform both players and let them have the choice as to what to do, should he stay mum, or should he unilaterally order the clock setting corredted?
In my opinion, the 10-move rule should not apply, since setting the clock with time-delay off is not an “error” – it is a legitimate choice. This might be a fair compromise if enough people want to change the rule, but though.
2-minute penalty: Possibly, but as a practical matter I hardly ever impose this with a digital clock because of the nuisance of resetting it. (Glaring at the player for a while usually suffices.)
He should stay mum. I believe this should be covered by 21D.
I have a question for those who think the TD can (or should) intervene to reset a clock into time-delay mode, with or without a player request. How exactly does this differ from the case in which, after five or six moves, one of the players pulls out a time-delay clock and asks that it be placed on the game because it is “more standard”?
You seem to be arguing a DIFFERENT CASE than the one we’re discussing in THIS thread. In THIS case BLACK set the clock. WHITE thought delay had been set (that was a rule of the TOURNAMENT, which the TD has stated TWICE) and subsequently found out that it hadn’t.
As far as your point 1) is concerned – I think there is OBVIOUSLY a difference. In one case you are substituting a clock KNOWN AHEAD OF TIME to not have time delay with one that does and in the other case you are CORRECTING a clock that was SUPPOSED to have delay set and didn’t.
As far as your point 2) is concerned – it certainly seems contrary to the rules as I read them. 16Bb “Time delay should be set according to the director’s instructions…” (he said WRITTEN rules for the tournament specified 5 second delay) and “Clocks equiped to do so should be set for a Bronstein or delay mode for tournament play.” Where’s the wiggle room here for players that don’t WANT a time delay (much less when one of the players DOES want time delay and THOUGHT it was being used)?
Nolan,
I think up to 10 moves into the game is a reasonable point for giving a player an ABSOLUTE right to have the clock setting corrected. After 10 moves, I think there would have to be some extenuating circumstances – such as:
the other player deducted the 5 minutes from the initial time but did not add on the delay,
the other player TOLD him that delay was in effect and it was not obvious from looking at the clock that he had been misinformed, or
it was an announced tournament rule that delay was to be used in all games.
I think the ruling for extenuating circumstances should be handled on a case by case basis instead of trying to set some guideline that could be applied across the board. There’s some justification to always allowing the delay to be turned on if the tournament’s announced policy is to NOT deduct from the starting time.
I’ve never had a 2 minute penalty assigned to me or my opponent. Is this practice actually that common? I wouldn’t like to assign a penalty for a simple mistake in setting the clock. To some extent, I think both players are responsible for checking the proper operation of the clock. I think the penalty should only be assigned in a situation like circumstances 2), above.
I don’t see any difference between having delay turned off by accident and having the wrong starting time set on the clock. If the TD should intervene in one case why not both?
If it is Black’s clock and he told White that the time delay was set White should not be penalized for Black’s mistake. No matter how much time or how many moves have elapsed. It is Black’s responsibility to set the clock properly and to instruct White on its use. White should be able to rely on Black’s ability to set the clock properly.
On the other hand if the players agreed to play without time delay then they are stuck living with this decision.
I agree that, in the case you describe, Black has committed a rules violation and something must be done. I’m not entirely sure resetting the clock is the right response, though. Also, allowing such a claim to be made at any point in the game leads to some awkward possibilities, like the opponent waiting to make it until he’s in time pressure.
Wiothout having seen the actual rules sheet, it is difficult be certain, but I think you are misinterpreting some standard boilerplate clauses. (Not entirely your fault; this is common among those whose experience is largely after the introduction of time delay.)
Use of time-delay is not compulsory, nor can it be unless the tournament supplies clocks. The tournament rules you keep quoting mean two things: 1) A simple repetition of the basic USCF rule that, in choosing equipment, time-delay clocks take precendence over others, and 2) If time delay is used, this is the way it should be set (e.g. delay of five seconds rather than some other figure).
Try this one: Player A sets his Chronos without time delay. The TD tells him to turn on the delay. Player says no. Does the TD wrest the clock from him and reset it?
Let’s try breaking the question into subcases.
Player A sets the clock without delay and lies to his opponent about it.
He sets it without delay but says nothing to his opponent and the opponent never asks.
Same as 2, except that the opponent is not there at the start of the round.
Same as 2, except that Player A later claims he set it that way by mistake. Lacking telepathy, the TD is unable to verify this.
In case 1, Player A should obviously be penalized, and the clock should probably be reset. I qualify this because of the practical problems with resetting the many digital clocks (which is not the TD’s job.) In case 2, the clock should not be reset – there is absolutely not difference between this case and putting in a new clock. Likewise case 3, which is explicitly covered by the rules. You seem to think that case 4 should be different. I disagree.
Well, not exactly. I first joined the USCF in the 70s.
How do you justify ignoring the written tournament rules, the TD’s instructions (he made a point of mentioning that he didn’t announce the policy at the start of round 3, but I don’t think he should have to make the announcement EVERY ROUND), and Rule 16Bb?
You then go into a “Forsythe”-like example of a player ignoring the TD’s instructions. No I wouldn’t wrest the clock away from him. If he categorically refused to follow my instructions and the rules, I’d forfeit him and kick him out of the tournament. Even if I had made an incorrect ruling, I can’t run a tournament with players ignoring my directions and doing whatever they want. He’d be history.
Unlike some posters, I believe rule 16P CAN be used (at the TD’s discretion) for just about any kind of incorrect clock setting – wrong initial time, no delay, wrong delay, increment instead of delay, wrong move-count, wrong beep setting (beeps loudly on every move, disturbing everybody), etc.
Whether an incorrect delay setting SHOULD be corrected is quite another matter. It depends on a lot of things:
When did the request occur? The TD will probably be more receptive to such a request early in the game than later, and least receptive of all in sudden-death time pressure.
Was the delay announced as mandatory on delay-capable clocks? If so, the balance may be tipped in favor of correcting the error. Announcing a mandatory delay (either verbally or in writing) is more common than some posters apparently believe.
How difficult is it for the opponent of the clock’s owner to tell whether the delay is running? On some clocks, it is almost impossible, until the clock switches from h:mm display to mm:ss display. This can occur with 20 minutes remaining (DGT), 10 minutes remaining (Chronos in some modes), or 5 minutes remaining (Saitek).
Was the incorrect setting deliberate? This may be difficult to determine. If it IS determined, and if the player making the request is the clock’s owner, a TD might be less inclined to honor the request. I am curious: how did the player in this case set his clock in other games in the same tournament, or in other tournaments?
I do not buy the argument that the TD Tip under 14H discourages correcting the error in this situation. This Tip seems intended for the case where a game knowingly (to both players) begins with a clock without delay capability, such as an analog clock, and later one of the players wants to switch to a delay clock.
I am also unconvinced by the argument that the player not furnishing the clock forfeits all rights if he fails to Spanish-inquisition his opponent at the outset of the game. Many players, out of simple courtesy, or a desire not to seem heavy-handed, prefer to simply shake hands and begin the game.
In the case which began this conversation, I think the TD would have been well within his rights to rule EITHER way, and the ruling he made was just fine.
I agree with most of what you wrote, but I have a problem with the above. Suppose a player, in a game that started with a digital clock with the delay off, calls the TD and announces that he now wants time delay. How does this differ from the case of a game that started with an analog clock? If the TD picks up the digital, turns on the delay, and puts it down, again, it is essentially a different clock.
Both you and Tanstaafl seem to be making the assumption that delay will always be used if the clock is delay-capable, and that all players will assume this to be the case. While there are undoubtedly local exceptions, this is not true in general.
The difference is that, in the latter case, both players knew they were playing without delay, whereas in the former case, one player was deceived (intentionally or otherwise).
If you say so. The issue of same clock vs different clock is not important, as far as I’m concerned.
A typical TD announcement at the start of round 1 goes something like this: “If you have a delay-capable clock, set it for 90 minutes with a 5-second delay. If you have an analog clock, set it for 4:30 and play all your moves before your time expires at 6:00.” That’s good enough for me – a delay-capable clock set without delay is erroneously set.
Some TDs go even further. At the National Open in some years, the chief TD (an NTD) has announced at the microphone, at the start of round 1, that delay-capable clocks MUST be set for the delay. This may be the best approach, as it leaves no wiggle room.
How do you plan to enforce this if the player says he doesn’t want to set his clock for delay? It’s his clock, and he can simply put it back in the bag. I understand that you would like to make everyone use delay, but, entirely aside from any questions of principle, I don’t believe it’s possible.
If there was intentional deception, I certainly agree. I have a problem with the concept of “was unintentionally deceived” – is there really a difference between this and “stupidly failed to notice”?
The National Open example is exactly the situation I encounter when I play in Chess Center of NY tournaments. I play almost every Thursday in the 4 Rated Games Tonight event at the Marshall. Every week the same announcement is made. “Digital clocks with time delay must be set at 25 minutes with a 5 second delay. Analog clocks are to be set for 5:30.”
I had been under the impression that failure to comply with this requirement regarding time delay clocks causes the player to forfeit his right to have the delay turned on for a insuffient losing chance claim. At one point I thought this was in the rule book, but it is not. Pehaps Steve can refresh my memory in regards to this variation being in his posted rules.
Personally I prefer required time delay both as a player and a director. Time delay simplifies my job as a director regarding 14H, and thsoe extra 5 seconds per move has saved many an ending for me.
Fine, then his opponent gets to furnish the clock and set it for the delay. If the opponent’s clock is not delay-capable (or if he doesn’t furnish a clock at all), then BOTH players are knowingly and willingly playing without the delay. The deception element is removed.
The failure to notice may not be stupid. How does one tell, on a Saitek or DGT (where Bronstein must be used instead of “true” delay), whether the delay is turned on or not, before the 5-minute mark (Saitek) or 20-minute mark (DGT)? Maybe some owners of these clocks can step forward here with some information, as I’m not completely knowledgeable about the operation of these clocks.
On the Chronos, even in modes which display only h:mm until the 10-minute mark, it’s easy to tell, because the colons and/or hyphens blink differently during the delay than during the main time.
With the Saitek and DGT you’d only notice if your time was something like 46:00 you took a few seconds to go to 45:58. You don’t see the 58 seconds, but when you press your clock it would then go back to 46. Other then that I don’t recall any way that you would know. I used to own a Saitek but did not like the fact that it took getting down to 5 minutes to see minutes and seconds.
So I would think unless the player happened to look and see that advancement it would be hard to tell. The brand new Saitek does have time delay and does go to minutes and seconds at 20 minutes. The time delay is easy to see since it counts down. Though why it they couldn’t have the minutes and seconds start at 30 minutes instead, is beyond me.
It’s possible the Saitek (like the DGT) has a 3-and-a-half-digit display, i.e. the leftmost digit must be 1 or blank. If that’s the case, the highest time it could display would be 19:59. (Maybe this limitation only exists in (true) delay mode, if the delay is displayed as a separate digit.)
I would be entertaining a forfeit based on non-compliance of the Laws of Chess. The decision is that of the Director’s, not the player’s.
I’m not convinced that a clock can be considered “accurately set”, as opposed to “incorrectly set”, when the director has announced that the delay must be used.