Some vendors feel that Scholastic Players like Analog Clock Player better because in part they are easier to set.
I suspect that is true for a certain age and probably NOT true for older children
Do you agree or disagree? Why not?
Or should this be a factor.
I do understand that Digital is supposedly the future (although Analog Watches triumphed over Digital). So it would benefit them to get used to Digital.
Are you saying that there’s still any sort of debate left about analog vs digital chess clocks? From what I’ve seen, I just sort of assumed that digital won that debate years ago.
For that matter, I also disagree with your assertion that analog won out over digital among watches. Cell phones with digital time displays are making all wrist watches, both digital and analog, go the way of the dodo. I suspect that in 10 or 15 years, if you’re still wearing a wrist watch, kids will ask you why your bracelet has a clock face on it.
Analog clocks are way easier than digital!
Easier to monkey with the remaining time during the game.
Easier to adjust the clock speeds independently.
Easier to break by (a) overwinding; (b) setting the time backwards against the flag; (c) pushing both buttons down at the same time
I bet as soon as they run out of their stock of analogs, “some vendors” will suddenly discover the virtues of digital.
Have you ever heard of Quartz Analog Clocks?
There is no rewinding. But yes the rest of your reply is valid (except the silly last statement)
I will add however you are still not addressing one point. Is it true that Analog Clocks are probably better in some ways (like setting) for Scholastic Players? (actually this is my main question but anyway)
Well, I’m way too old to play in scholastic tournaments, but in the open events I have played in recently, there have been plenty of scholastic players. They all seem to prefer digital.
In the recent Tim Just Winter Open (about 80 players) in suburban Chicago, I counted a total of 0 analog clocks in the Open section, 2 in the Reserve. A friend of mine just played in Iowa, and reports that the clocks there were 100% digital.
Don’t parents have to ask their kids how to program their VCRs and DVRs? Surely the same is true of chess clocks.
Bill Smythe
The tournament I am directing on Feb. 20 will only allow digital clocks with the delay option.
I see no reason to even consider an analog or digital without delay feature in a USCF rated tournament.
I remember when I first started playing Chess 22 years ago. The least expensive chess clock was the BHB which came in at about $45. I also remember saying to anyone that would listen that this was too expensive as an entry level cost to play tournament style chess. At the time all equipment was less expensive than today.
Now we have chess clocks that can be had for under $25 (Saitek Scholastic Competition). Sets and boards a more expensive than 22 years ago.
At only a few dollars more than the normal entry fee for a tournament, the digital delay clocks of today are the standard for time keeping in a chess game, period.
There is no good reason to even consider using an analog clock except for some novelty that is not a rated game.
But G/5 is now rated as Quick and “true” Blitz does not need the delay feature AND the BHB analog clock withstands the pounding so well.
Seriously? I routinely encounter sixth-graders who don’t know how to tell time on an analog clock. There can be a clock on the wall right behind your head, and they’ll ask you what time it is, and pointing to the clock does no good, because they never thought it was important for them to learn how to read it – not in a world in which digital clocks and watches exist. If I ever met a kid who preferred an analog clock over a digital, I’d assume he was Amish.
I actually am not too fond of time delay. Call me Amish I guess 
. But I considering it too advantageous for people with quick reflexes. However when playing I like it. I guess my reflexes are quick.
I have run across some Analog Quartz (which are very accurate) that are under $20. You are right though Saitek are cheap.
Another tedious thing about Digital is hearing people asking (or asking you) for instruction on how to set it. I really don’t buy that anyone is too dumb to handle Analog setting (or cannot read Analog). So I think that argument has some validity.
And what will you do if two players show up to play their game, and neither one of them has an appropriate clock?
Alex Relyea
Boot to the head!
Are the analog clocks that michaeldlawson is referring to the same ones that are for sale on the USCF website for roughly the same price? I seem to recall someone saying that those clocks didn’t hold up well to heavy use.
Does it have a seconds hand? I can’t imagine blitz players being OK with not knowing EXACTLY how many seconds they have left.
No second hand. This is by far the most used clock by many players I’ve seen at the World Open, admittedly, not recently. We do have one player with a very neat Coldfield clock which had a special hinged flag that shows the last minute in increments of 5 seconds= wish they were still available.
Wouldn’t someone with quick reflexes actually have a bigger advantage with an analog clock?
You do know that Digital Clocks can be set w/o time delay?
You do know that’s non-standard? If you’re going to compare digital versus analog, you should do it including all their features. However, even in that case, I don’t think digital would aid someone with quick reflexes more than analog.
Yes I know it non-standard. And although I am comparing Analog to Digital, I am not at all interested in the Time Delay (other than a statement of regret that it is used). Instead I am interested in whether Analog might indeed be easier to use for some scholastic players. I think that is valid view point for younger players.
BTW I actually said Time Delay helped people with Quick Reflexes (not Digital Clocks). There is an important difference in the two arguments. But hey that is indeed a side issue, IMO.
Funny how some people assumed I am trying to “bash” Digital Clocks. Far from it. But that is forum discussions for you.
Sorry, when you mentioned turning off the delay, I thought you were saying digital w/o delay still conveyed an advantage. Apparently you were emphasizing that delay is what gives the advantage and I misread your post. Personally, I think delay helps the slower person because he at least has that buffer. However, you’re correct in stating that is a side issue.
Regarding children using delay versus analog, most of the kids that I know seem perfectly comfortable with digital. In fact, they’re probably more comfortable with them than some adults.
But that’s silly, unless you’re drawing the line between slow and quick reflexes at 5 seconds. If we’re using analog clocks, with which both of us lose all the time we take, obviously the quicker of us has an advantage. If we’re using digital delay, if we take more than 5 seconds to move, then the reflex advantage is the same as with an analog clock, while if we take less than 5 seconds, any difference in our reflex speed is nullified, favoring the slower player. Delay only helps the quicker player if he makes his move within the 5 seconds and his opponent doesn’t. Since most moves take more than 5 seconds to make, and since most players will be playing at pretty much the same pace depending on the stage of the game, delay clearly favors the slower player – or rather, it counters the endgame advantage that quick-reflex players have with an analog clock, by being a reflex-speed equalizer.
Just to add more confusion to this issue, I remember that the Quartz clock only moved if the time to move was at least 1 second, so that very fast players, moving in a fraction of a second, would lose no time. Also, that the BHB mechanical clock has an instant of inertia so that it does not quite lose a full second like a digital clock would.