I played at the Toledo tournament last week. I saw maybe three or four analog clocks for 40+ players.
*** Fixed for typo.
90% analog??? Sounds like Toledo needs to join the 21st century.
Nolan wrote:
The statistics on analog clocks used in a tournament if the final time control is sudden death can be deceiving. When both players are present before the start of the round and either player wants a delay clock with the delay option turned on, that clock will have priority and the opponent has no option (except players of certain religions on their Sabbath).
Short of asking the players at each board, how can anyone counting delay clocks know if it is in use because one player demanded it or because both wanted it? If there were no such rule, the 60% quoted above would probably have been lower, and certainly no higher.
Ooopps, mistype. Now fixed. Thanks.
That sounds more like it. 90% digital sounds like most of the tournaments I attend. And the 10% using analog are usually older guys. I can’t recall ever seeing a kid with an analog clock.
The 60% is kind of like a rating; it measures performance.
Harold are you a proponent of analog clocks? If you are I have a few questions for you:
-
In your rated chess games, do you use most or all of your time allotted to play your game? Or, do you use a significant less amount of your time than what is allotted?
-
Have you ever lost a game on time?
-
Do you disagree with the delay now being used in USCF rated games?
-
What specific brand of analog clock do you use?
-
If you are not using one of the higher quality clocks that were marketed, how do you answer the concern of lack of consistency and highly possible inaccuracy in the clock’s timing?
-
In your opinion, should there be tournaments run where there is no delay? And if your answer to this is yes, what should the time controls be?
You see, the question of analog versus digital chess clocks really boils down to the delay function. If there were no delay function, the analog clocks would still be completely usable in all rated chess games.
Maybe we should have a survey? I’d like to answer too! 
- I try to use it all.
- Yes, but it’s rare.
- Yep – it should be longer.
- Heuer. But I prefer my digital clock unless there’s a 5-minute deduction required.
- See #4.
- Yep. 40/2, repeating. (or better yet, 40 moves/2.5 hours).
I don’t anticipate much luck with #6, but I have hopes on #3.
Good answers Rodney.
When I started playing tournament chess, the standard clock at tournament was the USCF Quartz (analog).
It didn’t have the problems a winding mechanism could produce, obviously because it was battery operated. I was tempted to buy a Jaeger, but the cost was too high for me as a beginner in the game. By the time I became experienced enough to devote a good portion of my hobby money to chess instead of bicycles (the most expensive part of triathloning), the Excalibur was on the short horizon and I kept my money for that.
As I recall the nice mechanism or way the Quartz clock ran, I don’t understand why someone didn’t figure out a way to add a digital delay and second counter to it. I think that would have been easy. The large white face of the clock had enough room for an LCD window showing the delay and even the seconds. But alas, the digital became pretty much the only way to get a delay clock. As mentioned, the Garde just didn’t work well or consistently.
Oh yeah, I like your answer to my question of whether someone likes the delay or not. You obviously agree with the delay, but want more of it. Come to think of it, so do I.
-
It depends on the time control and number of moves. The faster the control, the more likely I will use a higher percentage of the time.
-
Yes
-
My major disagreement is about switching to a delay during the game because of foolish time usage. I have no problem with delay if it’s used from the beginning,
-
Quartz
-
I haven’t found consistency to be a problem. My first clock was a BHB. To test its accuracy, I let it run for 24 hours. If I recall correctly, the less accurate side was off by 11 seconds. Based on almost all controls being 2 hours or less, that is less than 1 second per time control, which I consider to be insignificant.
-
Any tournament without a sudden death control does not allow delay under current rules. Blitz tournaments are usually 5 minutes without delay. I ran tournaments for years between the time that sudden death was allowed and delay clocks hadn’t been manufactured (and 14H didn’t exist). In almost all cases, a delay feature would not have changed the result. Most players were smart enough to leave themselves some time if their opponent played to checkmate.
I have directed at large tournaments in which 14H was never needed. The number of games in which a delay clock is requested is less than 1% and many of those because the player doesn’t understand the rule. It’s hard for me to be sympathetic with a player who leaves himself too little time to win a won game over the board. That player has no one to blame but himself for the lack of remaining time on his clock.
I’m not sure this is what you meant to say…
There’s no rule AGAINST time delay, is there??? It’s just not the standard without sudden death time controls.
If you were answering the question about what you’d LIKE, however, this seems reasonable.
Incorrect. Such a tournament would not be required to use a delay. It’s optional with the organizer. Check before you enter, if it’s important to you.
A tournament with sudden death (other than blitz) is required to have a delay, unless otherwise announced in pre-tournament publicity, or unless an increment is in effect instead of a delay.
Me too. Even as far back as ten years ago, there were no 14H claims at the National Open that year. That’s largely because almost all the games were using digital clocks with the delay.
Bill Smythe
You can have my analog clock when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!
It wasn’t directed at me, but I am a proponent of analog clocks, so here goes:
- It depends. I use more time in evenly matched games (rather than win quickly or lose quickly).
- Yes, although not terribly often.
- Strongly disagree. It should be 90 (or 60 or 80 or whatever) minutes and you’re done. No bailouts for people who can’t or won’t budget their time!
- Rolland
- I don’t believe that this is statistically significant.
- Yes, and all time controls should be on the table.
RE: Digital and analog clocks in AUTOMOBILES… A lot of the high - end cars (Infinities, etc) have gone back to analog clocks…?! 
When I run a tourney I furnish about 6 of the little blue scholastic Saiteks… they’re easy to set and are very popular. Using G-90+30 sec it actually speeds up the round because their increment is delay only. No add-on. Also you can pack 2 to an original box.
Bingo! Having a 30 second delay allows you to write your move, think a little, and make your move. This is closest to David Bronstein’s original idea to popularize chess. Of course, instead of playing one game in a four to six hour sesesion, he liked the idea of playing a four game mini-match in that time with an opponent to provide more variety and a real test of skill. I think Fischer’s idea was lame. But go figure, of course FIDE adopted it as their standard.
The kids at our club still like the analogs over the digitals. The little kids are curious about the ticking. And the bughouse people… Well, I’m not going to hand out my digital clocks for them to bash. 