So in a time scramble if my flag falls then I continue playing until my opponent’s flag subsequently falls and when it is my move I can claim a win on time?
Yes. Note that this requires your opponent to (1) not notice that your flag is down by the time your complete your move on the turn where your flag fell, and (2) not notice that your flag is down before completing his next move. If his flag is still not down, then it requires that he keep missing that yours is down when you complete your moves, and that he keep missing that it is down when he completes his moves.
This should be rare enough that I’d rather have a rule that ensures the correct outcome for attentive players, even if it means that an extremely inattentive player might have a worse outcome than under the current rule. Even in a mutual time scramble, you should be able to glance at the other player’s clock between the time you begin to release the piece for your move and the time you get your hand over to the clock to press the button, and so see that you’ve won on time and stop and decide whether to go for option (1) or option (2) of my suggested rule.
I’ve watched a lot of time scrambles and I’ve seen that the “glance” you refer to often takes an additional three to five seconds for players that don’t have the best peripheral vision. I’ve seen many times where the time between releasing the piece and hitting the clock is less than a half second.
Such a rule would essentially cause players to flag a number of moves earlier than they otherwise would have because they will be spending a quite noticeable amount of time trying to avoid flagging second and still losing.
If it does become a motion I’ll lobby delegates to vote against it.
There’s another approach that gets rid of all of these problem scenarios. Set clocks to halt when the first flag falls. I’ve never understood why the rules disallow this.
I agree strongly. There’s no good reason for USCF to continue to champion the old ways.
Bill Smythe
emphasis mine/
Seems to me the purpose is to not allow the clock (other than by means of a flag) to bring attention to the expiration of time.
With multiple time controls a clock that is set with a move counter (actually clock punch counter) and to halt at end would erroneously stop counting off time in an non-SD control if a clock punch was missed and there really had been enough moves made. Clocks that cannot handle multiple time controls and require manually adding time would be particular problems with a halt at end setting in a non-SD time control.
While I personally like halt-at-end in sudden death controls, a better approach in non-SD would be for the clock to display which player’s time expired first, but then to keep counting. Does any clock do this?
Bill Smythe
The DGT family of clocks (at least the DGT XL, DGT North American, and DGT 2010) does this. Once either player has consumed all the time in the current time control segment, the clock adds the base time for the next segment to both sides and displays a flag on the side that ran out of time for five minutes.
If it weren’t for the combination of halt-at-end and clock press counters having the potential of making a real mess in a non-sudden death time control, I could be convinced to rethink my opposition to halt-at-end behavior. But clocks such as the Excalibur Game Timer can not be set to only halt at the end of the final time control segment.
Rumor is that Excalibur is no longer being made. It has disappeared from the USCF sales site, and from Wholesale Chess (although actually I don’t recall if they ever sold it). Also no sign of them at Chess House, The Chess Store, Chess USA, and American Chess Equipment.
Same for the Saitek clocks. Rumor says they are discontinued, and retail availability seems to confirm that.
The only digital clocks that seem to be readily available now are are the DGT clocks, Chronos, and the ZMF-II, and there is one new one supposedly coming on the market soon (the one that the owner of American Chess Equipment is involved with and was discussed here a couple months or so ago).
The DGT, as you noted, can handle segment ends in multi-segment time controls without using a move counter. So can the Chronos. I’ve never used a ZMF-II, but looking at the manual, I think it does have to use a move counter. No idea on what that new clock will do.
Perhaps the rule should be changed to be that for non-SD time control segments, if the clock can be set to automatically handle the end of the segment without using a move counter (i.e., it adds the time when the time for the segment is used up), then in cases where both players miss the time control but the clock provides an unambiguous way to determine which player missed first, the arbiter may use that to decide the winner.
Similar for SD segments: if the clock can be set to unambiguously show who ran out of time first if both players run out of time, then this setting (such as halt-at-end) may be used and the arbiter may use the clock evidence to determine the winner.
This would work with the serious DGT clocks (the ones that can actually handle multiple segments without manual intervention) and with Chronos. ZMF-II does not appear from the manual to have a way to do multiple segments without the move counter, but it also does not appear to have a halt-at-end setting, so players using that would still have to operate under the “both flags down is a draw” rule.
Perhaps as the Excalibur and Saitek clocks die off, we could make clocks that can handle multiple segments without a move counter and with a halt-at-end option for SD segments to be preferable. (Or perhaps we could make them preferable right away. It’s not like it is going to traumatize a black player with an Excalibur if when he faces a white player with a DGT or Chornos white’s clock is used).
I’m happy to hear this. And it seems to wipe out all reasonable excuses for disliking halt-at-end. If the clock does not actually halt at the end of a non-SD control, then an error in the move counter is not important. The players can simply continue playing, ignoring the little flag icon that appears on one side for five minutes.
Further, this feature is compatible with both FIDE- and USCF-type rules. Under rules that make it important to determine whose time expired first, the necessary evidence is right there. Under rules that require a player to make a claim before his own time also expires, the evidence can be ignored, and the clock is still running.
I agree that halt-at-end in a non-SD control could cause a real mess. In the event the move counter is off and 40 moves have actually been played, it would probably be difficult or impossible to restart the clock, except by starting all over from scratch and then adjusting each player’s time by hand.
Bill Smythe