chess clock design inquiry

[Micah_Smith]

On the DGT 3000, DGT 2010, DGT XL, DGT NA, Omcor GT 960, and possibly other clocks as well, if you set an increment time control manually, you can choose to set the number of moves in the first time control so the clock will add the second time control once the prescribed number of moves in the first time control are met or choose not to set the number of moves in the first time control so the clock will add the second time control once the first time control expires for one of the players. For delay time controls on these clocks, you cannot set the number of moves in the first time control. Is there some rational for allowing the number of moves to be set for an increment time control but not a delay time control?

[dennisk]

@Micah Smith

On the DGT 3000, DGT 2010, DGT XL, DGT NA, Omcor GT 960, and possibly other clocks as well, if you set an increment time control manually, you can choose to set the number of moves in the first time control so the clock will add the second time control once the prescribed number of moves in the first time control are met or choose not to set the number of moves in the first time control so the clock will add the second time control once the first time control expires for one of the players. For delay time controls on these clocks, you cannot set the number of moves in the first time control. Is there some rational for allowing the number of moves to be set for an increment time control but not a delay time control?

I can’t read their minds, but one possible rationale is that these clocks are geared toward FIDE preferences, and FIDE usually uses increment these days, so that’s where the “bells and whistles” are added. They may also feel that delay is only suitable for single time controls, where the number of moves is irrelevant. But I’m just guessing here.

[Smythe_Dakota]

Vat iz it mit deze Amuricans? Vee vorld people always use dee increment. Vy can’t Amuricans do ze same thing? Vee give dem der delay, now dey vant number of moofs too. Give dem an inch, den dey vant a mile.

Bill Smythe

[wintdoan]

The move counter is much more important in increment than in delay since, if the count is off (too high), you actually might have run out of time while showing a positive amount on the clock. (That’s a good argument for not having increment until the sudden death time control; which is not an issue with delay).

[Micah_Smith]

@wintdoan

The move counter is much more important in increment than in delay since, if the count is off (too high), you actually might have run out of time while showing a positive amount on the clock. (That’s a good argument for not having increment until the sudden death time control; which is not an issue with delay).

We shouldn’t avoid having increment from move one just because some are incompetent in operating the clock correctly.

[jwiewel]

@Smythe Dakota

Vat iz it mit deze Amuricans? Vee vorld people always use dee increment. Vy can’t Amuricans do ze same thing? Vee give dem der delay, now dey vant number of moofs too. Give dem an inch, den dey vant a mile.

Bill Smythe

inch?? mile??
Wouldn’t other countries use centimeters and kilometers???

[Smythe_Dakota]

Of course, but zeze furriners are trying to sound Amurican.

Bill Smythe

[Smythe_Dakota]

@wintdoan

The move counter is much more important in increment than in delay since, if the count is off (too high), you actually might have run out of time while showing a positive amount on the clock. (That’s a good argument for not having increment until the sudden death time control; which is not an issue with delay).

It’s an argument, I suppose, but not a good one, and it pales beside all the good reasons to have increment in all time controls.

Besides, an extra clock press is just as likely – or probably even more likely – to occur during the final control as it is in any other.

Bill Smythe