I admit to stirring the pot a little. All of these threads on how to make the face of a digital clock more exact, readable, “logical”, or more functional are boring. It is easier to be the conduit of all of the complaints I have heard over the years, especially from those players I introduced to tournament chess many years ago.
It is obvious that clock manufacturers make clocks which are prone to make engineers jump for joy, but are not what we really want. It is frustrating that the digital clock companies do not make all of their models operate in a consistent way. For example, you would expect DGT would make the setting of their clock easier and operate the same across all models. They do not. The same was true for Saitek clocks. The gray Saitek set the easiest. Then they started mucking around with the blue Saitek and the Pro with the little wheels that tended to break as you used them. We never had that problem with analogue clocks. They all set the same way. The only real difference was in the case. Some models, like the Jerger and Heuer, were gorgeous pieces of art as well as functional. You still see them in commercials and movies. The Insa clocks were very good at showing how much time you had left and were good for blitz or Quick Chess, too. There was a time when we played blitz and Bughouse with these clocks and no one complained about how these clocks functioned. Now I am afraid to use a digital for blitz as I am not sure it can survive the beating.
There should be a Congressional investigation concerning how the digital clocks and the rules surrounding their use were ramrodded through. At some point, different clocks were the “official clock of the USCF.” How and why were they approved? Who benefitted financially from the digital clocks’ appearance? Certainly, most of the players did not like them when they came out, especially with the Allegro rules format. There were huge arguments over which clocks were “official” or “preferable” in the digital clock hierarchy. Players with analogue clocks had their rights of use in tournament games run over. They were ignored by chess officials at best or told to use digital clocks or else. The Delegates were complicit in this. Yet the chess world meekly acquiesced to all of the delay and abominable increment rules changes. The players just wanted to play chess and not get involved in the politics and sleaziness of equipment sales. Those that did not give in and buy new digital clocks at exorbitant prices quit and took their dollars to other gaming online rather than put up with the increasing tyranny of OTB play.
We used to buy good analogue clocks made in Germany, France, the UK, and Yugoslavia. All were of proven quality. Now all of the clocks are made in China. They are overpriced junk. Are they subject to the tariffs? Will we now have to pay more for these digital devices that really only cost $4 to make?
Hey, Micah, you asked a question. If you do not like the answers you get, then that is too bad. The digital world you adore is selling us garbage we do not need or like. Having a refrigerator cost $300 more just so it can tell you that you need milk is a waste. We know we need milk. That is what wives tell us to pick up on the way home.
True, there have been many posts worthy of derision. But Tom’s wasn’t one of them.
If it has incorrect statements of fact, he could try to correct them. If it has opinions with which he differs, he could try to debate them.
Otherwise, this is an AUG violation and should be handled as such.
Personally, I loved my Coldfield clock, but it never caught on in this country. Players developed strong feelings for some models of analog clocks, I don’t think I really see that for digital ones, there’s always a better one to consider.
I loved my Coldfield clock, too. It was part of the prizes I won for winning a Grand Prix series of tournaments. Many tournaments were won using that clock. I new exactly how much time I had left. Thousands of blitz games wore the paint off the rocker arms. Alas, it sits in its sturdy little box now these many years, an almost forgotten mathom from another era.
I wonder when someone will go to a digital display like on an iPhone for a clock, in color, with lots of real estate to utilize to show whatever’s relevant at the time, including on-display instructions.
People are already using apps to make their phones a chess timer. I have watched kids playing blitz using the phone in this fashion. They lightly touch the screen which is very sensitive. If both players approve, they can play tournament games using the phone. It is not “officially” approved, but when did that stop people from doing what they want. Players use sets with pink and orange pieces on yellow and cream boards when there are no objections from either player.
Consider adjournments. They are problematic these days because of computers, but even before that, they were a pain. In a recent tournament that I directed (with multiple time controls that, added together, exceeded the time between rounds), we decided to adjourn three games in the first round. Believe it or not, each game had at least one player who had requested a third-round bye, and therefore wasn’t going to be around to play out the adjournment. We ended up just finishing the games and delaying the second round (not a popular decision, but what else could we do?). The organizer and I decided that we would no longer have time controls (in any tournament that we work) that allow for adjournments. I hope to never see one again.
However, if you’re not going to have adjournments, you need sudden death as the final (or only) time control. I don’t ever again want to lose an easily won or drawn position by time forfeit in sudden death, and I get no satisfaction from winning that way either (“budgeting your time more wisely” is not always a solution in sudden death, because you don’t know how many moves you’re “budgeting” for), and the obvious solution to that problem is delay or increment. Therefore, we need digital clocks. We could also talk about the old “no losing chances” rule, another thing which I hope never to see again, either as a player or as a director (imagine me, a Class C player, having to decide who has “losing chances” in a game between Experts or Masters). Digital clocks with delay and/or increment allow the players to play, with minimal interference from the TD.
In short, digital clocks are not the result of some conspiracy among clock designers. They are an answer to very real needs. I bought a digital clock as soon as they were available. I have never regretted that decision, and I don’t ever want to go back.
At some point, different clocks were the “official clock of the USCF.” How and why were they approved? Who benefitted financially from the digital clocks’ appearance? Certainly, most of the players did not like them when they came out, especially with the Allegro rules format. There were huge arguments over which clocks were “official” or “preferable” in the digital clock hierarchy. Players with analogue clocks had their rights of use in tournament games run over. They were ignored by chess officials at best or told to use digital clocks or else. The Delegates were complicit in this. Yet the chess world meekly acquiesced to all of the delay and abominable increment rules changes. The players just wanted to play chess and not get involved in the politics and sleaziness of equipment sales. Those that did not give in and buy new digital clocks at exorbitant prices quit and took their dollars to other gaming online rather than put up with the increasing tyranny of OTB play.
Having a refrigerator cost $300 more just so it can tell you that you need milk is a waste. We know we need milk. That is what wives tell us to pick up on the way home. 