I’ve been a local TD for a week and already I’m in over my head. (Fortunately this was an unrated game!).
The stiuation - Player A oversteps the time limit; his opponent though has only 12 seconds left. Player A plays on … waiting for the 12 seconds to be used up to claim a draw.
However the Chronos had ‘Halt at end’ set, and that setting prevented either clock from changing … no matter how many moves flew by.
Player A complains about the clock setting, and how he should be entitled to a draw. How should one rule if this were a sudden death time control in a tournament?
Since the clock was incorrectly set, the question is whether the fall of A’s flag was noticed (by B, not A) before or after B had used 12 seconds after the clocks had stopped. If the TD can answer this by direct observation, the ruling is clear. If not … well, I would probably have to uphold the time forfeit, though if B were the one who mis-set the clock I might give it more thought.
Does the rulebook state that it is incorrect to set a clock to “Halt at end” when one of the flags falls? I looked but I could not find any such rule.
In the absence of any other information, I think you should uphold the time-forfeit claim, as clearly one player’s flag “fell” while the other side was still “up”.
Not in so many words. However, 14G is headed “Both flags down in sudden death.” and the “Halt at end” setting makes it impossible for both flags to fall. When combined with 16E (When flag is considered down) and 13C1 (Only players may call flag), I conclude that the “Halt at end” setting constitutes illegal mechanical assistance. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of our technophiles want to change the rule on this, but until that happens I would rule the setting illegal.
I agree with your second paragraph, but, as I said, direct observation by the TD that player B had used up his alloted time as well would constitute “other information.”
The 4th edition rulebook (1993) stated that a halt-at-end feature would be “both legal and desirable, avoiding the possibiilty of the both-flags-down draw” (page 170). It also stated that a clock that “calls attention to the fall of the flag with a special noise or light is both legal and highly desirable”.
So the manufacturers of the Chronos promptly implemented these features in the next versions of their clocks.
But the halt-at-end idea never caught on with players or organizers, and the wording was dropped from the 5th edition.
Still, I’m not so sure you could call halt-at-end “illegal”. This is one of those tricky areas perhaps requiring “further review” by the rules committee.
The USCF says the delay clocks are preferable to analog clocks in sudden death, it does not say one delay clock is more preferable to any other delay clock. Since there are delay clocks that will freeze or halt, when one clock runs out of time. This was how they were designed under the 4th edition, so they should be accepted during tournament play. Since the 4th edition says it was acceptable, the 5th edition says nothing, the older clocks with halt only should be grandfathered into the 5th edition.
Since the USCF rules committee has not made an official statement the halt only clocks are defective. The USCF has never made an official statement, one delay clock is more preferable then any other delay clock. Since there are a number of USCF members with halt only clocks, it would be unpopular to say thousands of clocks are official defective because of an interpretation of a number of rules in the 5th edition.
Since the Chronos clock did have the halt on, just like the millions of other clocks that only have halt only. The clock was not defective, the player should win on time then a game ending in a draw. If you say the clock was defective, there are thousands of USCF members with clocks that have halt only. It would be a hard sell telling USCF members their clock is defective because of a rule change!
The problem with “Halt at end” is that a player is required to call the opponent’s flag, before his own flag falls. Assistance from a third party (“Hey! His flag is down!”) is forbidden. So, by implication, is assistance by a mechanical device.
Another way to look at it is that if both sides of the clock stop at once, the clock is by definition defective. If this happened at any other point in the game, you would obviously replace the clock and tell the players to continue. The problem here is that the clock has stopped after one of flags has fallen (so the game can’t continue) but before player B has made a valid claim of a win on time (so the game has not ended).
Note also that the Chronos has dozens of settings, many of which would be completely unacceptable in a USCF tournament. The fact that something is possible doesn’t make it legal or desirable.
I agree that “illegal” is a bit strong. “Improperly set” or “non-standard” come closer. In my opinion, the Rules Committee ought to put such clocks in the third category (along with non-time-delay digitals) – usable by mutual consent or if no other clock is available. I suppose I’ll have to add this one to my tournament rules list.
There are other digital chess clocks, they only will freeze at the end. As they only had to be designed the clock, to follow the will of the 4th edition. The company that makes the Chronos clock, has the other modes for the tournaments of GO, and the other board games. The company was not going to limit the market just for chess, as the company calls the clock the digital game clock, not the chess clock or the digital chess clock. The company did design the clock to have the halt on and the halt off, other tournaments have other ideas. The other chess clocks during the 1990’s, done design the chess clocks to follow the 4th edition rules of chess. There are chess clocks that will halt at the end, as they were following the rules at that time, not the will of the players.
If you say the digital clocks are defective, or even non-standard, they are going to be defective or non-standard for the whole game. As the clock will halt at the first player that has a flag fall, if it is defective or non-standard, it should not be used from the start. Since the USCF has never made a claim, that one delay clock is more preferred then any other delay clock, delay clocks with the halt on are standard equipment.
If you want to say the delay clock with the halt on is non-standard or defective. This is one of the major reason why the analog players did not like the delay clock. As the delay clock would freeze at the end, preventing the clock to show both sides with a flag fall, legal during the 4th edition, not accepted by the players. Since there are so many delay clocks with halt at end only, from players from all rating levels, at this time the rules’ committee is not going to classify the clocks as defective or non-standard.
Your logic escapes me. There are digital clocks on the market with Fischer-mode only. That doesn’t make the mode “standard” in USCF tournaments. For that matter, there are clocks which are clearly designed for blitz only. Are you going to try to use them for tournament play?
Bear in mind that that paragraph in the 4th edition (which was less a rule than the author’s wish list) was dropped from the 5th. Was the deletion unintentional? Perhaps, but the burden of proof is on the other side.
It does not matter if the clock has other modes, like the Fisher mode or whatever non-standard modes. There are clocks with only one mode per-time control, it just runs down to the end. There are other clocks with more than one mode, all the modes just have the halt on. The USCF has sold chess clocks with all the modes with the halt on. Not all digital chess clocks give the owner the right to change the halt.
If you want to call a delay clock with all the modes having the halt on as defective that is fine. Since the USCF has sold in the past chess clocks with all the modes with the halt on, it would be rude to say they are now all defective clocks. John, if you sold a chess clock with all the modes having the clock with the halt on. The owner of the clock cannot change the clock, from having the halt on or having the halt off, as the clock does not grant the owner this right. If we can say a clock with all the modes having the halt on as defective, then the USCF was selling defective chess clocks. If I purchase a product, then the manufacture finds out the product is defective. I should be able to take the product back to the store to be fix or get a full refund. If the USCF wants to call the clocks with the halt on as defective, the USCF should give everyone a full refund that purchased that type of clock.
If the clock has the halt on with all the modes. It would be like the west bound lane on the highway. It does not matter how many types of cars are going down the highway, they are all going west. If you want to call this type of clock as defective fine, if the USCF sold the clock in the first place, you better ask why would the USCF be selling defective clocks.
Since there are clocks with the halt on, and there is the Chronos that gives the owner the right to have the halt on or have it off. The USCF has not made any official statement to say one delay type clock is more preferred then any other delay clock. Strange is it not, the USCF in its past has sold chess clocks with the halt on when the Chronos give the owner the right to change the halt from on to off at the pleasure of the owner. If you want to say the Chronos is more preferred then the delay clocks that only have the halt on, is it not strange the most preferred clock to you has never been sold by the USCF. It you want to take the idea the USCF has sold defective clocks, with the clock that is not defective as a delay clock never sold by the USCF.
The Chronos is not a “halt-only” clock. The halt-at-end feature is optional on the Chronos – it can be set either way.
If other clocks are “halt-only”, I’d like to know about them. Are the Excalibur, DGT, and Saitek “halt-only”, i.e. do they have a halt-at-end feature that cannot be turned off? Maybe some owners of these clocks could step forward here and fill us in.
The Chronos has many modes which would never be allowed in a chess tournament (the various byo-yomi settings, for example). The existence of this setting does not make it acceptable.
The USCF has sold several clocks which are not usable for tournament play. For that matter, it sells (or did, before the outsourcing) the DGT, which has a Fischer mode not permissible in USCF tournaments.
There are plausible arguments for allowing the use of “Halt at end,” and I’m willing to debate them. But so far none has been made.
It was 1998, purchased what is now called the ‘Duel Time Champion’. If the clock had a flag fall, the clock would have the halt on or freeze up. The clock was very limited on what I could do with it. Just a few years ago the USCF started to sell the clock. After seven years the clock could have had a up-grade. Since I only see the clock so few times, not sure if it will still freeze up.
There are other digital chess clocks out there. We are talking about clocks from the early to mid-90’s. Not sure on the names … as they are off the market, they are very uncommon to see in any tournament.
I was player A, and the clock belonged to player B. The only thing I did (he was one of my students …) was to tell him not to use the halt on end setting.
And here’s why… My thoughts are quite close to John’s. I didn’t know about ‘halt on end’ being on edition 4, but if I had I would have assumed that it was omitted for a reason (the view on the street would be that no “rule” is ever deleted accidentally). (Actually I didn’t know ‘halt on end’ was an option at all until it happened to me!)
Since it deprived me of the opportunity that a current rule gives me for a draw, I would be upset (if the half point mattered). As a director, I would have ruled that the tie goes to the draw. For one thing, by appealing to the 14G rule (both flags down) he should be protected by it, and then the evidence of the clock goes to proving that both flags DIDN’T fall; and since it wasn’t allowed to do that, I’d rule a draw.
I guess my decision would depend on how much time was left on B’s side. In my game it was only 12 seconds; but if it were 3 minutes I’d be more inclined to say tough. So now I’m back in the murky depths of subjectivism or something So … what have I gotten myself into?
The only exception would be if it were player A’s clock. Then you get what you ask for.
The clock that stops when one flag is down is not defective,
but the one that keeps running is the defective clock!
The only reason we need rule 14G is because the “defective” clocks
keep running and you cannot always tell whose flag has fallen first.
The other rules mentioned, 16E and 13C1, are there to prevent onlookers from pointing out the flag fall, because it is still possible with your own flag down to win the game if your opponent keeps playing and you checkmate him (or draw by reaching a stalemate).
If it hadn’t been for those cheap defective BHB specials that don’t stop both clocks when the first flag falls we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
Although I do like the idea of being able to “steal” 1/2 a point from my opponent by his inattention to my flag being down and letting his own flag fall, isn’t it more correct to know that one player has actually run out of time first and that player should be penalized?
This is probably the strongest argument for “Halt at end.” There are two reasons why I don’t agree with it.
It relieves the player of the responsibilty to call the opponent’s flag. If a player does not have the presence of mind to see that the flag is down, I don’t think he deserves the full point. Of course, the reason for his not noticing is lack of time – but the he chose to use up the time himself.
Until all clocks come equipped with this feature, the rule cannot be applied equally. A similar case came up back in the 1970s, when some TDs liked to use FIDE time forfeit procedure. This meant that a TD must be present for all games in time pressure to call the flag down. In a 300-player swiss, this obviously was not going to happen, so in practice the TD used FIDE procedure on the top boards, while everyone else had to claim a win with a scoresheet. The Delegates made this illegal – either you use FIDE procedure in all games, or you can’t use it in any.
I wasn’t aware that this language was dropped from the 5th edition. If it was intentional, I applaud it. I agree with John’s notion that the clock is just as much a third-party as a spectator. The 4th edition’s justification for not considering the clock as a third party was “The prohibition against anyone but the two players calling a flag down does not apply to a clock, which can carry out this funtion thoroughly and impartially”. (42B - 4th ed.) Likewise, a TD can carry out these functions equally thorough and impartial. Also, not every spectator who points out a flag down does so with bias.
So, I agree that the halt at end feature should be reviewed by the Rules Committee, if it hasn’t already as indicated by the wording being removed from the 5th ed.
I wasn’t aware that this language was dropped from the 5th edition. If it was intentional, I applaud it. I agree with John’s notion that the clock is just as much a third-party as a spectator. The 4th edition’s justification for not considering the clock as a third party was “The prohibition against anyone but the two players calling a flag down does not apply to a clock, which can carry out this funtion thoroughly and impartially”. (42B - 4th ed.) Likewise, a TD can carry out these functions equally thorough and impartial. Also, not every spectator who points out a flag down does so with bias.
So, I agree that the halt at end feature should be reviewed by the Rules Committee, if it hasn’t already as indicated by that wording removed from the 5th ed.
I do appreciate the historical context that “you rules guys” bring to all these discussions.
MY context is that I’ve lived with this both-flags-down-is-a-draw idea all my LON*G life … so it’s in my nature. In fact, I still mutter under my breath that these new-fangled things are allowed to flash a light or make a noise that the flag has fallen. It just seems not right.
To illustrate how warped my brain has been by the old BHB days … I was playing this past weekend and I won on time but didn’t call it, because I didn’t realize it. I kept expecting the time to go negative and THAT"s what my mathematical brain needed to know I won on time! I kept staring at these 0:00s thinking he could still play on. I’m sure Dan Heisman thought I was nuts …
What I don’t get is … if we are elevating the flag fall above all these other considerations … why not allow TDs and even spectators to point out a flag has fallen. And why not change the rule to “the person loses if their flag falls first. If that is not clearly determined, only THEN is the game a draw”. I’m one of the few that would admit that my clock fell first and I would have accepted losses all these years
And to respond to one of Tom’s comments (nice post btw) - It’s really stealing a 1/2 point BACK from the whole point he could have stolen from me. You shoulda seen my position
So … what have I gotten myself into?
… I was playing this past weekend and I won on time but didn’t call it, because I didn’t realize it. I kept expecting the time to go negative and THAT"s what my mathematical brain needed to know I won on time! I kept staring at these 0:00s thinking he could still play on. I’m sure Dan Heisman thought I was nuts …