I seem to remember that the Saitek I sold halted at the end, exclusively. Glad to have my Chronos on all accounts.
I always thought the spirit of the not allowing the FIDE rule of having the TD watch for a flag falls went beyond just having too many games to watch. It allows for the possibility of a TD to alter the outcome of the game by purposely not watching a specific clock. This would not be an issue with the halt-on-end (which methinks is only way on several clocks) in that the clock is just reporting the truth.
I recall having picked up a 1/2 point on two occasions with both flags down (actually both games I had an advantge, but they were still complicated and the complicatrions may have made my opponent more conerned with the game on the board than the clock)
My opinion is that the HALT-ON-END is the better way to set the clock; however, with people involved, stealing back a 1/2 point is probably satisfiying to some (most?).
That was never remotely a consideration when that rule was debated. Arbiters are assumed to be honest until proven otherwise. The problem was uneven enforcement, not selective enforcement.
If you want to defend “halt at end,” do you wish make a distinction between sudden-death time controls and normal ones? Should they really be treated the same way?
If a director feels the halt-at-end is defective or non-standard, the director has the right to claim any clock with halt-at-end is an erroneously set clock (rule 16P). If the owner of the clock cannot change the halt-at-end, as the clock cannot be changed, the director has the right to label the clock as defective (rule 16O).
As the USCF has sold halt-at-end clocks, just like many other vendors over the years, the players should understand the notification (rule 1B1) in all prior tournament announcements. If the director objects to the clocks with halt-at-end only, as defective clocks (rule 16P), this variation of clocks declared by the director … as defective, would be a major variation (rule 1B2). As the owners of these clocks (halt-at-end only) should be reasonably unwilling to enter with a clock labeled … by the director … as defective.
I was thinking sudden death only since the move counters can easily become wrong. The move counter on my old gametimer sometimes will be wrong even without the players’ help.
Plausible. But the the question arises of how the clock should be set for 40/2, SD/1. I doubt there is any way to use “Halt at end” here except by resetting the clock at move 40. So, you end up with the setting being “standard” only for games with a single SD time control, but disallowed for all others. Not so plausible.
Yep, only “Game in” types would work easily. I haven’t played in or directed a multiple period SD time control in a long time so I wasn’t thinking about them. Just checked out a few of the digital clocks and for sure there are lots of differences on how they handle things. I guess digital clock setting could be a good reason that G/120 is preferable over 30/90;G/30.
I refuse to have a strong opinion on halt-at-end – and I think others would be wise to endorse a similar refusal.
On the one hand, a player whose time expires is on extremely shaky ground when he claims a God-given right to play on in the hopes his opponent will not notice.
On the other hand, a player who doesn’t notice that his opponent’s time has expired is on equally shaky ground when he tries to claim a win after his own time has also expired.
So, just do the right thing – give up the ghost, without complaint, when your time expires, and give up half the ghost, also without complaint, when you overlook that your opponent’s time has expired.
About the best argument AGAINST the use of halt-at-end is tradition.
And about the best argument FOR the legality of half-at-end is that some major brands of clocks won’t do it any other way.
Bill Smythe
I’m betting that, at least in the move-counter modes, “halt at end” on the Chronos also means “halt at time control” if a player oversteps at move 40.
But my Chronos is an older model without “halt at end”, so it’s just a guess.
Speaking of older models, my Chronos seems to feature “halt one side temporarily at time control” in its move-counting modes. If a player’s time expires at move 35, that player’s clock remains at 0:00:00 until move 40, then resumes.
Bill Smythe
Perhaps, but that wasn’t my point. Unlike a sudden-death time control, a flag fall before move 40 is not an automatic loss. A player may attempt to claim a win on time under those circumstances, and, if he does everything right, he may be awarded a win on time. “Halt at end” short-circuits this process, just as use of FIDE time-forfeit procedure does. Now, if you want to make this an announced variation, and ensure that everyone has one of those clocks, it ought to be acceptable. Otherwise, I doubt that it’s legal under the current rules.
(Also, if the time claim is rejected, how do you get the clock started again for the next time control?)
Why doesn’t the same argument work the other way? (Many clocks do not support “Halt at end,” therefore it should not be allowed.) I’m not seriously advancing this argument, just wondering about your logic.
If the halt-at-end clocks should not be allowed, as the clock is defective (rule 16O). The players should understand the major variation (rule 1B2), as the clock would not be allowed.
if i remember right, there was considerable debate over this very subject at the time that the rulebook was being revised.
for the 4th edition we simply did not have the experience necessary to consider all ramifications of sudden death rules. For the 5th edition (with the addition of the delay rules) we did.
The “halt at end” preference was removed, intentionally. But it was not forbidden either, also intentionally.
However, we recognized that some clocks (e.g. the Saitek model at the time) did halt at the end and that was that. We ruled that the feature was indeed legal. The ‘flag’ on a clock is a device by which it informs the players when time has expired. These clocks do this, and do it very adequately, therefore is in compliance with the rule. These clocks are NOT defective, and may be considered “standard” either way.
The purpose of a player being allowed to call the flag fall is merely a convenience to the director. When I started directing tournaments (1971) the FIDE rule was the USCF rule, and the director called all flag falls. Therefore, “halt at end” was in full effect, as well as the “outside influence” of a director.
As tournaments became larger, this became impractical.
The “both flags down” rules were added after the the USCF rule of allowing the claim to be made by a player, primarily because of the number of complaints and difficulties in determining whose flag fell first. The “halt at end” was the preferred clock (in the 4th edition) for this reason.
The signalling device:
analogue–
An actual, movable ‘lever’ (an actual, red “flag”) on most analogue clocks. On some clocks, more noticable than on others.
A mechanical clock with an alarm.
I have an example of a clock, that when the time expires a large lever (attached to the back) makes a loud ratcheting sound and raises itself several inches above the clock.
digital–
Display of 0:00 (countdown), on some models blinking, in some not.
A negative time display, continues to run.
A picture of a flag, the clock continues to run; the flag remains on regardless of the umber of subsequent moves.
Clocks freeze (i.e. “halt at end”)
Various lights or buzzers.
---- and in some cases, combinations of the above.
All of the above meet the definition of a “flag” as given in the rulebook, and all are valid for indicating the end of the time allotted. Though I might prefer one over another, they are all legal.
As to the clock being an “outside influence” this was also discussed. It was determined that the clock itself will not be considered such. The flag itself, on an analog clock, is an outside influence and has been around for more than 100 years. It is just a matter of degree as to the noticability of the so-called ‘flag’. Thus any flag, no matter how obvious, annoying, or subtle gives an unmistakable indication that time has expired, is indeed legal.
The preference in the rulebook was removed, as not all delay equipped clocks had the feature. In additon, there is a problem with a primary time control. How does one reset the remaining time if both players have more moves on the scoresheet (e.g. 41 moves made in a 40/120 TC) if the clock has stopped? A ‘best guess’ must be made by the director – (I would add the full, next time interval to both clocks, giving both players extra time).
It is a recognized problem with move counters. When they are wrong, they are almost always wrong on the low side (double punches are less likely than forgetting to punch). The rules are explicit that move counters are not to be trusted, but to be used only as one piece of evidence.
The “halt at end” is NOT equivalent to the director calling a flag, or a spectator, as the game may continue (e.g. by choice, or by one or both players not noticing the flag fall). These games may end before this is noticed by checkmate, stalemate or agreement, etc. One cannot claim a win on time if checkmate is on the board, for example, no matter how long the flag is down, or the clock has been in a “halt” condition.
I’m not quite clear on what you are saying here. Did the committee make any distinction between normal and sudden-death time controls? “Halt at end” has definite advantages in SD (though it is not clear that a majority of the players wnat it), but, as you yourself point out, there are enormous practical problems using it with a normal or mixed time control. Are you saying that it’s up to the TDs to solve the problems thus created? The time to solve such problems is before they arise in a game.
I am not sure of the mechanism of the different brands of “halt at end” clocks, or “halt at time control”. Perhaps further investigation is needed for primary, non-sudden death TCs. I personally favor the clocks that continue to run, in some fashion, even though the flag is “down” at the primary TC, but the rules currently allow for either.
The only time it really becomes an issue is when the move counter disagrees with (is lower than) the scoresheet, or the actual number of moves made; AND the move counter is below the primary control count number and it says time has expired; AND at least one of the players claims that the required move count has been made. If disputed, the TD will need to get involved anyway. So far, I have had no problems with my rulings in such matters, and the number of times it came up is very small.
This may be a somewhat separate issue, but Jerry Hanken told me he lost a game on time at the US Open because he was confused as to whether the clock was showing the number of moves or the remaining time.
Given the plethora of digital clocks out there, perhaps we should have an area of the website that goes through the most important aspects of each model, ie, how to read the display and how to set various modes.
We could even set it up as a wiki.
Mike Nolan
A “wiki”?
The rules do say that the players should familiarize themselves with the flag fall mechanism or display (or something like that)… This discussion has made me more aware of all the differences that are available. I guess if I don’t ask to see what the clock display looks like then I deserve whatever I get? And are directors prepared to allow a few extra minutes while a clock counts down so you can see the flag fall and what the display looks like at the end of a time control or game?
As in “Wikipedia,” an interactive page where everybody and the camel he rode in on can post whatever they want. I remain sceptical.
There are just too many settings, aren’t there? Goodness - my Excaliber must have 20 different things you can set - although most of them don’t significantly change the display or action of the clock … It really only matters how the clock at the board is set.
Although I guess it would have been nice to have been told that “halt-at-end” was a significant option in advance so I could formulate a disgust at it ahead of time 
Well - the right is not God-given. But it is in the rule book; and except in a philisophical discussion that is the same thing, isn’t it?
David also made a comment a few posts back about the “preference” being removed because not every clock supported it. I don’t understand that sudden attack of in-decision. Half the 4th edition (it seemed) was devoted to Allegro clocks which for the most part didn’t exist yet (except for Chronos …)
It seems to me - and this is from the average guy in the street - that the rule book should state the rules … and allow variations if the equipment isn’t (widely) available. David made the comment that ‘halt-at-end’ is legal in the current rulebook … or not forbidden. And with all due respect, that sounds more like interpretation overriding the words … (although I don’t know the rulebook as well as you gentlemen do … so just point me in the right direction please!).
There is not one mention of halt-at-end in the 5th edition. There is a rule about what happens when both flags are down … and it’s not listed as a variation, preference, what-to-do-if-your-clock-is-by-some-miracle-still-running-after-a-flag-fall piece of advice - it’s just a rule. So my interpretation was that my LONG experience of both clocks still running was the rule. Please decide how things should work and just tell us 
I don’t want to sound too much like someone else, but hourglasses aren’t forbidden either, are they? Please don’t argue about the flag mecahnism
Thanks again -