OK, OK, sorry we didn’t discuss the original question completely. There were so many interesting side issues, like how a clock should behave, and which clock brands are better, that we just couldn’t resist.
When the clock added 30 minutes, it was because it thought the required number of moves had been made for the first control. From that point on, the clock showed the time remaining for the entire game, i.e. 30 minutes more than the time remaining for the first control. So when the clock went below 30 minutes, there was no longer any time remaining in the first control.
Thus, the arbiter was correct to award the time forfeit.
Now back to the side issue:
Bill,
Why do you want the clock to count moves? Since it can’t be relied on, you still have to compare the clock’s move number and your score sheet’s move number throughout the game to make sure they are in sync. Isn’t that just one more thing to worry about that you don’t need? The only advantage I can see is in time pressure with only a 5 second delay where it might be nice in case I’ve stopped recording.
In the tournaments I run we use 30" increment. In that case I can see no advantage for the clock counting moves. You have to record all the time anyway. So why have the clock count move?
Mike Regan
I’ve previously said I like having a move counter displayed on my clock. I find it’s just a handy visual aid that allows me to see if I’m at least on move in my notation. (I tend to omit moves sometimes under pressure.)
I just don’t give much credence to the “players might rely on their move counter” argument. Since the rules specifically state players aren’t to do this, I don’t see why that’s an issue.
The rules also specifically state that when a problem is noticed with the clock, the arbiter should be summoned immediately. Since the player claiming the win on time did not do that, and his opponent had time on her clock, I would be tempted to deny his claim.
Also, if I grant the win on time, it would be far more difficult to change the result on the appeal and overturning of that decision, than it would be if I allow the game to continue.
I’m really not sure why you think there is some question about the claim in the original post. What I am sure of, however, is that if you give in to that temptation, then absent some extraordinary (and heretofore unrelated) circumstance, you’ll be overturned on appeal every time.
The central question is whether I can demonstrate that the alleged violator used more time for the first 39 moves than the rules of the competition allow. Given the conditions you set for this example, it’s obvious that the alleged violator did in fact lose on time. She doesn’t have even a remotely reasonable counter-argument.
That doesn’t mean that either realized there was a problem at that time. And if they both did realize that there was a problem, doesn’t that cut against the player who’s time fell also. Why should that player get the benefit of not reporting the problem?
Thanks – I’m glad the side issue is still alive. It’s more interesting than the original issue to begin with.
It’s just a nice comforting feeling, having the clock right there in sync with my score sheet, move by move. So much so, that I prefer to have the move counter on even in a single-control event, such as G/60 or G/90.
Being able to compare the clock to the score sheet is a pleasure, not a burden.
Nope. It’s one less thing to worry about, because it assures me I’m still in touch with reality.
Although I like the move counter, that’s not one of the reasons. I have seldom, if ever, gotten into a situation where I didn’t know whether or not I’d made the time control. (And if I did – as everybody keeps pointing out – I’d be a fool to rely on the counter anyway.)
Delay, increment, 5 seconds, 30 seconds, whatever. I like the move counter in all those cases. I’m glad you like increment, so do I.
Yep. What makes it worse is that the DGT NA when set to increment mode freezes as soon as one side oversteps the time limit. It cannot be set otherwise. That makes it less-preferred than other clocks that support increment but can be set to ‘not’ freeze, as of this year. Would be interesting to see how that rule co-exists with the rule that organizers can mandate the use of supplied equipment.
Still worse to use such a set-up in a large Swiss, without enough TDs to watch all games as time control looms.
This could happen: Move counter off by one, for any number of reasons. Clock keeps track of moves internally, but does not display that to players, unless they pro-actively press buttons on the clock in the middle of a rated game. (and ‘cannot’ be set to display clock-press count on the display) Clock ‘thinks’ one player failed to make move 40 in time; display freezes; both players and both scoresheets say 40 moves had been made, so they sit there thinking; after awhile someone notices the frozen clock and reports it to a TD—who did not observe any of this happen, since it’s a large Swiss and the 30-second increment is supposed to eliminate time-pressure chaos…(Even more fun: Above scenario, but the scoresheets disagree as to whether 40 moves had been played.)
Funny thing: Sevan told me last year that the move counter should never be used. Go figure.
And still we see people support the use of clock-press counters, in spite of the above, in spite of the 2011 USATE, and so on…
We’ll assume FIDE rules are in effect for discussing these hypotheticals.
In the first hypothetical, if both players and their scoresheets agree 40 moves have been made, the arbiter resets the clock (calculating as closely as possible how much time has elapsed since the 0:00 setting appeared), and the game continues.
In the second hypothetical, if the players do not agree that 40 moves have been made, and the scoresheets disagree by one move, at least one of them obviously does not reflect the current game position. It would be up to the arbiter to determine the exact move count, based on the position on the board and the scoresheets. But this would be the case in any such claim, regardless of the clock being used. It is extremely unlikely that the scoresheets would differ by more than one move - but even if they do, the arbiter would have the same job anyway.
(BTW, if I am directing at an event played under FIDE rules, I like to walk through and glance at scoresheets a few times a round. If I see that two players’ move counts don’t match, I can make them stop and fix the scoresheets, which helps to avoid the possibility of the second hypothetical, among other things.)
I would not use it if it couldn’t be viewed during the game as part of the normal clock display. So, I don’t use it with the DGT NA or XL (but I’m fine with it on a Chronos or GameTime, for example).
As soon as someone gives a compelling reason not to use move counters (translation: something other than extremely improbable corner-case hypotheticals or high-profile examples of ignorance of the rules), I’ll stop supporting their use.
I believe my statement was ‘you don’t make a ruling off of the move counter’ because it, as scoresheets, I’ve seen it to be wrong but the definitive law is the scoresheet.
Funny thing is everyone here is looking at a defective clock or an accidental incorrectly set clock.
What if the clock wasn’t defective and the incorrect setting wasn’t an accident huh?
It was 2 or 3 years ago at the Illinois Open when I was helping resetting clocks between rounds I noticed that one of the clocks had be set to something other than what I had programmed them for. The increment on one side was set for 18 seconds while the other side was left at 30 seconds. Was it the player or a friend?
I’m not saying that this happened at the event that started this thread, but don’t discount it. I mean c’mon Tim Just caught a player cheating using a Styrofoam cup once! But I digress and don’t want this thread to go into ‘methods of cheating’.
As far as I know the DGT NA—as well as the Saitek blue clock, and perhaps ‘all’ DGT and Saitek clocks—keep track of clock-presses internally, and that info can be accessed if players press a button on the clock.
You cannot turn off that function, as far as I know, nor is there a way to have the clock-press count displayed on the screen ‘at a glance.’ i.e. without pressing the button (s) that reveal the internal clock-press count. Anyone know otherwise?
That’s not the issue…the problem is that the DGT NA can be set so that it ADDS TIME for the secondary control after its internal move count reaches 40—or whatever—even though that move count is not displayed on the main face of the clock.
It appears that is how the clocks were set at the tournament Bill Smythe played in last year. That’s what Bill noted as a problem—as did I when I reviewed the DGT NA on this forum after I got one about a year ago.
Far better is to set the move counter to zero, so the secondary time is added only after the primary time is exhausted. I think that is the best policy—period—but it seems even you guys who support visible “move” counters concur that move-count should not be used to add secondary time when the counter is ‘hidden.’
The DGT NA adds another feature that makes things even worse. In increment mode, it freezes both sides of the clock as soon as one side exhausts all time, even if that’s the primary time, based on a ‘hidden’ internal move count, that could well be wrong.
Add to that a large Swiss, without enough arbiters to enforce competition rules, in FIDE-speak, and you have a perfect storm brewing.
To be honest, I don’t think this “problem” is all that serious. Almost every clock issue I run into is the result of someone who didn’t RTFM prior to using his clock. It’s just one of many things that makes me wonder why I direct at all.
Clock setting and malfunction issues - both accidental and intentional - existed when analogs ruled the earth as well.
Until such time as digital clocks and their features are standardized by rule (good luck), there’s not going to be any resolution to this.
I completely agree with this – both players should have known, and apparently did, that the time was added early. The player lost because she did not make the required number of moves in the time allowed to make the first 40 moves. That player should never get the benefit just because her opponent did not report the problem earlier – neither did she…
I would not accept her claim either. It goes both ways. There is still time on both clocks, so continue the game. The result can be reversed on appeal.
If I stop the game and rule a win on time, what result could be awarded if my decision is appealed and overturned?
The decision may be appealed, but it will not be overturned! It seems very clear to me, and to others – the player did not make the number of moves in the time required. You started the thread asking what others would do. Several National Tournament Directors, members of the TDCC, International Arbiters and the FIDE Zonal President for the US have answered, but it appears that you still disagree with their response. Why ask?
Not being one of the “in” crowd, I’m afraid that I do not know who is what here, except the one person who put his credentials in his signature.
The reason I asked is that I wanted an EXPLANATION. I got it. Unfortunately, I did not get it HERE.
The explanation I got was this: a “flag fall” is defined in FIDE Rule 6.1 simply as the expiration of one’s allotted time, NOT by some actual mechanical flag fall, beeps, flashing lights, or a bunch of zeros on the clock. As such, the player’s having time on her clock was irrelevant to the fact that her flag had fallen.
