Clock adds time too early

Running Chess Tournaments
61

So sorry to have bored you.

I’m not sure what utility you find in this new direction. But hey, why not?

These questions have no answers, absent some discussion from the parties involved. But none of them really affect the rules situation, and so I don’t really find them all that engrossing. As an arbiter who has run into somewhat similar situations before, there’s a good chance that there weren’t droves of arbiters at the tournament, and the floor arbiter might have missed this while walking the floor. Again, though, that doesn’t really affect the ruling.

Actually, the USCF-related question has an easy answer, since the tournament wasn’t…wait, that’s in the link in the OP.

Again, no one will get those answers without the player’s cooperation - and this doesn’t interest me enough to go to…wait, that’s in the link in the OP.

She was probably accustomed to FIDE procedures, since the tournament in question was held in…wait, that’s in the link in the OP.

Again, finding answers to these questions doesn’t interest me enough to go to…wait, that’s in the link in the OP.

Again, finding answers to these questions doesn’t interest me enough to go to…wait, that’s in the link in the OP. And, unless the opponent is incredibly stupid, none of the answers would change the ruling.

The original question was what would other experienced directors do. The response was virtually unanimous. Obviously, the floor arbiter and chief arbiter who handled the situation felt the same way.

62

I can’t speak to why the players did nothing except to speculate. Perhaps one side was planning to use it as a defense when time expired while the other side felt it could be used as an alternative way to win due to the opponent’s ignorance.

As an arbiter I can state that I often check clocks early in a round to see if they are set properly. While not required to do so, I feel that it may avoid problems later in the round. Among the problems are:

  1. too much time on each side which has the potential to delay the start of the following round.
  2. analog clocks with the sides set to different hours leading to being unable to determine which side has used an extra hour.
  3. too little time on each side which has the potential to have a flag called when there was more time available.

As for a clock that adds time at the wrong move number, this is not visible to the passing TD (at least not on any brand of clock I’m aware of) unless he looks after the time was added. As the game in question added time at move 33, it’s unlikely that any TD would be checking clocks this late into the round. Correcting clocks during the first half hour of a six hour game (four hour time control) has far less impact on the game than waiting for at least 33 moves into a 40 move time control.

63

I’m so glad you were able to use the cut-and-paste feature. It must have saved you tons of typing.

Bill Smythe

64

Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the players, before the game started, “tested” the clock by pushing the buttons back and forth several times, causing the clock to count up to 7 moves. Then, instead of resetting the clock, they just paused it, while listening to the opening announcements by the arbiter. So when they began the actual game, the clock was already on move 7.

If the clock had been a Chronos, surely this problem would have been noticed early, both by the players and by the arbiter, as the clock’s move counter would be displaying a highly visible “07” on each side.

Bill Smythe

65

It was less typing than it took for your previous post, and I think it made a few salient points. I consider it time well spent.

66

How about a very simple explanation of what happened. The clock was set correctly (not to count moves) and she ran out of time in the primary time control on move 33. Once the clock went to zero, it added the time for the secondary time control to both clocks.

This is the behavior of both the DGT XL and the DGT NA. They do put a flag next the the side that went to zero. It could be that neither player noticed the flag.

Mike Regan

67

The move counter was in use for the clocks at this tournament, per IA Mikhail Krjukov.

It certainly isn’t unheard of for players to fiddle with clock settings in FIDE events. There were two cases of incorrect addition of time at the Dvorkovich Memorial. And that’s an event where the clocks were not used in between rounds.

The London Chess Classic is heavily sponsored by Chess in the Schools and Communities. So, as part of the Classic’s Festival events, the playing hall for the FIDE Open was used during several mornings for lessons and scholastic tournaments. We finally resorted to hiding the chess clocks when the FIDE Open’s daily round was done each night, because having to check the settings on all of them 30 minutes before the round starts was just a bit much. :imp: This, of course, didn’t absolve us from making sure the boards were set up properly, but at least it saved us a lot of extra work.

68

One of the posts on the first page stated that one player still had 20 minutes, and the other also had time remaining, when the clock added 30 minutes to each side. So the move counter must have been in use.

Bill Smythe

69

I have found myself wondering what I would have done, either as a player or as an arbiter.

As a player (either the one in time trouble or the opponent), I’m quite sure I would have noticed the problem as soon as the clock added 30 minutes, and would immediately summon the arbiter. I certainly hope the arbiter would then take appropriate action, i.e. adjust the clock as necessary, or substitute another clock.

As an arbiter, I’m pretty sure I’d walk the aisles occasionally, looking for clock problems. As the end of the first control approached, I’d probably do this at least every 15 minutes or so.

But would I have noticed this problem? I’m not so sure – I’d have to be looking at the players’ scoresheets also. What if they were using an electronic scoresheet, and I could not readily see the move number? Well, at least I’d be walking the aisles, so I could easily be summoned.

What if I were one of the players, and I summoned the arbiter, and the arbiter refused to do anything, saying “sorry, once set, always set, keep playing”? If I were the player in time trouble, I guess I’d simply make sure I made the control, even allowing for the absence (because the clock was a DGT with over 20 minutes showing) of running seconds on the display. If I were the opponent, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t claim the time-forfeit win when the clock went from 30 minutes to 29, as I’d feel there were extenuating circumstances. But maybe when it went from 29 to 28 … :neutral_face:

And now for the inevitable monkey wrench. What would I do if I were the organizer? Simple: I would never run an inc/30 tournament with multiple time controls. An increment of 30 seconds makes the entire concept of multiple controls obsolete. I firmly believe that, if increment had been available and technologically feasible when chess clocks were first invented, the whole idea of multiple time controls would never have gotten off the ground. Multiple controls would have been regarded as nothing more than a poor man’s approximation to the ideal solution, i.e. increment.

Bill Smythe

70

I don’t agree with this statement at all. A single time control (like G/90) with 30 sec increment is NOT SUITABLE for serious chess. It’s not much better than G/60, d5. For serious play, you need two time controls, allowing players who have run low on the main time to think deeply again. One time control, with the players in permanent time pressure by move 40, is not adequate.

– Hal Terrie

71

If you want more time, just make it G/120 inc/30.

To require players to speed up just before move 40, then allow them to slow down right after that, only to have to speed up again around move 60, is unnecessary undulation.

With a single time control (and increment), the speed-up is gradual and continuing.

Bill Smythe

72

It is clear from this that we have a disagreement so fundamental that there is just no point in discussing it further. So I’ll just let it go.

– Hal Terrie

73

I was under the impression that the reason for a primary time control was to enforce at least a certain pace of play. From a player’s own standpoint, G/120 is “better” than 40/90, SD/30, since you have the option to play 40 moves in 90 minutes, but don’t have to. From the opponent’s (and probably the organizer’s) standpoint, G/120 is worse for precisely the same reason—a player can spend over two hours (with increment time) on the opening alone. In practice, quite a few resignations and draw agreements come right around the primary time control.