Clock Recommendations

Running Chess Tournaments
1

I am planning on putting a document together giving recommendations on what clock a tournament player should buy. I plan on recommending the following:

The following features are necessary:

  1. Supports increment up to 30 seconds
  2. Supports delay up to 30 seconds (and the delay time must be shown through a delay countdown and/or Bronstein delay.)
  3. Supports one and two time controls

The following features are nice but not 100% necessary:

  1. Shows tenths of a second
  2. Shows the delay countdown and the base time at the same time
  3. Supports three time controls and repeating time controls
  4. Shows seconds at all times
  5. Has the option of a move counter
  6. Automatically gives increment for move 1
  7. Automatically gives Bronstein delay for move 1
  8. When the clock is paused, be able to start either players time when un-pausing the clock (see the example on this below)
  9. Be able to check during a game that the clock was set correctly
  10. Does both countdown delay (or simple, US delay) and Bronstein delay
  11. Can be set fast and easily
  12. Can save a number of favorite time controls
  13. Low price

Example of 8-Player A makes an illegal move and presses the clock. The clock is paused and two minutes are added to Player B’s time. Now you will want to start player A’s time when un-pausing the clock. However, on some clocks you can only start player B’s time when un-pausing the clock. To get back to Player A’s time, you will have to un-pause the clock and quickly press player B’s clock. However, this is an issue when increment is used as it will add the increment to Player B’s time. You can essentially get around this issue by adding two minutes minus the increment time but will all players or TD’s think to do this?

I plan on mentioning all the clocks that support the features I consider necessary, stating which of the other features each of these clock supports, and some annoying things about each clock (preset to beep, distracting display, etc.) so each player can decide for themselves which of the features that aren’t 100% necessary are most important to them and thus what clock they should buy.

Let me know if you can think of any other features that you think are necessary or would be nice for a clock to have.

2

I agree with almost everything on your list.

To “5. Has the option of a move counter” I would add “visible at all times without pressing any buttons”. On the DGT NA, to see the move count you must press (I think) the “plus” button or something like that.

I don’t care for the tenths-of-seconds display, especially in the earlier stages of a slow control like 90 minutes. Under 5 or 10 minutes it wouldn’t be so bad, I guess.

I can see it now. Clock brands and models in a column on the left. Features in a header row across the top. “Yes” or “No” in each box in the grid. (Or, in the case of price, the dollar amount.)

I have a hunch you’d have to update your document about once every 15 days, though, the way new brands and models keep coming out.

How about one more feature: “Displays both Bronstein and USA delay simultaneously.” I’ve explained this in a couple of recent threads. No clock has this yet, but if you put it on your list maybe some manufacturer will implement it!

Bill Smythe

3

This is a great idea, Micah. I have thought of doing this, but there are now so many clocks on the market I could not afford the money to buy them all and perhaps the time to learn all their quirks.

Although I suspect there is a limited audience—mainly the folks who post about clocks on this forum—it could help.

To the nice-to-have features list I would add a low-battery indicator and perhaps ease of battery replacement. For an article aimed at helping folks decide which clock to buy, it might be good to list pros and cons for each model, and to give a ballpark cost for each.

i.e.

Chronos II

approximate cost $110. Note: Can be hard to find; goes in and out of production. In times of scarce production, prices tend to rise.

Pros:

Can be set for any time control. In most cases can be set several different ways. Supports all forms of delay/non-cumulative timing as well as increment, with effectively no limits on the delay or increment time.

Highly durable—almost indestructible. Large physical form makes it easy to reach at the board. (Can make a difference for children or shorter-armed adults at large tables.) Large clear display, easy to see, includes all needed info.

Highly customizable: Perfect for those who spend too much time tweaking their computer settings. Scores of modes from which to choose. Can be set many different ways for the same control, depending on user preference. For instance, halt-at-end can be enabled or disabled in nearly all cases. A visible clock-press counter can be enabled in most cases for multi-segment controls.

Can save up to 12 user pre-sets. Works well for tweakers and those who play at many different time controls. Also useful for those who don’t want to mess with setting the clock and just want to store the few controls at which they play.

Mid-game time adjustments are easy, including the move count, and it’s almost impossible to switch off the clock by accident.

Reliability of older models is impressive. There are lots of Chronos II clocks from the 1990s still in use after 20 years of solid service.

Aesthetics. This is highly subjective but for those who find beauty in functionality this is the gold standard.

Sentiment: This is the clock that carried many veteran tournament players into the modern age of delay and increment play. For some time it was the only good option, albeit at a price premium. You can have their Chronos when you pry it from their old wrinkled chess bag.

Cons:

Price. It’s not cheap and as noted it gets pricier as supply dwindles.

Initial learning curve to set the clock. Once you spend quality time with the manual and play with the settings it becomes routine. There is logic to it—but it takes time for that to sink in. Do not buy a Chronos II and take it to a tournament without getting to know it first.

Does not display increment as add-before move one, the way DGT and other clocks do. That can make a difference for FIDE-rated play, especially at G/90 +30.

No low-battery indicator.

Reliability of more recent models is less impressive than 1990s-era models, based on significant if anecdotal evidence.

This is the clock for you if: You are a serious tournament player, are able and willing to pay for quality, can make a small initial time investment to get comfortable with the clock’s settings.

This might not be the clock for you if: You are on a tight budget and/or highly value thrift; or you only play rated chess occasionally; or you can’t or won’t study the manual; or (perhaps) you focus on FIDE-rated play.

Something like that.

4

I would much prefer “restarting” to “un-pausing”. Note that while I don’t necessarily agree with the desirability of all the selections, I think this supersedes the work of the clock committee that was included with the Delegates Call.

Alex Relyea

5

Micah, if the clock committee has any smarts, they’ll ask you to be on it.

I’m glad you noticed that detail about the wrong side of the clock starting following a pause. That’s the sort of thing most people never notice.

Bill Smythe

6

Thanks Alex

Thanks Bill. Unfortunately my favorite clock, the VTEK300, suffers from this issue. It remembers whose side of the clock was running when you pause it and when you restart the clock it will start that players time again. I’ve told Shelby Lohrman about this and hopefully they change this in the next update of the clock so you can start either players time when restarting the clock.

7

You need to add that when there is more than 1 time control & the first time control is stepped over by either player. Many clocks will stop keeping time if 1 of the players oversteps. That may be fine for increment [I don’t know how else it could work], but not with delay. Play can continue if no player claims a win on time, but time needs to continue in that instance. Do you really want games getting played without time coming off the clock while a player thinks about a move?? Some clocks will stop, while there are others that will not. At least that was the case 5-10 years ago.

Larry S. Cohen

[it has been a long time since my last clock purchase]

8

Increment vs delay is irrelevant. Whether the clock should continue to run ought to depend on other factors.

First of all, FIDE and USCF should have the same preferences in this department. Otherwise there is simply too much confusion, among both players and clock manufacturers.

My own opinion is that, at the end of the final (sudden death) control, the clock should freeze when one player’s time expires. This clock behavior would be compatible with both the FIDE philosophy that the arbiter can call the flag, and the USCF philosophy that only the player should call the flag. If one player’s time expires and the other player doesn’t notice, under the USCF method the former can still hope to escape the loss, e.g. by checkmating or stalemating the opponent.

At the end of a primary (non-sudden-death) control, it’s another horse entirely. Here the clock should not freeze just because the prescribed number of moves apparently has not been played. The clock should continue to run, but it should indicate which player ran out of time first, e.g. with the display of a flag on the side of the player who ran out first. This clock behavior, again, would be compatible with both FIDE and USCF. The FIDE arbiter will know whose time expired first and can call it accordingly. The USCF arbiter can ignore the flag display, and allow the time forfeit claim only if the claimant still has time remaining, otherwise the game continues.

Bill Smythe

9

Of course the problem with halt-on-end under rules where the TD/arbiter does not call flag fall is that the player with time remaining may wish to checkmate rather than to claim a win on time. Under these circumstances, the TD/arbiter has no way to end the game. In effect the players can agree to play with unlimited time, and there seems to be nothing to keep a G/5;d0 game from lasting a half hour or longer.

Alex Relyea

10

That problem would be better dealt with via a rule change. There could be an emergency clause, roughly parallel to 18G1 and 18G2, wherein the arbiter would be allowed to call a time expiration within a reasonable time after the clock has stopped. “Reasonable time” could be 5 minutes regular, 3 minutes quick, or 2 minutes blitz.

Bill Smythe

11

Another possible fix is to change rule 14G2:

A first stab at amending this would be to change the first sentence: “If a sudden death game continues with both flags down, or if the clock has halted operation and it is clear that the game has exceeded the possible playing time (taking any delay or increment into account), the director may rule it a draw.” (That’s a rather complex sentence, so maybe it should be broken into two sentences, but it gives the general idea.)

Incidentally, as a special referee, I would uphold any TD who made a ruling that the game is drawn even under the current rule. While 14G2 does not explicitly allow the director to make such a ruling if both flags are not literally “down”, I would point out once again my favorite rule 1A, which ends with my favorite sentence in the rule book: “The United States Chess Federation (USCF) presumes that its tournament directors have the competence, sound judgment, and absolute objectivity needed to arrive at fair and logical solutions to problems not specifically treated by these rules.” In this case, I have no problem accepting the argument that, while 14G2 does not cover the case of a clock that has halted, it is a reasonable extension of the rule to apply it to this situation, which is not specifically treated by the rules. (That is not quite correct; a clock that halts operation when one player runs out of time violates rule 16B2b.)

12

Or just allow the TD to call a flag fall: “A flag is considered to have fallen when the [tournament director] observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect.”

13

That would be the ultimate solution, yes, and I’d be in favor of it, but it likely will be politically not feasible (at least not yet) in a nation of US Chess TDs who want nothing to do with calling flags, or any other tournament-room supervision duties for that matter, and who are fond of telling everybody “the player has to call it”.

Bill Smythe

14

This is open to the interpretation that these TDs are lazy. But I don’t like to call flags for a different reason. It’s one thing for an arbiter to call flags or illegal moves in a small tournament where every game can be watched. But when I’m the only TD and there are 30 or 40 boards, I can’t possibly be watching more than a handful of games at any given time, and calling a flag in this game but not that one leaves me open to accusations of favoritism. I would rather not go there at all, and the rulebook backs me up on this. I prefer to let the players settle these things, and summon me when and if they need me – not because I’m lazy, but because I like to be as fair and impartial as possible.

15

“The [TD] may appoint assistants to observe games, for example when several players are short of time.”

16

Sports officials can’t call every infraction either, and yes, they do sometimes get accused of many things. Somehow sports survives.

17

And when there are no assistants?

18

Appointing assistants to observe games is different from appointing assistants to make rulings in games. (by the way, which rule has that?) If they are not on staff then even if they are TDs there is the possibility that some may think they are opting to make rulings that are beneficial to either themselves or their friends (odds are heavily against such thoughts actually being true, but outside of the club environment they are pretty good that the thoughts/accusations will exist).

19

The FIDE rule says only, “A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect.” It does not require the arbiter to watch it happen.

And it is Rule 12.4 that allows arbiters to appoint assistants to observe games.
http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=207&view=article

20

I was asking about the US Chess rule, not the FIDE rule. Sorry for not clarifying.