Clocks set incorrectly

Running Chess Tournaments
1

We just had a situation at a chess club last night that has left me with some rules questions.

The time control for the game was 40/90, SD/30. The clock in question is a Chronos digital clock. The clock was set to count moves.

After almost two hours, I saw that each player had just under an hour left on the clock. Since I knew the game had started on time, I was mightily confused. I guessed that the clock had been set with an initial time control of two hours rather than 90 minutes.

Anyway, three tournament directors discussed how to handle this situation.
We looked through the rulebook for guidance. Rule 16P (“erroneously set clocks”) reads “an erroneously set clock should be handled in the same fashion as a defective clock.” OK, this seems clear enough. Rule 16O (“defective clocks”) reads “A player who wishes to claim any such defect must do so as soon as aware of it.”

Therein is the source of my confusion. I could not find any justification in the rules for a director intervening to correct an erroneously set clock. Both players seemed not to realize the situation. On the other hand, if a player realizes the clock was set with too much time for the time control, that player may not have an incentive to point out the error. (Rule 16O expressly states “A player who wishes to claim …” (emphasis mine). There seems to be no obligation to point out such an error.

Once both players had used more than 90 minutes each before completing 40 moves, the TDs determined that neither would be able to claim a time forfeit (rule 13C13).

On the other hand, once Black completed his 40th move, the clock then added one hour to each side. At that point, the game then potentially have gone two hours longer than it should. Without clear guidance from the rules, and realizing that it was not practical to keep the club open two hours after closing time, the TDs decided to intervene. Since White’s clock showed 1 hour 11 minutes and Black’s clock showed 1 hour 5 minutes, we determined that the players should complete the sudden death time control from that point with White having 11 minutes and Black having 5 minutes. (Our reasoning was that the players had both exceeded the primary time control of 40/90. According to rule 16T, the game continues. The original clock setting gave each side two hours, which is the sum of the primary and sudden death time control. So, we just took away the extra hour the clock added to each side after the 40th move.)

If this were a university exam, I think the next sentence would be: “Discuss.” :slight_smile: All clarification will be gratefully received.

2

I don’t think that’s the right way to read 16O. “A player who wishes to claim …” should be construed as a mandate to the player – that is, the player cannot let the defective clock stay in use while it is to his advantage, then ask for it to be replaced when he feels like it. Instead, 16O and 16P should be read to mean that the TD can and should intervene when he notices a defective or mis-set clock, whether he sees it himself or a player brings it to his attention. Taking the opposite position leads to absurd consequences. (Both clocks have stopped. The players don’t complain. The game goes on indefinitely?)

In practical terms, waiting until after the time control was a good decision, since it solved the time problem with minimal disruption to the game. Usually, however, this sort of thing should be dealt with as soon as it is noticed. Otherwise, you may find yourself having to tell the players they ahve to finish the game in five minutes (instead of the 45 they thought they had) in order to start the enxt round.

3

If the TD intervenes in a situation like this, he should do so at the earliest possible moment. Doing so when the players have (after the adjustment) only a few minutes remaining, is disruptive and unfair to the players.

Bill Smythe

4

I agree, and I think your scenario makes it particularly clear that the TD must be able to intervene. Still, the wording of 16O and 16P didn’t make this clear. Much as the rules make clear that a director may correct illegal moves outside of time pressure (21D2), it might not hurt to include explicit wording to cover incorrectly set clocks. (I think one concern was whether this could be construed as assisting the players with time management, although I believe that would have been a bit of a stretch.)

That’s also a good point. As it was, Black ended up with five minutes left in the sudden death time control, which was probably disconcerting. (White ended up with 11 minutes, which was also perhaps a surprise.)

I worried about that as well. One reason we hesitated was that we did not know whether the clock had simply been set for G/120 or whether it had been set for a 40/120 initial time control. On the other hand, with the assurance that the TD is allowed to intervene in this case, I would agree that fixing the clock at the earliest possible opportunity would have been a better solution.

5

The owner of the clock could have set the Chronos with one time control then two. The tournament is for two time controls, 40/90 SD/30 not G/120. I would have stop the clock, and asked the owner how the clock was set. If the owner set the clock at G/120, would have told both players the end of the first time control ends at 30:00 or 30 minutes left on the clock. Both players need to make the 40th move before the clock has 30 minutes left. If the scoresheet does not have its’ 40 move before the clock gets down to 30 minutes on the clock, it would be a flag fall.

If it is done this way, the director does not need to change the time on the clock. The director only has to say the first time control has to be made on or before the clock reads 30:00.

6

You could have adjurned the game and had it continued later which would have avoided any question.

7

That’s an interesting thought, but I would have two concerns.

First, it seems unfair to the other players in the section if this game is played with longer time controls. Second, there is a logistical problem. When would the game be resumed? This is a club that meets once a week, and there is a round each week. The players would need to agree on a time to resume; a tournament director would need to be available; and, perhaps most problematic, we’d need a location.

Of course, if adjournment is the only option, then we’d need to make it work. But it’s not an attractive alternative for a weekly club, I think. (Really, my first concern would be the fairness issue.)

8

21D. Intervening in games. The director’s intervention in a chess game shall generaly be limited to the following:

21D3. Warning players. Warning players about or penalizing players for disruptive, unethical, or unsportsmanlike behavior.

As the director does not know if the owner of the clock did set the clock deliberately improperly, would make the act unethical. The director understands the wrong time on the clock would be disruptive. Then would have grounds to stop the clock, as I only give a player(s) warnings when the clock is stopped.