Dealing with sub-standard clocks

Running Chess Tournaments
1

In this thread, it has been suggested that USCF could ban analog clocks from rated tournaments. An alternative suggestion has been that individual organizers could impose such bans if they wish.

To begin with, the language regarding “preferred”, “standard”, and “acceptable” clocks must be simplified, strengthened, and made more consistent.

There should be only two categories. A clock would be “standard” if it can be set for today’s common tournament time controls, including increment and delay. Other clocks should be given a more pejorative name, such as “non-standard”, “sub-standard”, or “marginal”.

In this post I’ll use “standard” and “sub-standard”. This terminology should help drive home the point that, if a clock can’t be set for the tournament time control, including increment or delay, then the clock doesn’t really cut it for that tournament.

Note that any given clock might be standard in one tournament and sub-standard in another. It could have delay capability but no increment, or vice versa. Or, it could be settable for a 5-second delay but not for 3 seconds.

The rules could provide multiple options to the organizer when a player furnishes a sub-standard clock. Such as:

Option 1. Completely ban the sub-standard clock. If a standard clock cannot be found, start the game without a clock. If a standard clock becomes available later, split the elapsed time between the players.

Option 2. Allow the sub-standard clock, within reasonable limits.

Option 3. Allow the sub-standard clock, even beyond the reasonable limits, but with specific accommodations which should be announced in pre-event publicity.

In all cases, if a player furnishes a sub-standard clock, and his opponent arrives late with a standard clock, the opponent may immediately substitute the standard clock, with the elapsed time transferred to the standard clock.

Some of the “reasonable limits” in option 2 might be:

2a. In an increment tournament, if the clock has delay capability but not increment capability, simply set the delay for what the increment should have been, e.g. a 30-second increment would become a 30-second delay.

2b. If the delay or increment is 15 seconds or less, then a clock without delay capability can be used, with no increase in the main time to compensate for the lack of delay.

The “specific accommodations” in option 3 could be along the following lines:

3a. If the delay or increment is 16 seconds or more, a clock without delay capability could be used, with the main time increased by one minute for each second of delay or increment beyond 15 seconds. For example, G/90 inc/30 would become G/105. (This would under-compensate for the lack of increment, thus encouraging the use of a standard clock.)

There you have some ideas to start the conversation. Any thoughts, opinions, improvements, refinements, scathing rebuttals? Let the rumbles begin!

Bill Smythe

3

From an organizer perspective it would be very easy to state, “Digital clock preferred. White’s digital clock (or suitable replacement) will be used if Black cannot provide the same.”

This also gives the option to fall back to an analog if no digital is available. To be on the safe side I treat this as a major variation and would publish it ahead of time.

4

Anyone polled the players? I still like my analog clock. No batteries to change and if my opponent brings his digital, then that’s OK.

5

How does this differ from the current rule?

6

Not materially, but I don’t think the current rule is all that clear from a player perspective. TDs might know that digital is always preferred regardless of color, but in my area the players often choose to play with analogs when a digital could be borrowed. Organizers can reinforce digital adoption through statements like this.

7

I don’t believe that there is any such thing as a “sub-standard” clock. Both digital and analog clocks still tell time. They both still allow players to play tournament games. Jerger, Insa, and some other clocks were models of utility and beauty. The Chronos is an ugly little box.

If anything, it is the digital clocks that now cause the most problems in tournament play. With increment time controls, it is possible for games to go on virtually forever. Even delay clocks allow games that go beyond 60 or 80 moves to cause further rounds to be delayed. In a recent tournament in Cleveland, a game with a 5 second delay forced the next round to be held up for over a half hour. I expect that the two players also asked for additional time to recover before starting their round as well. The analog clock provides a finite, predictable time for the end of the game.

Players take the risk of having too little time to salvage draws or even win games when they use analog clocks. They should bear that risk if the only clock available is the analog clock. With the analog clock you have to display the arts of time management and disciplined thinking, skills that older players used to exhibit in the past but have now allowed to grow rusty now that they have digital clocks to use. Like the kids, they allow their clocks to drift toward 0:00 and then try to recover with clock bashing.

8

Well, that is an interesting point!

Currently, any player who considers it important that his/her games are played using a delay/increment rather than an analog clock can insure this simply by bringing a working delay/increment clock to the tournament. So a rule change is needed only if we want to insist that a delay/increment clock be used even when both players prefer an analog clock.

Bob

9

The older analog clocks that do not have a delay/increment function do not still tell the game time as is now directed by the USCF rules. The older clocks are limited in the time telling functions for a rated chess game currently without a delay and/or increment… Because of this they are sub-standard in regards to providing the game time with a delay/increment.

The digital clocks are indeed models of utility. They do not have the problem of needing to be wound and having problems with the individual clock mechanisms. Yes, the Jerger was built very well and had very few problems except it did need to be wound. I owned an Insa clock and while they were built fairly they were not as reliable as the Jerger or any of the current digital clocks.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I own 4 Chronos clocks and not one of them is the cream/beige color that is indeed not beautiful in my opinion. I have 2 that are black. One is a touch model and the other is one that I have put red button caps on. Both are quite attractive. One that I use for skittles and blitz has been sanded down to the underlying aluminum. That clock also looks nice and I do get compliments on it. The 4th clock is one that is presently being covered in a wood veneer. It too will look nice.

The Insa and Jerger also were boxes. The Jerger box is on a stand and at a slight tilt, but is still a box nonetheless. The Jerger is made of a lighter blond colored wood while the Insa I had was a darker, more oak color. The buttons were not anything special on either. I prefer the digitals that have an LED light to show which player is on the move. These can be seen across the room. When it comes to analog clocks, the Quartz one worked the most consistently and accurately of the bunch, but it also cannot provide the delay/increment so is also sub-standard for current tournament play.

Well, that’s not completely true either. I definitely recall games going long with the old analog clocks and time controls. I distinctly remember rounds being late and the tournaments going late into the night. Since the delay, and now increment, have hit the scene we see the rounds not being too late compared to back then, and the tournaments don’t run past 9:30 pm in a typical Saturday Tornado. In comparison, I distinctly recall a Saturday Tornado going until about midnight when we were using non-delay clocks as the standard.

It can easily be argued that time management and disciplined thinking is required with the delay or increment in use. There is no need for clock slamming when the players use correct time management. I also recall seeing major clock bashing happen before the delay was around. It did come to a skill of who could move and hit their clock faster. So, back then there were people that didn’t use correct time management or discipline either.

10

Yes – that’s precisely my point. The “changes” I have suggested are more language clarifications, tilts in emphasis, and expressions of new attitudes than anything else. They could be implemented now by any organizer who so chooses (although a few of the suggestions should perhaps be announced in pre-event publicity, at least for the time being).

The best way to conduct a survey of clock preferences is to go to any tournament and count clocks. If, for example, one of every 4 players prefers analog, then one of every 16 games (those where both players prefer analog) should be using analog. The actual number (at least in the Chicago area) is far smaller than that – to the point where it’s safe to say that the percentage of players who still prefer analog is minuscule.

Um, excuse me, but I already proposed a specific definition of “sub-standard” in my post. You can’t argue with a definition. Certainly, if a clock can’t be set to match the tournament specifications, it’s reasonable to describe it as sub-standard for that tournament.

Indeed, the Jerger is handsome, with a nice wood case, good tilt angle, and smooth plunger buttons. But, I once removed the back cover of a Jerger, and found that the mechanisms inside were identical to those in a BHB. I wonder how many Jerger owners have ever noticed this.

Bill Smythe

11

I’m a little confused by these remarks. For instance, a 40/2 SD/1 using an analog clock has a maximum time limit of 6 hours. A 40/2 SD/1 with a TD/5 using a digital clock has no maximum time limit, as players could sustain the game longer than the 6 hour “base” time control by playing endlessly off of the 5 second delay. Therefore, games could go on beyond the standard time between rounds, and would impact future round pairings as Tom has mentioned. Based on the initial time control, increments would only exacerbate this effect.

I understand the reasoning behind using delays and increments, but in US tournaments, the impact to round scheduling that Tom has mentioned should also be considered when establishing time controls, delays or increments, as we typically play multiple rounds per day.

12

One of the big pushes to get delay was sudden death time controls that did NOT used to be standard. 40/90, 25/60 was considered a fast time control and 30/30 (repeating) used to be considered so fast it was questionable as to whether or not it should be ratable. The US Open used to be 50/150 for the primary time control followed by a repeating 20/60. A huge argument against SD was that a player could get a good position and then have a dead-lost opponent simply drag things out as a clock-punching monkey and run the “winning” player out of time. Delay was added to combat that, and once it was tested at the longer time controls then the quicker time controls became feasible.
So when somebody says that delay sped things up, they are referring to things like a US Open game that starts at 7 PM and should be over by 2:30 AM (even if the game has gone a couple hundred moves) versus US Open games that used to go to 4 AM before getting adjourned and then go for another hour or so after resumption (maybe one hundred moves).

13

Moderator Mode: Off

I agree that on paper the old time control system looks to give shorter round times. The problem is that the time controls back then didn’t end in SD/30. They were ending in 15/30, allowing the game to be like the Song That Never Ends.

I’m just recalling how things were in the tournaments I played and directed before 1996. They all went later into the evening than now. I also remember late round starts because of games continuing back then as well.

Now, you can say that the games should have ended in SD/30 but that isn’t really comparing apples to apples. We can have different time controls with the delay/increment that would make rounds longer or shorter. The time controls we initially used with delay was G/90, d/5sec. Now the standard in our area is G/75, d/5sec. This gives much shorter rounds. I played in a tournament in Springfield, Illinois a few weeks ago and we didn’t have any games run late, and I don’t recall any major round delays in Peoria in the recent past.

I personally prefer the times a bit slower. I would love it if the games went back to G/90, d/5sec. Don’t people realize that this gives each player an extra 15 minutes for their game? Yeah the TD in me sees that this adds at least 30 minutes to each round, which adds up quite a bit by the end of the day. I still would like the extra time to play.

The fact of the matter is that delay and increment are part of the current tournament scene and rules. We really won’t do much good discussing and arguing the merits of having a delay or increment versus not having them. This is a different discussion that has already been hashed out over the years. We have the delay and increment whether we agree with it or not. If someone has a delay/increment clock and you don’t, your clock will not be used even if your opponent is late to the game anymore. The bottom line is that any clock that does not have a delay or increment capability is no longer the standard for tournament chess play. And by definition if something is not standard it is sub-standard.

I understand and actually agree that the analog clocks are fun to play with. I understand when someone says they still like their analog clock. I remember having my quartz clock for G/30 or slower. I loved that clock with the little second hand clicking off the seconds. I had an Insa because I liked the wood and it was fun. I also had a blitz clock with only 15 minutes on the dial. Do you guys remember those? If I remember right the clock face was black with the hands and numbers being white. It was fun and cool. I didn’t get rid of those clocks until 1998 or so when I finally realized that my digital Excalibur and then Chronos would pretty much be all that I used. I sold them off cheap and used that money to buy one of those early Saiteks. I bought my first Chronos a year or so later.

The very nice thing about the digitals is that you can see how much time is left to the second. Remember looking at the flag, even with that “expanded” part kind of magnifying the last minute or so? You really didn’t know if you had 20 seconds or 5 seconds left. I also remember having to check and calibrate the clocks to not run too fast or too slow which is not necessary with the digitals. So to play skittles or blitz, I really want a digital which displays the exact seconds left. In the slower games, I don’t mind using the analog/non delay clocks except when the time gets under 5 minutes for either my opponent or me. I don’t want any more mystery for when the time will expire.

As far as aesthetics, there is a clock out there that is analog with the little digital window giving the delay. That really never took off though. I’ve never seen one in real life, meaning no one that I would have come across even bought one, or if they did they quit using it. As I said, my friend and I are currently making my oldest Chronos into a wooden clock via the magic of maple veneer. For $12 I bought a large sheet of it at a local hardwood place. We did a first run and found we didn’t like the staining that we did. So we are about to do another one (good thing I bought the large sheet I did :slight_smile: ). From what we have done so far, the clock will look very nice. The black buttons and all will contrast nicely with the wood, which will be getting a cherry stain. And, with the veneer covering the clock completely it looks as if it is made of wood and not aluminum.

So, the delay and increment appear to be here to stay. The clocks we use need to provide that delay or increment in order for this to be a standard of current, rated play.

14

I don’t think it’s reasonable to compare current time controls to time controls that existed 25+ years ago when discussing the impact of delay. The USCF began shortening the time controls long before delay and digital clocks were commonplace. For instance, G/30 and 30/30 SD/30 were around and popular long before the digital clock and delays were implemented. That’s what caused things to “speed up”, not the implementation of delays and increments per se.
My point is that you can’t ignore the impact delay has on current time controls and round scheduling, which I believe was also Tom’s point. Isn’t this also part of the argument that’s caused G/25 TD/5 to be approved as dual-rated?

15

I think that was the Garde electronic. It looked much like the classic Garde of old. It had real moving hands, with a tiny digital display to go along with it.

I actually bought one, one year at the National Open. I figured it would be a good compromise for those who like the features and precision of digital along with the large highly visible hands of analog.

I never used it in a tournament, though. It had a number of problems. The digital display had a dark greenish-gray background which contrasted poorly with the tiny black digits. The minute hand, which triggered the physical flag, moved in increments of one minute. If the hands appeared to indicate that you had a full minute remaining, you might actually have had only a second or two. On top of that, my specimen was defective, so that the flag on one side would not always fall. After a failed attempt to repair it myself (after all, I used to repair BHBs, didn’t I?) it ended up in the garbage.

A better description of the chronology would be that, many years ago, games were sped up through the use of shorter times (like 30 minutes) and sudden death. Later, to reduce some of the ill effects of sudden death, games were slowed down, slightly, through delay and increment.

That was a result of the chronology, yes. At one point G/30 was slowed down by adding d/5. Now, finally, it has been speeded back up through the use of the roughly equivalent G/25 d/5.

Bill Smythe

16

At one time there used to be at least a half hour between the end of a round and the start of the next round. It was a tradition which helped the players to relax, grab something to eat, go to the bathroom, etc. It helped the TD who had time enough to make and post pairings. With the use of the “sub-standard” analog clocks, everyone had the one half hour grace period. The use of digital clocks usually means the players and the TD have much less than the half hour between rounds. I sometimes find that I have only 15 minutes or less to calm down, process what was just played, get a drink, and then get ready for the next round. There is not much time even for a snack. And this is just using delay clocks. Using increment really bumps up against the next round official start.

Computers have helped harried TDs to stay on time when a round runs late, but the players have been seriously impacted by the use of digital clocks. It is not uncommon for many TDs to not give players who finish a game a full half hour before they start the next game. Since many games run past the normal end time, I suggest that the time between rounds be extended by 15 minutes to account for the extra time added by digital clocks. I know, the complaint by TD/organizers will be “But we only have the room for so long”, but the players needs should be accomodated, too.

17

Many grandmasters come to a tournament with no clock, set, or board. A lot of masters emulate them by doing the same. I don’t know why many of my colleagues do this. Perhaps they think they are too much above the hoi polloi and expect to be catered to because of their lofty status. It is a bad habit that needs to be broken. May I suggest the following: When neither player has appropriate equipment to use, have an old “sub-standard” BHB clock with its tiny little flag and a small “sub-standard” black and red board with two inch pieces for them to play on. Don’t let them wander about cadging equipment for them to abuse and which they usually leave on the table forgetting to return. You don’t enter a golf tournament or a tennis tournament without equipment. Show some respect to the event and the players by bringing your own stuff to the game.

18

Moderator Mode: Off

When I started playing tournament chess, the time controls were usually 40/80, 15/30, 15/30. I don’t recall a half hour scheduled between rounds back then. I would love that. Bill Smythe says that the time controls were sped up before the delay came in. Perhaps it was made faster by making the second control a SD instead of continuing.

Tom, what were the time controls you are talking about, and was the tournament a tornado or one day event with 4 rounds?

I think a half hour between rounds would be great. The problem is getting 4 rounds in a day while having the time control not being rushed and having the between round breaks.

David Long in Springfield runs his first round at G/60 d/5sec. The rest of the 4 rounds are done at G/75, d/5sec. He has a scheduled lunch break in there of a half hour. He also starts his first round at 10:00 am giving us time to make the drive to Springfield without needing to leave too early in the morning.

Of course, time management is important in this as well as all the time controls.

19

The first time I played in Springfield, in February, my first-round game ran a bit long and I found myself with no lunch break at all, which was not pleasant.

Lesson learned, I brought a lunchbox to the next one. I’m sympathetic to both sides on this one: As a player, I want it all. I want plenty of rated games for my trip, I want to leave at a decent hour and get home at a decent hour, I want a lunch break, and I want a nice, slow time control (but I don’t want to wait forever for the next round if I play too fast and my game ends quickly).

As soon as a TD can figure out how to give me all that, he’ll have my business for life :slight_smile:

20

During the early 1970’s when I started playing, the time controls were 50/2, 25/1. The round times were 10 am, 2:30 pm, 7 pm on Saturday. 10 am, 2:30 pm on Sunday. If for example, a first round game passed the 2 pm mark, it would be adjourned. Third round games were sometimes allowed to continue w/o adjournament, but many TDs cut them off at midnight or the players requested adjournment at 11:30 pm so that they could make the last Port Authourity bus of the evening; no bus service in the wee hours. Adjournments might be played off between rounds or at 8 am on Sunday morning. There were no adjournments in fourth round games as this would usually severely affect pairings for the last round. The last round might be held up an hour or more while adjournments and long games were finished.

There were few one day tournaments, and these had time controls of 30/30, 30/30 which were usually unrated; 40/1, G30 to Game 75 to accomodate four rounds. Tornado tournaments had only one time control. Remember that this was in the era before digital clocks. Round times were 10-1-4-7. Players had a half hour grace time between rounds. Finish early, you had the pleasure of having more time to relax, play blitz, or take a nap. There was oftem time to run out to get something to eat. Players started to like playing on only one day rather than two. I am sure many wives and girl friends were happy, too.

Then Game 30 was allowed to be rated. Scholastic organizers jumped on it to run 5 rounds in a Saturday. Game 30 events appeared more frequently as the price for room rentals went up. In many places this was the only event you could find. It was fast, perhaps too fast for the so-called “serious” player. When digital clocks and delay appeared, it slowed the games down somewhat, but the rounds got crushed together.