Digital clocks that pass FIDE muster

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Just in case it really is a conspiracy and we all march to the Internationalists tune sometime soon: How many digital (electronic) clocks meet FIDE standards? (See below.)

The Chronos—the best clock I have used—does not. Neither does the Saitek Competition Scholastic blue clock or the Excalibur Game Time II.

The Chronos and the Excalibur do not have a dedicated low battery warning signal; the Chronos does not have a mini-users guide affixed to it and the blue Saitek does not support increment. It might take sharp eyes to see who is on move on a Game Time II from 10 meters across a crowded tournament hall.

I fear that the Saitek Competition Pro—the worst clock I have used, or at least the only digital clock I ever had trouble learning to set, (Hi, Keith)—would pass the test. I hope someone points out where I am wrong on that.

That leaves the DGT clocks and…what else?

From: is.gd/8CewG4

[i]Requirements for electronic chess clocks

(a) Clocks must function in full accordance with the FIDE laws of chess.
(b) The display at all times should show the time available to complete a player’s next move.
(c) The displays must be legible from a distance of at least 3 meters.
(d) From at least a distance of 10 meter a player must have a clearly visible indication which clock is running.
(e) In case of passing a time control, a sign on the display must give clear signal which player passed the time limit first.
(f) For battery powered clocks, a low-battery indication is required.
(g) In case of a low-battery indication the clock must continue to function flawless for at least 10 hours.
(h) Special attention should be given to the correct announcement of passing time controls.
(i) In case of accumulative or delay timing systems, the clock should not add any additional time if a player passed the last time control.
(j) In case of time penalties it must be possible that time and move counter corrections are executed by an arbiter within 60 seconds.
(k) It must be impossible to erase or change the data in display with a simple manipulation.
(l) Clocks must contain a short user manual on the clock. Electronic chess clocks used for FIDE events must be endorsed by FIDE Technical Commission… [/i]

2

The Saitek Competition Pro might pass, depending on the definitions of terms in (e) and (k). (Is holding down the pause button for three seconds a “simple manipulation”?)

OK, quick test. I’m taking my Saitek and setting it to a time control of 10/1, SD/1, inc 5. Let’s see what happens.

First thing I’m noticing is that there’s no visible move counter, so I need to keep careful count of my presses. 1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . . 4 . . . 5 . . . 6 . . . 7 . . . 8 . . . 9 . . . 10.

After 10 moves, nothing distinctive happens: the clocks remain at 0:36 and 0:25, where they were when I pressed the button for the “second player.” The “primary” indicator is still visible – I guess this means I have to use up whatever time is left in the primary time control. (This is consistent with the FIDE rule, “The time saved by a player during one period is added to his time available for the next period, except in the ‘time delay’ mode.”) So now I let the “first player” run down to 0:00, and snap – now it’s in the secondary time control, and it looks like both players got 1 minute added at the same time. In addition, a clock icon appeared on the “first player’s” display, indicating that “he” ran out of primary time first. So the Saitek does seem to fulfill FIDE’s requirements, which is a good thing, since four of the preset modes (including the one I edited for my test) are labeled “FIDE.”

But wait! What does rule (i) say? “In case of accumulative or delay timing systems, the clock should not add any additional time if a player passed the last time control” – not just delay, as in the rule quoted above. (This rule must have been changed since the USCF rulebook was printed, and perhaps since the Saitek was programmed.) Increment is accumulative, right? So my two imaginary players should not have gotten to use up their primary time at the end of the primary time control – after the 10th move, both clocks should have immediately gone to 1:00. Saitek fails the FIDE test after all.

3

The short answer – Only the clocks who have ponied up 2500 euro plus four clocks for testing will “officially” meet standards.

Handbook :: B. Permanent Commissions :: 08. Testing Procedure for Electronic Chess Timers

Then again…pictures on ChessBase of large opens show players using all sorts of clocks (Saitek, Chronos, etc etc). If your clock handles the time control, you’re fine.

4

Bingo and only 2 clocks as far as I know has ponied up which are the DGT 2000 and it’s replacement the DGT 2010.

Even the DGT XL I do not believe has the FIDE logo on it as the 2000/2010 has but of course the XL is the only one that plugs into the DGT board.

5

Wait, so even the DGT North American isn’t endorsed?

6

Nope… neither is the DGT 960…

7

This is getting more and more insanely FIDE every day.

I guess this lets out the new Saitek in “true” delay mode, as the delay time (00:05) replaces the main time (h:mm or mm:ss) for the first 5 seconds of each move.

I question, however, whether any clock that displays only hours and minutes (and not seconds) at any time during the game should qualify as showing the time available to complete a player’s next move. A better regulation would be to require a full five-digit display (h:mm:ss). As far as I know only the Chronos would pass muster here, and then only in some modes.

These are highly subjective criteria which depend on the quality of a player’s (or arbiter’s) vision. Better would be minimum height and thickness requirements for each digit, and a minimum contrast requirement between the black digit and the light background. (But I’m not sure how contrast would be measured – lumens, maybe?)

In the case of (d), as far as I’m concerned no clock with a rocker arm would qualify. A light would be required. That leaves only the Chronos and the eerie green-light version of the Saitek, I guess.

Oh, great. First we have halt-at-end mode (both clocks stop when either player’s time expires). Then we have optional non-halt-at-end mode (the player’s clock stops when his time expires, but his opponent’s keeps running). Now only an in-between mode is allowed, where the opponent’s clock keeps running, but the clock tells us (for the rest of the game, presumably) whose time ran out first.

A low-battery indicator would, indeed, be nice. Older Chronos models (with a switch on the bottom) had a mode where, when the clock was first turned on, both lights would light up for a few seconds, then the display would say HI or LO. Unfortunately, this feature was discontinued when the switchless models came out in about 1998.

When my older model first said LO, I continued to use it for hundreds of hours before I finally had to replace the batteries.

Hold on just a cotton-pickin’ minute. Too many details are omitted. In the case of multiple time controls, is the move counter turned on? If so, is the start of the second control triggered by the move count, or by the expiration of the first control? If the latter, do both players’ second controls begin when one player’s first control runs out, or do the second controls begin independently for each player? Or, if the move counter is not turned on, is a (presumably hidden) move count still used to trigger the control? (I certainly hope not.) The FIDE pronouncement seems designed to avoid answering these questions.

How impossible, and how simple? Is five consecutive button presses too simple? What about pressing a single button on the bottom of the clock? What about holding down a button for several seconds?

Aha – the obligatory gotcha clause. Approval required – and there’s a price, right?

Bill Smythe

8

No, this is for the in-between time controls. For instance, on the Saitek, a little clock icon appears on the side of the player who exhausted his primary time control first while both players are in secondary time.

Although . . . this confuses me, now. According to FIDE’s rules, it seems that if increment or delay is being used, primary time should be over, period, as soon as the first 40 (or other number) moves have been made; the remaining primary time should not count down, because with increment and delay, you don’t add the remaining primary time to the secondary time. So why should it matter who exhausted primary time first if both players are going into secondary time simultaneously as soon as move 40 is completed? This is a really badly worded rule. Clarification is needed.

9

Are you sure? If both players are already in secondary time (i.e. past move 40) when one player’s primary time expires, then neither player has exceeded the time limit, so why would it matter who got there first?

More likely, the icon is there so that, in case one player exceeded the time limit before move 40, but the game continued after move 40, the arbiter can (belatedly) declare the game lost by the player who overstepped.

Related question: Does the Saitek have a move counter? If so, is the start of the secondary control triggered by the move count, or by the expiration of the first control? For example, at 40/90, SD/30, if white makes his 40th move with 7 minutes remaining, does the clock now jump to 37 minutes, or does it wait (probably several moves) until the 7 minutes is gone, and then jump from 0 to 30 minutes?

I’m not sure what you’re saying. I seriously doubt FIDE intended that any remaining primary time would be lost at the start of the second control, with or without increment/delay. (Although, admittedly, there’s no telling what kind of weird ideas might come out of FIDE next.)

That’s for sure – whatever they were trying to say.

Bill Smythe

10

Hey, ask FIDE. It’s their rule.

It does, but it’s not normally visible; you have to press the “moves” button in order to see it. If a player hasn’t made enough moves, the clock will stop when his primary time runs out. (Though, weirdly, it won’t flag. Instead, it goes into a pause mode, which can be restarted – in secondary time – by hitting the pause/reset button once.)

The latter. Which, if increment is being used, is contrary to the FIDE rule as I read it. Not that it makes much sense that way, as you pointed out. But there it is.

11

In that case, I can sort of see where Saitek may be coming from with that which-player-expired indicator.

If that indicator comes on only if one clock runs out before move 40, then it would be possible to tell, even after move 40, whether there was a time forfeit and which player overstepped. It seems rather FIDE-like to want to have this information.

If, however, the indicator comes on when one clock runs out, regardless of the move number, then it would not reveal whether there was a time forfeit, only which player overstepped if either did. This seems less FIDE-like and less useful.

Bill Smythe

12

The certification rules have been around for at least 2 years. These don’t stop anyone from using a blue Saitek (or any other clock) in a FIDE rated norm tournament. Really it’s just a way for DGT (or any interested party) to be the official clock for world championship cycles etc etc.

13

For the sake of precision, I’m going to use the term “clock” to refer to the device and the term “timer” to refer to each player’s independent countdown. Ex: The clock comprises two timers. While the clock is running, one player’s timer is counting down, and the other timer is stopped. When the clock is paused, so are both timers.

No, you misunderstand again. (I don’t blame you – it’s confusing.) If one timer runs out before move 40, the clock goes into pause mode (instead of flagging, which I don’t understand); if the clock is restarted, it resumes in secondary time. If both players have made 40 moves, both timers continue to count down in primary time; when one player’s primary time finally runs out, that player gets the expiration indicator, the secondary time control is added to both players’ timers, and the countdown continues in secondary time.

This is, in fact, what the FIDE rules call for. The mystifying thing is that the FIDE rules also seem to state that, if one is using increment, any remaining primary time should be zeroed out when secondary time begins – i.e., with the 40th move! That makes little sense.

I begin to wonder if the FIDE rule was meant to state that no increment is added when secondary time begins – i.e., on the move after one player’s primary time runs out, he gets his secondary time added but not another 30 seconds (or whatever the increment is). If this is the case, then (a) the rule is wrongly worded and needs to be fixed, and (b) the Saitek doesn’t implement this rule correctly, since it does add the 30 seconds.

Sevan, you must have, like, a million and a half DGTs in your spare room. Can we ask you to tell us how they handle these time-control issues? I think we can assume, based on the endorsements and whatnot, that whatever the DGT does is what FIDE means to happen.

14

Aha – now I’m beginning to get the picture.

That’s probably so that, if the arbiter (for any reason) rules there has been no time forfeit, he can resume the game easily. It would make sense, too, for the clock to begin the second time control at that point.

Such a situation could develop if, for example, the move counter is off. Maybe one of the players forgot to press his clock (oops, timer?) 2 or 3 times.

OK. I guess FIDE wants the expiration indicator so that, in the scenario opposite to that I described above – e.g. if the move count is off on the high side, and it can somehow be established that somebody’s time had run out before move 40 – it can be determined which player overstepped.

That sure doesn’t sound right – which leads me to believe your next speculation is probably correct:

That would make sense. Since a player’s time can expire only when his timer is running, you wouldn’t want to add 30 seconds in the middle of his move.

This might all be mixed up in the “add-before” vs “add-after” option. Somebody once told me the Saitek can be set, in increment mode, to add the 30 seconds either before or after each move. Is that true? Of course, “add-after” is standard. The only difference, mathematically, is that “add-before” would give the player an additional 30 seconds, total, for the game.

Bill Smythe

15

Actually, the FIDE rules appear to require “add before.” Article C.3 of B.08. Testing procedure of Electronic Chess Timers states:

This is in fact what the DGT North American does.

I was surprised by this, but it began to make sense when I thought about the time controls that are allowed for FIDE norm tournaments. One of the allowed controls is 40/120 20/60 SD/30 inc/0; another allowed control is 40/100 20/50 SD/15 inc/30. It seems the intent of the latter control is to give exactly two hours for the first forty moves, then exactly one additional hour for the next twenty. But that only happens if the increment time is added before the move; otherwise, with "add after,"the player’s 40th increment would happen only after the move was completed.

16

Geez. I guess I’m getting to be more of a fuddy-duddy than I thought. By now I’ve played almost 50 tournament games with increment, mostly using the DGT North American, and never noticed this. :blush: Perhaps I can forgive myself because that clock does not display running seconds until under 20 minutes, so it’s a little hard to tell.

True enough. On the other hand, “add after” makes sense if you regard the increment as a reward for making the move.

Anyway, the only mathematical difference is a 30-second total difference in the time alloted for the entire game. G/90 inc/30 “add before” is equivalent to G/90:30 inc/30 “add after”. Similarly, G/90 inc/30 “add after” is like G/89:30 inc/30 “add before”. So it’s not likely to be a fighting issue for anybody.

Bill Smythe