Out of curiosity. I plaed in an event this summer that had a time control of G/120. In one game, the clocks were obviously set incorrectly (1hr 20min instead of 120minutes), but none of the players noticed this. The game ended up in a tremendous time scramble (around one hour before the round should have ended). Only at this point did spectators and TD realize what had happened. Could either player have made a claim at this point to have the clocks adjusted to correct the error (ie. adding the 40 minutes they were missing) ?
Before the game ended, yes (see 16P). There is an argument that the TD should have stopped the game and reset the clocks as soon as he noticed this, but I can easily imagine the game ending during the five or ten seconds the TD spends thinking about it.
This may be one of the rare exceptions to the “TD should not intervene” philosophy. If a clock is set incorrectly, and the TD notices it EARLY, a lot of trouble can be avoided through early intervention, even if (especially if?) neither player requests it.
If the TD notices it later, it’s a stickier wicket. But if the player then makes a “claim” that the time should be corrected, I would think the TD should, at the very least, disallow any subsequent time forfeit claim that arises from the incorrect setting, on the grounds that there hasn’t actually been a time forfeit. At that point he’d pretty much have to correct the clock times, anyway.
I’d agree that a time forfeit could not occur, but I don’t think there would relief available if a player blundered in the bogus time scramble. Do you know of any rule that would help then?
No. This actually came up at the 1978 U.S. Championship. Mednis spent several days complaining about it, but got no relief from the TD or the Appeals Committee.
It is the players’ responsibility to make sure the clock is properly set at the start of the game. This isn’t one of those cases (such as, whether/how the second control is set, or whether the delay is set) that may be difficult to detect at the outset.
While it is primarily the player’s mutual responsibility to make sure the clock is set properly and all the pieces are set up correctly, I think the TD needs to be a bit proactive in this area, too, walking the floor at the start of the round (especially the first round or if the time control has changed from the previous round) to check things, especially the clocks.
Doing so will generally prevent a multitude of problems later on.
No, the TD may not be able to determine at a glance if every type of digital clock is set properly. But not checking them at all strikes as being a bit lazy.
If the event is supplying sets, I think the TDs have an increased responsibility to make sure they’re all set up properly.
If the event is one where many of the players are not tournament veterans (such as many scholastic events), I think that increases the TD’s responsibility a bit, too.
And in FIDE rated events, I think the TD’s responsibility for checking that the clocks are properly set is much higher.
In my club last night 2 players had their clocks set for 1 hr 55 mins. each when it was supposed to be 1 hr. 25 mins. each.
This was discovered when one of the players had about 30 mins. showing on his clock and the other about 60. If each clock was shortened by the 30 mins., the one player would have lost on time. The positions were about equal. The player with 60 mins. agreed to reduce his time by 30 mins. and allowed his opponent to adjust his time down to 15 mins.
If they had not come to this agreement, I would have had both players reduce their times by 25 mins. This would have given the one player 5 mins. to play on his clock and the other 35. If the player with 5 mins. left had a winning position, with the delay, it would probably still be enough time to carry out his plans.
You make a good case for the TD ANNOUNCING the time control at the start of each round, then checking the clocks.
Taking time off the clock when both players still had over an hour would have been better for all concerned.
I’ve got a PHP program that produces board signs as a PDF, with the print facing both directions. I print them on card stock (6 boards per sheet), cut them out, fold them and I’ve got little signs I can place at each board.
Usually I just have the event name and the section name on them, with the board number in a larger font size.
Sometimes I put the round times and time control on them, too. (It depends on whether I remember to do the board signs far enough in advance, because I usually have to fiddle with the formatting to get that much information on them.)
I might move the apostrophe before the s to make it player’s instead. Rules work best when responsibility is narrowly focused onto one person.
The world of digital chess clocks is a mess right now. Many times I have seen people who own a digital chess clock ask around looking for someone who knows how to set it! That is all the evidence I need to claim a mess.
It is unrealistic to expect the club TD to understand all digital clocks, and to walk around pressing lots of buttons on each to verify all are set properly.
It is unrealistic to expect me to learn how to program and review the digital clock my opponent has set for our game.
If the clock is mis-set, my opponent who mis-set the clock should be held responsible, in case awkward relief must be imposed.
Suppose the time control was supposed to be 40 moves/90 minutes, then SD/60 for the second control. But instead my opponent accidently set the clock to SD/90 for the first/only time control.
One reasonable enforcement would be: If my opponent’s flag falls on his 41st move, he loses. If my flag falls on my 41st, I should be granted relief by the TD.
Or suppose the clocks were to be set with a 10 second delay in G/90, but instead the delay was not set. In the endgame my flag falls improperly (I moved in less than 10 seconds). Again, I deserve relief, but maybe my opponent would not.
An exception should be that both players are responsible for noticing that the initial clock display is obviously improper. If at the start the clock clearly shows 30 minutes when everyone knows it is supposed to show 45 minutes, that is obvious enuf that the TD need not provide later relief.
If you are not familiar with your opponent’s clock, you have the right to have your opponent show you how it works. You also have the right to have your opponent show you that it is set correctly.
If you don’t exercise those rights, you should share in the blame for an improperly set clock.
My rule as a TD is absolutely no setting of digital clocks. This is the player’s responsibility, and if he can’t do it, he should get another clock.
The problem with this sort of asymmetrical enforcement is that it allows the opponent to raise the issue either when he notices it or after his flag falls. He shouldn’t be allowed two bites at the apple.
At the recently concluded Atlantic Open, it was not immediately obvious from the time remaining on the clock why one game in the 2-Day Schedule of the Under 2000 Section was still in progress, well after the theoretical time limit. The answer was gleaned from a closer inspection of the clock. The players had set the clock to the correct (Game/70) time control, but with a 50-second dealy instead of 5 seconds! Fortunately the players weren't making full use of all their time delay-- just enough to cause a crowd to gather around the game. The player with the winning position ended up winning anyway, and both players were a bit surprised to find their next round opponents right there, ready to start the next game, immediately after their "marathon" had just finished.
This “you share the blame” idea sounds okay in theory, but in practice it is often quite unrealistic (IMHO). Just a few examples among many:
Opponent is inarticulate.
Opponent expresses clear irritation at being asked to explain his clock.
Player who set the clock does not return to the board until neighboring game has started (quiet needed).
Opponent’s friend or parent set the clock, so opponent cannot explain it.
Maybe the best digital clock would be one that mimiced the analog display format (not quite true, but simple is good).
Agree with the first two, and mostly with the third. However, if the mis-setting is obvious (e.g. 60 minutes instead of 90), you should notice it too.
Although it should be the players’ responsibility to check the clocks, a good TD will take some responsibility, also, such as via a walk-through of the tournament room at the start of the round. (This won’t catch ALL errors, of course.)
That’s a little harsh. As a TD, I would probably give each player the extra 60 minutes, unless I was convinced the mis-setting was deliberate or malicious.
Not so sure about that. Even though the lack of a delay may be difficult to detect at the beginning, it should be easy to figure out (even on the Saitek) when the main time goes below five minutes. If you hadn’t noticed any evidence of the delay being there earlier, you should have been looking when you first went below 5 minutes, and should have raised your objection to the TD BEFORE your time expired.
That could be a little too rigid. Many players (including myself) don’t want to make a jerk out of themselves by Spanish-inquisitioning their opponents before the game begins. A simple “Is the delay set?”, together with a quick visual check to see whether at least the first control is set properly, should suffice. For further types of mis-settings, the TD should be a little more flexible.
I agree that TDs (even NTDs) should not be required to assume responsibility for knowing how to set ANY clock. In my tournaments, if a player asks, I’m willing to set it if I happen to know how (i.e. if it is a Chronos). Otherwise, I will unabashedly admit I don’t know how to set that player’s clock, and tell him his opponent can then furnish the clock instead. Often, that will bring forth a volunteer (a player in another game) to set the clock for him, and that’s fine with me.
At the same time, I admire those TDs who have made it a point to become familiar with just about every clock that’s ever been manufactured. It’s above and beyond the call of duty, though.
You realize, Bill, that as move recording devices gain acceptance we’re going to have the same problems with TDs not knowing how a particular move recorder works that we have now with digital clocks.
What harm is there in a TD helping to set a clock if he knows how and has the time to do it? If additional time permits, which is not usually the case, I even like to have the player set the clock while I tell him how to do it, so he might start learning how to do it on his own. Shouldn’t the TD try and educate the players and make playing in a tournament as enjoyable as possible?
In the first place, there are simply too many different digital clocks. No one remembers how to set all of them. In the second place, it sounds like you are accustomed to dealing with tournaments of fifteen or twenty players. In a tournament of 100-200 players, once the TD starts setting clocks, he will have a never-ending line of people asking for help. As for educating the players – that’s not the TD’s job. If a player wants to use a digital clock, it is his responsibility to learn how to set it. If he can’t, he should get a BHB.
“In the first place, there are simply too many different digital clocks. No one remembers how to set all of them.” I had stated “if a TD knows how”.
“In the second place, it sounds like you are accustomed to dealing with tournaments of fifteen or twenty players.” You are incorrect, but I know some TDs, such as myself, put more effort into running tournaments than others.
“As for educating the players – that’s not the TD’s job.” It may not be the TDs job, but if a TD has the time and can do so, why would a TD not want to do so?