Incorrectly set digital clock

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Scenario: A five-round, G/30 d/5, unrated community tournament. Because the tournament is being held in a public library, strict adherence to the posted schedule is necessary; everyone gets kicked out at 5 PM whether the tournament is done or not. Most players do not have their own clocks. The organizer is able to supply a certain number of analog clocks.

One player is using his own clock, a DGT XL. Toward the end of the first round, when his game is the only one still in progress, the clock is paused to deal with an issue. When it comes time to restart the game, with a single button press, he erases the time on the clock. It takes an inordinate amount of time for him to reset the clock to the proper time; he refuses to have an analog clock substituted for the sake of efficiency. The game runs extremely long, delaying the start of the second round by 20 minutes. The player is also one of the last to finish the second round, requiring that the third-round start time be pushed back 15 minutes and shortening everyone’s lunch break.

Midway through the third round, the TD cruises the boards that still have games in progress and notices that while the other clocks have combined time of 24 to 26 minutes showing, this player’s clock shows a combined time of 33 minutes. As the TD observes, the player presses his clock, and 10 seconds are added to his clock time.

Question 1: Per rules 16O and 16P, an obviously defective or incorrectly set clock should be replaced, but the exact wording is, “A player who wishes to claim any such defect must do so as soon as aware of it.” There is no mention of the director’s making a claim. Does the TD have the right and/or the responsibility to stop the game and require that the clock be set correctly?

In this scenario, the TD does stop the game; the player becomes argumentative, and the TD and the player leave the tournament floor to discuss the matter. The TD does not have experience setting DGT clocks. The player demonstrates that the DGT XL, rather than use countdown delay at the start of the move, uses Bronstein add-back delay at the end of the move. He points out the default presets on the bottom of the clock. One of them (preset 15) has a default delay of 10 seconds; another (preset 16) has a default delay of 5 seconds. The director allows the player to continue to use his clock on the condition that he enter the time using preset 16 rather than preset 15 as his starting point.

During the fourth round, the TD observes three consecutive presses of this player’s clock and sees that it is still adding back 10 seconds after each move.

Question 2a: At this point, does the TD have the right and/or the responsibility to require, per rules 16O and 16P, that the DGT XL be replaced by an analog clock, on the grounds that the player has not shown that he’s able to set his clock correctly?

Question 2b: At this point, should the TD declare that the player is refusing to follow the rules and forfeit him, per rule 13I?

There’s a question 3, but I’ll wait to ask it until folks have weighed in on questions 1 and 2.

2

The TD doesn’t make claims. He simply enforces the rules. In this instance, there is no need to wait for a claim to be made, just substitute the correctly set clock. It has happened several times in my tournaments that people have had clocks set for, say, 45 hours rather than 45 minutes. I’ve always corrected that as soon as I’ve noticed. You’ll hear other TDs on this forum say that they walk down the aisle a few minutes after the round has started to make sure that the clocks are set correctly. Sometimes those errors are easy to see, some times, like in this case, they are more difficult. You intervened as soon as you noticed it.

Note that minor errors, such as having the first time control set to expire at 7:00 instead of 6:00 are not necessarily fixed, but it is a good idea to point that out to both players.

Right and/or responsibility, hm. In my opinion, you allowed the player way too much latitude in letting it get to this point. This is the third time that he has shown that he is unable (or unwilling) to set his clock correctly. From your story above, I believe the problem to be one of incompetence, not intransigence, so I would treat this as an ordinary improperly set clock. If you have reason to believe that the player is doing this on purpose, then you’re right to punish him more severely. Anyway, I would first properly set an analog clock (note that that means that the player gets the amount of time he has remaining, and the opponent gets two minutes more than he has remaining) and then stop the clock and inform the player that his clock is set improperly and that you have a properly set analog clock available. If you’re feeling solicitous, you can offer the player a reasonable amount of time (30 seconds should be adequate) to set his clock to the correct times matching your analog (plus the 5 second delay) and if he can’t do that, then you’ll replace the clock. However, there is no obligation for you to do that. You can substitute a properly set clock at that time. So my answer is right, but not responsibility. If the player refuses to play with the analog clock you have two options. I’d personally give him fifteen minutes or so to change his mind. That is if he has less than fifteen minutes left, simply start his clock (analog) and if he doesn’t move in time, he loses. If there is more than fifteen minutes left and he refuses to play it’s not fair to make his opponent wait for the forfeit, so forfeit him under apparently being unwilling to continue.

Alex Relyea

3

Hoo boy. Well, since the event is non-rated, I guess you can do pretty much what you want. But I assume (especially since you announced d/5) you’d want to use USCF rules as much as possible.

Apparently this rule neither requires nor prohibits TD intervention, so have it your way. The player requirement, to claim as soon as aware, is probably there to give the TD justification to turn down the claim if he feels that’s appropriate.

Of all the sticky situations a TD can encounter, incorrectly set clocks would be one of those most likely to cry aloud for TD intervention. For one thing, two players who discover they have extra time are likely to “silently agree” to leave well enough alone, not caring whether it blows up the tournament schedule.

The right, certainly. The responsibility too, in the case where the tournament schedule is in jeopardy.

As far as I’m concerned, any player who furnishes a clock, and does not know how to set it, loses all clock rights he may otherwise have had.

Did he actually refuse, or is there a possibility the error might still be inadvertent? In the latter case, you could tell him, “since the clock is still not set properly, I am going to require that an analog clock be used.” Then, if he balks, you are well within your rights to forfeit him.

Advice to chief TDs: Always bring a delay-capable clock to the tournament, and know how to set it.

Bill Smythe

4

This is why I waited to post question 3.

See, there’s one thing I didn’t mention: In the middle of round 2, the TD observes the player with a mobile phone out, texting at the board. The TD goes over and instructs the player to turn the phone off and to change the time on his clock from 12:06 to 6:03 (half remaining time), then resume play. In this instance, the player says he was only warned that he’d lose time if it rang, demands to know which rule forbids the use of a mobile phone and to see it in the rule book, says he’s pretty sure it’s only a FIDE rule anyway and so he shouldn’t be held to it, etc. Because it’s rule 20N, enacted after the publication of the fifth edition rules, the TD cannot present the rule in print right away; however, after much complaining, the player does eventually comply, although he sets his timer to 6:00 rather than the 6:03 he’s entitled to. (And later on, during the clock issue, goes on to accuse the TD of “just want[ing] to wave the rule book around.”)

Question 3: Does this other incident involving the player alter your interpretation of the previously described events and of the TD’s rights and/or responsibilities?

5

I see Alex hasn’t weighed in yet on this post-question question, so I’ll go ahead.

Apparently I covered my bases well when I said

That player’s cell phone behavior could help you determine the answer to the above question. Only in that way might it “alter [ my ] interpretation of the previously described events”.

Bill Smythe

6

This decision confuses me greatly. The logic behind punishing cell phone ringing so severely, IMO, is because a ringing phone disturbs the whole room. That is completely different from texting at the board. Based on other parts (depending on which one is relevant) of rule 20, I don’t see a good option other than forfeiting him at once. This, incidentally, would solve the problems in rounds three and four, because the player would likely be so upset that he would go home.

At this point I have to ask a couple of questions: first, were you the only TD present? Second, did he have any difficulties setting the clock for 6:00 with a five second delay? One of the problems with an unrated tournament is that you have no recourse to refer to the USCF should something go wrong, as it clearly did here. I don’t know if you could call a special referee to arbitrate an unrated event. Perhaps one of them could weigh in here. As you are a local TD, I’m guessing it would have been difficult to find three TDs of equal or higher rank onsite to serve as an appeals committee, so really you’re the last word. I’d be uncomfortable with that.

In any event, please note that when he did set the clock to the revised time in round 2, he was also either unable or unwilling to set the clock correctly. You also don’t mention whether he had the correct delay at that time, as well. It’s quite possible that he was using the ten second delay at that point, since he did for the next two rounds.

One mistake that you (presumably) made was not being over at his board in the fourth round when either of the clocks first went below twenty minutes. That is the first time that would have shown what Bronstein he was using. Since you knew he was a problem player, and any of us who have directed in one area for any length of time know those, you should have been watching out for that.

It seems like this player is generally incompetent in setting his clock, not malicious about breaking the rules. I stand by my original ruling.

A word about difficult players in general. Especially if you are trying to grow a small player base, you may be reluctant to rule “harshly” against a player because you don’t want him to walk away. Unfortunately, if you’re too lenient, the “good” players will get frustrated and leave. Players will get fed up with things and walk away, and it is better to drive off the ones that have no comprehension or regard for the rules than those who are willing and eager (and able) to learn to become a part of the broader USCF community.

Alex Relyea

7

If the player has a DGT XL and can text from his cell phone, then I would not accept any argument from him that he did not know how to set his clock correctly. He was jerking the TD around and looking to get an undeserved edge from the other players.

There is a fix for this in future tournaments, whether they are USCF rated or unrated. Make the following announcements before the tournament begins:

  1. This tournament will be conducted using the rules of the US Chess Federation.
  2. All digital chess clocks must be set to (insert time control) and have the following (insert delay or increment setting). If an analog clock is being used, then the following setting (insert setting) must be put on the clock.
  3. Players with digital clocks must show their opponents how the clock works and the setting with correct (insert delay or increment time) before the game begins.
  4. All cell phones must be turned off before the game begins. No texting is permitted. Anyone who is a first responder who needs to have his cell phone on must see the TD before round 1 begins to put his name down on a list to avoid a penalty. The penalties for a cell phone going off are (insert warnings and penalties). Anyone who is texting during a game will receive the following penalty (insert warning and/or penalty)

This should give proper notice to all of the players. You may have to remind the players of announcements 2 through 4 before each round. Then you enforce the “rules” you have announced. Make sure to go around to check the time settings on the clocks as the round begins. With around 40 minutes left until the end of the games, go around to see that the proper delay and/or increment is still being used. Stick around for the time trouble phase. When the TD is around most of the problems and the antics of the problem players goes away.

8

One TD I know is fond of telling players that insist that HE show THEM the rules: “There is no rule that says I have to show you the rules.”

9

As mentioned before, this was an unrated community tournament, so I was biased toward lenience and giving the benefit of the doubt, especially in cases where I didn’t know the player(s) involved. Given the choice, I’d rather fix a mistake than punish a player for making it. I’ve also spent a lot of time as a substitute teacher, so I don’t like to be the one who escalates a situation. Instead, I maintain my position and give the other party the choice between going along or escalating, then act accordingly.

In the case of the clock reset, there was no reason to suspect that it was anything but accidental, and he did finally get it set again, so I let it slide. With regard to the texting, however, I drew a hard line: either he gave up half his time, or he wasn’t going to continue playing. (If it had been a rated tournament, I would have expected him to know better, called an immediate game forfeit and considered him to be “on probation” for the remainder of the tournament.) At that time, my point of view was that he was being foolish and childish, but not obviously dishonest.

It was when I saw his clock add 10 seconds after a press that I began to suspect otherwise. However, since the clock setting was a separate issue from the texting, I felt that I had to begin again from square one, and I simply instructed him to fix the problem. The amount of resistance he put up against this simple instruction did not persuade me of his honesty. When that same problem came up again, I’d had enough: Since he had, of course, followed my instructions cough, and the clock was still adding too much time, then it was obviously defective; therefore, I invoked 16O and ordered the substitution of an analog clock. At this point, I just let him rant (off the tournament floor, of course) and asked him, calmly and repeatedly, “Are you going to continue your game with the analog clock?” He blustered some more but finally went back to the table and finished his game. If he’d done anything at that point to escalate the situation further, or if there’d been any other complaint about his behavior, I was ready to eject him from the tournament altogether.

After the fact, however, as I was reviewing the rule book to refresh myself on the various and sundry situations I’d found myself in that day, I did find myself wondering whether it was my place, as TD, to intervene on the clock issue or whether that needed to be brought up by a player. Thus this inquiry.

The icing on the cake is that I found out between rounds 3 and 4 that the player in question is a former certified TD! :open_mouth:

10

Being a former certified TD is not very informative without knowing the former level. You can sign a form, become a certified club TD to help out a bit on the floor at one tournament, and then have that certification lapse. And you can do all of that without ever having to answer a single test question giving any indication that you’ve even read the rulebook that your form said you had access to.

Now if he was a former local or senior TD then it becomes more of a shock.

11

97% of the time I agree with Tim Just’s “the TD should not intervene” approach. Incorrectly set clocks, however, are part of the other 3%.

If you do intervene, do it sooner rather than later.

That advice, however, is not always feasible, with clocks that do not display running seconds until under 20, 10, or 5 minutes.

Bill Smythe

12

I learned early on from an experienced TD to check the clocks for “defects”. Interesting term “defects”. In the old days when all of the clocks had to be wound and you could hear the gentle ticking of the mechanisms, there was always a player or two who would tweak his clock to make one side run faster or slower. It was not usually easy to catch them, so the veteran TD said that if anything was suspicious he would walk over and pick up the clock, call it “defective”, and replace it with another clock. Afterwards he would time each little clock to see how “defective” it was. Low and behold, one side would always give the player a time advantage of three or four minutes per hour of extra time. He said that trying to set the other side to run faster usually made the clocks noisier and easier to spot for “defects”.

By calling the clock unsuitable because of “defects”, you did not have to accuse anyone of cheating. That would require more evidence and a probable scene. His favorite tactic was to take the player’s clock, look at it, reset the times to the correct time and place the clock on the other side of the table. He said that the player would usually turn beet red, but wouldn’t complain, as he knew he had been caught.

We checked clocks at the start of the round. Then we made sure to be in the tournament room most of the time to be what he called a “deterrent presence.” During the time pressure phase, someone had to be there to deal with the inevitable clock issues, illegal move, and disputes over flag falls.

It was strange how few problems he had in running tournaments. By anticipating problems he saved time and always had the pairings ready ahead of schedule. In those days it was helpful to figure out what the results of the final games of a round would be so that you could do pairings for the next round. That led to some comical incidents where he had the next round posted before all of the previous round’s games were finished. During the round, we kept the wall charts continuously updated. He said by doing that it saved time later as well as giving him a sense of what the pairings would look like a round or two ahead so that he could avoid color problems.

13

I figured it was something like this, which is why I wrote what I wrote above. Keep in mind that in your bias towards this difficult player, you inconvenienced at least all four of his opponents, and possibly the whole rest of the tournament. Some players will not come back when there is a perception of bias, and would you rather those be difficult players, or those who tried their best to play by the rules? I know who I’d choose.

Alex Relyea

14

Perhaps. However, one of the salient aspects of this situation is that no complaint was raised by any of the player’s opponents in the situations I mention. If one had complained – or, as I said, if it had been a rated tournament – I’d have been stricter. Keep in mind also that in no case did I have proof that the player was deliberately breaking the rules. Would you eject someone merely for being inept with his clock? Or for being a hypocritical rules lawyer? Is there a rule against that?

15

Actually, that’s not true. In the second round you had proof that he was deliberately breaking the rules by texting at the board during his game. To answer your questions, no. At no point did I suggest that his clock behavior (in rounds 1, 3, or 4) was anything but incompetent. It may well have been malicious, but there is nothing to suggest that, and I wouldn’t rule that way without strong evidence. What I would have done is not given him unlimited time to reset his improperly set clock. I’d be reluctant to give him a second chance, let alone a third chance. I’d make him play with your clock, and if he didn’t like it, forfeit him. That’s all I’m saying. If he can’t fix his clock in 30-60 seconds, he doesn’t get to use it. Period. End of story. I’m sure that the rest of the players didn’t enjoy shortening their lunch break and having the third round start late because you were catering to the “squeaky wheel”. That’s all I’m saying.

Alex Relyea

16

Fair enough. I guess this was a case of a rule violation so flabbergastingly egregious that it seemed unimaginable that the player could be aware that the rule applied. :slight_smile:

OK, so, follow-up question: When you approach a player like that, and he argues that you’d only said he’d be penalized if his mobile phone rang, you didn’t say anything about his using it silently, is it still a teachable moment (my baseline assumption), or should he be ejected tout suite for lack of common sense?

I guess what I’m groping for here is some rule of thumb that says at what point resistance to the application of the rules should itself be construed as breaking the rules and merit a greater penalty.

17

It seems to me that a player, especially a newbie, might be forgiven for thinking it was OK to text. After all, it’s not making any noise, and there’s no audible conversation.

Add to that the fact the verbal (or written) announcement apparently only mentioned the phone ringing, and you might have to admit he’s got a point.

So: teachable moment.

When in doubt, always err in the direction of a teachable moment over a deliberate and willful violation.

The world is divided into two camps: those who use cell phones for almost everything, and those who seldom use them. Often the two camps do not understand each other well.

Bill Smythe

18

Moderator Mode: Off

Let’s take a moment to reflect the whole purpose of this tournament. It was a non-rated community event. I take it that the intention was to attract and recruit players to join your local club and/or the USCF to escalate to rated events.

You had one person that brought in a DGT XL clock. No one else brought their own clock. This signifies to me that this fellow either received this expensive clock as a gift or he was dedicated enough to Chess to pay upwards of $80 for a clock. As was found out later, he had been a certified TD before as well. This shows that he also had been a member of the USCF as well. Looking him up in the MSA, does he have a rating?

Now, as to what to do at the time, hindsight is 20/20. You didn’t know of his past experience and membership in the USCF. You did see that he had a fairly expensive and sophisticated digital clock. Once he had shown either the inability or unwillingness to set the clock correctly, I think it would have been the best to take his clock out of the tournament play and use the analog clock. My statement to him would be that he should go home after and learn how to set the clock correctly when he had time. For now, there was no time to figure out the clock as this was a tournament.

As to his cell phone and texting, I believe this is not that big a deal. He very well should have known better. However, once he did this I would tell him that this was not allowed and he needed to turn off his phone, now. I would smile and be friendly, telling him that in the tournament scene, there is too much of a chance for cheating with cell phones and texting to allow it at all.

Now that there is the history established, there is no wiggle room for him anymore.

19

Well, not precisely. This event is part of a tradition – someone else’s tradition. I was invited to direct it, but I was not the organizer. So I can’t speak to intent.

A couple of players did, but not the majority.

Oh, yes. One high enough to make me fairly sure he knew better. But I wasn’t aware of this at the time of the first couple of violations. Because this wasn’t a rated tournament, I wasn’t as careful about checking USCF membership at registration as I might have been, and I missed this guy. So my bad there.

Ouch! That might have been satisfying on a brute cathartic level, but I believe it would have provoked a reaction that would have been much more disruptive to the tournament as a whole than his violations were.

20

Certainly you didn’t list everything that could cause a player to get penalized in your pre-tournament announcements. That would take forever, and you’d inevitably leave something out, causing a player to jump up, urinate on the table, and then complain that you never said that he couldn’t. Even if it weren’t for 20N, he may fall afoul of 20A, B, C, D, E, and I, depending on what he was texting.

Unfortunately, we can’t legislate common sense for our players. Then I guess directing would be a lot more simple. How would you make this a teachable moment? I think the ideal time for “teaching moments” is after the game. I’ll often mention to a player something they could have/should have done, sometimes an overlooked mate in one, sometimes the proper way to claim a draw, but AFTER the game. There is rarely a need to educate the opponent, and it is usually a bad idea to make the game go longer with an explanation. It would have been very reasonable, IMO, to have slapped a clock on the board set to the proper time, start his clock, and inform him that he has thirty minutes or his remaining time (whichever is shorter) to make an appeal. Of course if there are no other equal/higher ranked TDs available, and it is an unrated tournament, that is problematic. To be perfectly frank, though, with such a benign penalty for such a serious offense, I can’t imagine how he would appeal.

Alex Relyea