At the 2006 FIDE Congress, the Technical Commission voted to make all clocks with move counters illegal under FIDE rules, unless the move counter can be turned completely off. I think this recommendation was approved by the FIDE Congress.
Here in America the Chronos clocks are extremely common and the move counter can be turned off by choosing a mode which doesn’t include it.
Also, setting the increment on a Chronos is done the same way as setting the delay. You just move through the settings until you get to ‘inc’ and then set it.
My big question about increments and time forfeit is whether the increment should be added when one’s clock begins to run or after a move is made and the button tapped. As I understand it ICC and Chronos use add-after and this creates a question as to when the ‘zero time’ moment has arrived. Is it when the reflection time hits zero or only when that’s zero AND the increment time which will be added after the move is also exceded? It’s confusing.
As things stand you have only reflection time on your first move and then the increment begins to kick in after that. Then it appears as though you’re getting the increment for your second move and on. The problems really only kick in (naturally) when you’re down to zeros.
The first time I used my new Chronos in a tournament I asked about the move-counter and how one was to get the clock to advance to the second time control when the first time control moves were made. The answer was two-fold: the move-counter is unofficial (which means the clock changing to second time control could really mess things up if it happens prematurely) and on the no-move-counter mode you have no way to force it onto the secondary time control, so just let it run it’s time out and move onto it’s secondary time control then. This means the players would be on their secondary time control while the clock continues on it’s first alottment of time. Obviously neither of these situations is quite right, though the second one is manageable.
My hunch is we’re going to move toward a single time control (as the Europeans seem to be doing) with reflection time and an increment. I just hope all our clocks can add before or after, so the rules don’t make clocks obsolete.
I want to be sure I understand what you’re saying here. Do you mean that, if a player’s time runs out, but his opponent doesn’t call it and additional moves are made, the added increment time can cause his flag to “unfall”? Or are you merely stating (tautologically) that there is no claim until the opponent makes a claim? The first can be justified on logical grounds, but I foresee severe practical problems.
I concur, not the least of which is when a player’s time runs out, his opponent does call it, and the player punches the clock several times when no witnesses are present and the helpless opponent suddenly has no valid claim. Or even the reverse, someone whose flag has not fallen but is low on time, but whose sneaky opponent has claimed that he had done the situation described above. Unless we’re using and have the full manpower for full arbiter mode, as John suggested earlier, that is a sizeable risk you are taking.
The DGT clock uses add-back. If you’re using Bronstein (the closest it comes to traditional delay mode) then it will add back the time only to the point of the time remaining on the previous move, using Fischer (cumulative delay), it’ll add back the full amount of time. Note, then, that if you’re playing G/5 with either two second delay or increment, the clock will start at 5:02 and immediately begin counting. After the move, it will add back up to two seconds, or the full two seconds in the latter case. Thus, the DGT clock gives you the reflection time added before the first move.
As far as the first question is concerned, it’s the same situation if you flag making move 40. You have to have enough time left to hit your clock before the time expires, not regarding anything that is likely to happen after you make the move. If you can’t prove that you hit the clock with enough time remaining, then you’re liable for a time forfeit claim.
Alex Relyea
David,
Just to make clear. . .
You’ve implied earlier that G/60 + 30 sec wouldn’t be quick ratable any more than 30/30 would be, because it is not a sudden death time control.
Are you suggesting that the time control is really something like 1/90, 1/.5, 1/.5 etc. so that there is no sudden death, and therefore an improper time claim passes into the next time control. That is if you claim someone down with 30 seconds left (after they move, and the clock has added thirty seconds back) then they have forfeited, but if you wait until after you move, then your opponent will have, in effect, slipped into the next time control? Does this mean that clocks that freeze on all zeroes are illegal? Also, does that mean that draws by mutual flag fall are impossible in increment situations?
Alex Relyea
Read the rules Delete the words “added increment time” and the same comment applies to making enough moves to get to the next time control. this is the current rule, and has been there since at least the 1950s. If your opponent is on move 40 in a 40 move time control and oversteps, you must claim the win before you complete your next move. If you complete the next move (press your clock) your opponent’s flag “unfalls” and he is on to the next time control.
There is no difference here, except that there is a time control for every move.
Read the rules on how to claim a win. You must STOP (pause) both clocks and summon a director in order to make a claim.
bbentrup, there are ways to cheat any rule. Enforcement is always an issue. How many times has there been a touch-move claim that cannot be resolved? Are you sure your opponent didn’t touch a piece, make a move, release the piece and even retract the move while you were in the bathroom? The rule is still there.
In this case, stopping the clock and informing your opponent is usually sufficient, and if not, do not allow your opponent to restart the clock and you will summon a director, just like any other claim. The action of stopping the clock helps to prevent the situation you describe. There may also be other evidence such as a witness, or some clocks are equipped with move counters. If a move counter is in advance of the scoresheets, that is further evidence that what you described has occurred, but may aid in supporting a claim.
A player getting short on time could add time to a digital clock, back up the hands on an analog clock, write extra moves on a scoresheet or many other tricks while you are up getting that drink of water (or even while you are there, after all its your word against his and you might be making a false claim). Who is to know? How to enforce? If caught the penaly must be severe (see TD discretion). These problems are not unique to the increment control, they are pervasive with any clock and any control, and in fact, with any rule in the rulebook.
30 sec increment used. My time runs out, opponent makes no claim. Twenty seconds later, I move. How should my clock read - 30 seconds or 10 seconds? Also, if I understand correctly, in such an event my opponent can now have 30 secs on the clock remaining and I can now claim a win on time, correct?
Is autoflagging expressly illegal, or only by default illegal? I.e., can the organizer change this rule with or without pre-publicity.
If each move carries its own time control - what it the rulebook definition for the end of the time control in a 40/90, "SD"30 with 30 second increment per move? Is it move 1 or move 40 or both? What do you propose we call the “SD” of the secondary “time control”?
I hope you’re right about the cheating comment.
David, I am well aware of the rules. What you don’t seem to grasp is that a rule interpretation of the sort you describe will be extraordinarily difficult, maybe impossible, to enforce in practice, and will serve only to encourage disputes.
If you really need this spelled out – A digital clock either has a visible “flag fall” indicator or it does not. It either “freezes” at flag fall or it does not. Now, a clock that “freezes” obviously will not do what you are describing. A clock with a flag analog would have to either a) turn it off again when the increment “unflagged” the player (does any existing clock do this?), or keep the flag-fall indicator but show time remaining for the player (do you really want to deal with that in a tournament?). If the clock does not have a flag-fall indicator, the player will have to figure out exactly what the LCD display means, probably in severe time pressure. There seems to be some disagreement as to whether this would make it “non-standard equipment,” but there’s no question it would make it a very bad clock.
Of course, none of this would matter in a FIDE-time control tournament, but you are proposing to extend this to USCF-procedure tournaments, in which there is no arbiter present to call the flag. I really don’t think you (or the committee) have thought through the implications. You are setting it up so that a player might have a window of less than a second in which to claim a win on time. This may or may not be logically defensible, but it’s bad policy.
John,
I don’t think so. I assume that, if while I’m on the move, I see that my opponent has exactly 30 seconds remaining, I can assume that he didn’t make the previous time control. This is similar to him having an hour (or less) after the fortieth move in a more standard time control. If the player has 59:59 remaining, he’s presumed not to have made the prior control.
Alex Relyea
So, in a complicated position with both players down to the increment only, the player is expected to watch, read and interpret an arcane LED display in order to decide whether or not to make a time claim? I say again my last – bad policy. A clock should have a visible and unambiguous indicator of expired time, either a flag or some digital equivalent. Of course you can play without this, but you shouldn’t have to. And David’s proposed “increment” rules seem almost to require that you do so.
I agree completely.
Alex Relyea
Then you haven’t heard me speak.
Clocks which “freeze” when they think something bad happens are evil. It is better to have a clock that signals “whatever would have caused them to freeze” - but freezing (and thus destroying information when they are wrong is just asking for trouble).
See the USCF rulebook’s warnings on the use of move counters.
Ken,
Here’s my survey of the the increment capable clocks that I have:
DGT XL (Standard FIDE clock)- Time stays at zero once you get to zero time left and it blinks.
Saitek Competition Pro - Time stays at zero once you get to zero and it blinks.
Excalibur Game TIme II - Can be configured to keep running after times runs out. You can then regain your time by playing more moves but the “flag” showing that you ran out of time at some point always stays on.
In none of these clocks is it possible for both players to run out of time. It looks like it is an FIDE standard/requirement for the clocks to stop when time expires. If we want clocks that do not freeze when time expires, we need to test the various brands. Even the clocks that can keep running need to be configured correctly. You cannot tell by looking at the Exalibur that it will keep running at the end of the game without going through the configuration steps.
Mike
I don’t know if the Chronos has an increment setting (I’ve never played in an increment tournament), but you can set the Chronos to stop when time runs out. In a sudden death situation with the clock freeze off, an opponent would still be recognize when an opponent has over stepped in a sudden death situation. The clock would still read 00:00. Being a traditionalist I’ve always left that option with no freeze or other indicator that time has been exceeded. I think with USCF rules players should be responsible for calling a flag. Applying this same logic it seems a player could unflag in incremental time controls.
Just to add a bit more data: Both the original Chronos and the Chronos Blitz halt the timer on a side that runs out of time. It reads 00:00 and even with increment that side will not change as the buttons are pressed.
It is possible to run both timers down to 00:00 with no indication of which “flag” fell first. Both clocks also have an option to freeze both sides when the first timer reaches 00:00.
I don’t see any way to have the timers keep running with negative time showing.
If nobody minds, I’d like to get this conversation on track. There are several important issues here, besides those involving the details of time forfeits:
First of all, what is the future of increment controls? I can see a 30-second increment eventually replacing a 5-second delay as the standard in slower-control tournaments (say, G/90 and slower). I don’t see it as appropriate, however, in faster events (G/60 and faster, let alone Quick events).
Furthermore, I assume that a 5-second delay will continue to be the standard (at least for a few years) in tournaments where neither increment nor delay is specifically announced in pre-tournament publicity.
Therefore, it makes no sense to speak of a “standard” (or “default”) increment:
The standard, or default, remains a 5-second delay, doesn’t it? If neither increment nor delay is mentioned in the TLA, the default (5-second delay) is assumed.
Especially for quick chess, a 15-second increment (or even a 15-second delay) just seems wrong. Leave it as a 3-second delay (the current default for quick chess).
In connection with score-keeping, it has been stated in this thread that “increment is not sudden death”. That’s technically true, I suppose – after all, G/90 inc/30 is the same as a repeating control of 1 move in 90 minutes, followed by 1 move in 30 seconds indefinitely – but this attempt to blend the increment concept with the repeating-control concept leads to practical problems. In fact, one of the examples presented in the suggested wording directly contradicts the “increment is not sudden death” claim:
Speaking of score-keeping –
Why is Either Player capitalized? (Are you trying to resemble Winnie the Pooh?)
Doesn’t the corresponding FIDE rule specify 20 seconds, rather than 30, as the boundary between scorekeeping being required or not required? Is there any reason USCF shouldn’t follow suit?
Excellent, if it means what I think it means – that, in an increment tournament, an increment-capable clock is preferable to a delay-capable clock, but that a delay-capable clock is still preferable to one with neither capability, and that, if a delay-capable (but not increment-capable) clock is used, a 30-second delay may be used instead of a 30-second increment.
Isn’t this a bit much? The crossover point would be 60 moves. In games shorter than 60 moves (which most games are), the players providing inadequate equipment would be rewarded with extra time.
I would prefer:
Variant: Total time may be adjusted to compensate for increment time lost, at a rate not to exceed one minute for each second of increment.
TD tip (variant): Suggested adjusted time is 30 seconds for each second of increment.
Bill Smythe
I think that’s right. I would like to see a 30-second or more increment used in the kinds of tournaments that have one or two rounds in a day. Maybe three at the outside.
From the Fide Handbook, section E.I. (Laws of Chess):
So FIDE specifies 30 seconds, too.
20 seconds would be a little too fast for keeping score and making reasonable moves.
Though I remember when I was a kid, I used to keep score in 5-minute games. How sick was that? Of course, you don’t have to think much when you know nothing.
I agree with that, but I doubt many people will.
–Ed
I would probably prefer 30 + 30 inc. to G/55 + 5 delay, even though it’s theoretically shorter in most chess games. I might be in a minority, but I hope organizers of 1-day events won’t ignore the possibility. Still, as soon as you allow any increment time controls of more than 2 rounds / day you are almost completely forcing yourself to open the adjournment can of worms. I started as a TD about 1 year before the delay clocks were official and have never adjourned a game in my life. I’ll probably get some new experience out of this variation.
Well, the problem with 30+30 instead of G/60 is that a really long game could be well over two hours. I’ve advocated in the past scheduling rounds (in increment events) to leave time for either a 90-move game or a 120-move game. (I did some checking a while back, and I think about a game in a hundred goes 90 moves. I distinctly recall that only a game in a thousand goes 120 moves.)
For 30+30, that means 150 or 180 minutes between rounds, which is more like G/75 or G/90 than G/60. Still, that’s not impossible for (say) a quad.
I play most of my games in one or two rounds/day tournaments at 30/90, SD/60. I’d be very happy to switch to G/90+30 seconds or even G/60+30 seconds.
Anyway, if you budget for 120 moves or even 90 moves, you’ll eliminate almost all adjournments, especially if you are willing to endure a very occiasional late round. (And it’s not like I ever see rounds start on time even with SD time limits.)