Because some people like analog clocks for a variety of reasons, and would like to continue using them but with the benefit of delay.
@brennanprice
“Balderdash.” The last time I saw that word used was in an old Samuel Clemens short story. How about quoting what I said in its entirety. Since you cut out an important part, I have to guess that you have no problem insulting or making fun of some of the players in your tournaments because they are poor and only have clocks that were standard for generations and are still being sold with the blessing of the USCF. Ah, but that’s right, you “have no sympathy for the players…”
Sure, if a digital clock is available, it should be used, but if an analog clock is the only one the players have, then that should be used without showing the players disdain and disrespect. I have seen more than a few GMs and IMs show up at tournaments with no equipment at all or an analog clock and a set of chipped plastic pieces. Do you insult the GMs and tell them to go buy a digital clock and a proper set? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
I agree that it’s not appropriate to make fun of or insult the players. But it is entirely appropriate, and in my view the only acceptable advice, to advise players to abandon equipment that has not been standard for more than two decades.
If you still insist on using an analog clock, you need to buy a new clock. It’s that simple.
I agree with Brennan.
While the occasional analog clock will appear at one of our weekend events, it is the exception.
Today’s rated or otherwise tournament Chess sees a delay and/or increment. It is expected and normal in the design of the event.
Tom talks about denigrating, disdaining and disrespecting the player with the analog clock. Well, I believe that the player bringing an analog clock to a USCF rated event that has a delay or increment as part of it is actually disrespecting, disdaining and denigrating the tournament itself, the TD and all the other players.
Players today come to a tournament expecting a delay or increment. As has been noted, this has been part of USCF rated Chess for almost 20 years. Delay and/or increment are now a part of the fabric that is rated Chess. To some with an antiquated piece of equipment that does not a delay and/or increment is preposterous at best.
Tom makes the point that if an analog is the only clock available then that’s better than nothing. I disagree. Nothing would actually be better than a clock with no delay and/or increment.
If the scenario was this, I as the TD would simply have them begin the game with no clock until a game ends that the clock owner would loan for the use of this game. I would then put the delay/increment clock on the game reflecting the time left for the round, or simply subtract half the total elapsed time from each of the player’s normal starting time. In this way, we would avoid the problems of a timer that is not delay/increment capable.
I would also not disdain, disrespect or otherwise be negative to a player bringing an analog clock to my tournament. I would simply explain to him or her that this timing method without the delay or increment is sub-standard and not preferred by the USCF and not used in my tournament. I would actually thank him for bringing his analog clock along even though it is currently useless for rated, tournament Chess.
And yes, if this guy protested I would tell him and show him that for him to expect to use such substandard equipment in a rated game is wrong for any of his opponents. And if he insists his opponent uses such substandard equipment that would be disrespectful to that opponent.
Now, if I had a couple of players that agreed they would use an analog, I would still insist it not be used. The reason is that all the games of that event need to be consistent in rules and timing.
So, why don’t we have a rules change to sunset analog clocks? We can give people say, 3 years, before we no longer accept analog clocks in rated games.
An exception could be made for the vocal minority that love d/0 tournaments allowing analog clocks in d/0 events.
Mike Regan
IMO, there’s no need to sunset analogs. They’re already deprecated by rule - a player who doesn’t want to use an analog can just bring a digital, and can now even replace the analog with his clock if he’s late to the game.
In my travels, I’ve discovered there are still a good number of players small clubs that still have and use analogs. Since their equipment is already less preferred, and it’s still preferable to having no clock, I don’t see why disallowing them is good policy.
I prefer simply not allowing any adjustment to the base time, and letting them play. I think analogs will die an entirely natural death, without unduly angering the small and vocal minority who still wants to use them.
Ron, please explain your reasoning that justifies the assertion that no clock is better than an analog clock. I would think that if your intent is to put a delay clock on the game as soon as one becomes available it is still useful to know that one player has used 25 minutes and the other used 5. To me your assertion is ludicrous, though I understand and agree with the sentiment that we should do everything reasonable to encourage adoption of the standard delay/increment technology.
How is an analog clock “useless” for timing? In a two time control setting, say 30/90, SD 60; d5, the clock will still measure out time until the player reaches move 30. It will still measure time in the second time control. It has a finite time of a maximum of 5 hours rather than an indeterminate time in delay that may run to 5 hours, 10 minutes or more in a 60+ move game. An analog clock still does the job as a timer even in a delay setting. What analogs cannot do is deal with the abomination which is increment timing. FIDE likes increment timing and is monkeying around with ever shorter time controls which lessen the quality of play. Their rationalization is that it is okay to mess with the classical time controls, because you have an extra 30 seconds, for now, to think and write down your move. They even are experimenting with mixed time controls and implementing increment only in the second time control. (Still have not figured out why they thought listening to Fischer about increment timing, an idea he lifted from others, was a good thing, especially when they dissed most of his other ideas.) So, in an increment setting, analogs are definitely out. Players have to get a clock with increment settings, or find another tournament to play in. If increment tournaments become the norm, we shall be poorer for it in more ways than one.
It is not “disrespectful” to the other players to bring chess equipment to a tournament. It is disrespectful to bring nothing.
I prefer digital clocks. I did not at first, and had to see for myself the advantage of them. The original allegro time was terrible. The digital clocks were almost too accurate and allowed players to run their opponents out of time. A compromise was necessary to make the situation more fair and not as onerous to the habitual time pressure sufferers. We bent over backward for this type of player. Frankly, it would not have surprise me if we had instituted stoppage time as in soccer, but I digress. Delay allowed “lingering death” time controls to happen. Players had a chance not to lose drawn or even won positions. Only after I saved a couple of positions because of the delay time did I come around to favor them. I had to put aside two workhorse clocks that I used, a Coldfield timer that was used in shorter time controls, and a dark wood Insa clock that was used in long time controls and in special tournaments. Both clocks had easy to read faces and a feature showing the amount of time under two minutes. The Coldfield was a prize I won in a Grand Prix tournament, the Insa was too nice not to purchase and one which I used for many years along with a wooden chess set. That is around $120+ worth of sturdy clocks that had to be set aside because of the rules which required the use of the noisy Gametimer I and/or the expensive double tap Chronos clocks, the latter of which I noticed was not as sturdy as claimed.
We have players in our chess league who play once a year. On more than one occasion I have had to tell them that their clock, usually a Jerger or another European analog, was no longer standard and that the ratty looking digital clock that the other player had was going to the only clock allowed to be used in the game. I have also had to say the same to some players who came back to chess after a long hiatus, at a time when there was as yet no DGT NA which is at least reasonable to buy. Today, with the loss of manufacturers, some of the other digitals are no longer available. We are now stuck with what few are out there, and whatever price we will be gouged for because of scarcity. If there are problems with the DGTs or they get too expensive, what will the non-affluent player do? Steal a digital clock, preferably yours? Not play and drop his USCF membership?
The non-affluent Chess player could not afford to buy a Jerger, Insa or Coldfield today if they were still relevant. So please stop the inane argument that the Digitals are too expensive. A DGT NA, Excalibur or other commensurate clock are no more expensive than the least expensive BHB clocks of yesteryear at $40 - $45 and actually less expensive due to inflation.
If players do not bring standard Chess equipment to a rated event they actually deserve to deal with the ludicrous of playing without a clock until a delay model comes available for use and having their time used split equally once the standard clock is put into use. If they do not want that all they need do is spend the $40 and have a standard clock to use.
If a player shows up without a set and board, and it is advertised they should bring them, then they are out of luck at that tournament. The same holds true for standard clocks.
I understand that this can be portrayed as harsh by people like Tom Magur, but the fact is that it is not harsh at all. If the proverbial once a year player of Tom’s shows up with an old set and/or board that no longer makes the rule standard, you don’t let him play on it no matter how sentimental it all is. It really is simple to not allow a sub-standard clock be used in a delay/increment event.
Now, if there is no delay or increment, then standard for that is standard for that.
Another strike against analogs, aside from increment or delay, is that they are not seconds-accurate. You cannot tell exactly how many seconds remain on your clock.
Even an analog clock with a second hand is not seconds-accurate, because the flag wouldn’t necessarily fall exactly when the second hand is at the 12.
All digitals are seconds-accurate, at least in the last 5 minutes (usually 10 or 20), because you can always tell, within 1 second, exactly how many minutes and seconds you have remaining.
Bill Smythe
You’re getting the cart before the horse. If we want to phase out analog clocks, the first step is to modify the “Chess Clocks” section of the USCF’s “An Introduction to USCF Rated Tournaments” document:
uschess.org/docs/forms/Intro … aments.pdf
to state that delay and increment capable digital clocks are now considered standard for USCF tournaments. I’ve even offered to do this, if someone will give me access to the file.
Bob
Certainly a TD who wants to ban analogs would need to not only clearly announce it in advance, but also provide digital clocks for boards where players have no digital. I see the point.
But I see both sides. As much as I loved my old Jerger, analogs simply cannot support the full time control that is prescribed for tournament games today. It’s not “G/40, and if you have a digital add a five-second delay”…it’s “G/40, d5.” Period. The lack of delay makes it a different time control. FIDE got it right when it banned such things from title-norm events. The day is coming when it will not be allowed in any FIDE-rated event, I suspect. It will be a long time before that’s true for USCF-rated non-FIDE events—but in the meantime let’s do what we can to encourage the use of proper equipment.
I support a middle approach between analogs as “less preferred but fully acceptable” on one hand and banned outright on the other. They should be declared “non-standard,” as of date 1/1/xx. At that point they will be treated the same as a drug-store chess set: It does not meet equipment standards as outlined in the rules, but if both players agree to use it, OK.
If either player objects to the use of a non-standard clock he can supply his own standard clock—even if he has White and shows up late, a la the same situation with a drug-store set. (Steve Immitt’s clock substitution rule pretty much makes this happen, in practice—at least for players who know the rule exists.) If there is no other clock than an analog anywhere in the building, the round has started, the two players are sitting at the board…OK, let them use it, as a last resort—but no time adjustment to compensate for lack of delay/increment…and I am coming round to the no-ILC option, too.
Practical difficulty: The difference between an analog clock and a drug-store set is that such sets have ‘never’ been standard equipment, and all but the rankest beginners knew it…Lots of players and clubs bought large batches of analog clocks—and continue to buy them, since they are offered at USCF Sales and elsewhere with no disclaimer that they are less-preferred equipment. They don’t want to be forced to buy new equipment, even if it’s only $40 for a fully functional digital they can use for many years.
I get it. I be po’ too. I don’t always like or adjust well to change. I loved my old Jerger. There are practical issues with setting various models of clocks…etc. All true—but it’s time to move on. A delay or increment per move added to the base time is the best-by-test way to play SD Regular-rated chess. (And there are so few non-SD events we may as well just say “Regular-rated chess.”) Analog clocks are not physically capable of supporting best-by-test time controls for serious chess—thus should be non-standard for such games.
Don’t hold your breath on that one.
Analog clocks are already nonstandard for delay and increment time controls in the sixth edition.
If you see a BHB clock at a board do you regard it the same way you would a drug-store chess set with a 2.5"-inch King? That’s the point.
At the North Carolina Open, earlier this month, the bookstore was selling sets in unusual colors (one was bright pink). He told his customers that those were not to be used in tournaments. Nevertheless, on one board that I noticed the players were playing with one of those sets. My guiding principle is that anything is more standard than nothing.
Alex Relyea
Yes, because both players have agreed to play the game using that equipment. In the absence of a complaint, the TD takes no action.
Let’s be careful here. The rules you quote make non-delay clocks non-standard for delay time controls. There is nothing there that precludes an analog clock if it has delay. I’m not aware of any such clocks currently on the market, but it would be very cheap (under $2 to the manufacturer) and easy for the makers of electric analog clocks to add delay support, so I would not rule out such a thing.
USCF needs to have a serious discussion on clock requirements. A lot of players would object to an analog delay clock, I think, because they have grown used to the typical digital clock’s precision indication of how long until flag fall. Is it time to introduce precision requirements for clocks, which would effectively eliminate analog?
Tim,
Non-delay clocks, are, in fact, non-standard in delay controls, yes?
The third sentence makes no sense, if it is to modify the second sentence. I would suppose that an analog clock with delay capability might be acceptable, if the current language isn’t in support of digital readouts (not sure, I will have to re-read it).
One of the comments referred to “best by test” when this term is used I expect to see lots of empirical evidence supporting this claim. The current rules about time delay insulate directors from having to make judgement calls on perhaps complex positions by letting the clock decide. So if we are talking about less subjectivity ok. But lets not pretend that delay leads to “better” chess. Some players are excellent time managers and others are actrocious when it comes to this phase of the game. Also the delay clocks and the constantly changing standards for delay generate income for the sellers of the newfangled devices. It is not in jest when I claim that a NTD (now deceased) had the rules concerning clocks changed when I pionted out to him that the gross (144) clocks he had purchased were illegal toys for tournament chess at the time he purchased them. This director was on the rules commitee. Whatever rule changes or clock time changes evolve I would hope that they remain consistent for a few years because I have no intention to keep buying new chess timing apparatus as suits the whims of the doyzens that make the rules.
Boyd gets it right here, as usual, on all counts. I would only add no 14H claims to no adjustment in base time. My objection to players using analog clocks is something I can deal with if the players are willing to accept the risk and consequences of the game devolving into a clock-bashing contest.