(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…
That doesn’t sound like “halt-at-end” to me. That’s how clocks work normally here. I didn’t see anything in that list that suggested the other player’s clock must also stop. Perhaps this is a non issue.
How was the clock set incorrectly? The players specified “halt-at-end”, as permitted by rule at the time, and the clock functioned in full accordance with the setting.
But I read the quoted sentence as meaning that, if a player runs out of time, the clock should not add increment time to that player’s clock. In other words, that player’s clock should continue to display zero time regardless of how many times the clock is pressed. I can not see where this sentence restricts the functioning of the clock for the opponent. In any case, the sentence specifically reads “should not add any additional time.” It does not say that the clock should cease operation or counting down time for the opponent.
It is interesting to note that USCF rule 42E1c is worded identically to item (i) in the quoted FIDE clock regulations.
I would be curious what your source is for that assertion. I do not think the assertion is true. In fact, a literal reading of item (b) from the FIDE clock regulations would indicate a preference for both clock press counters and Bronstein mode instead of delay:
I am pleased that the regulation uses the word “should” instead of “must.”
This can’t be true. When watching the video for the world championship match in November, the clocks clearly added the extra hour as soon as move 40 was completed.
In general play it’s better if the time is not added until hits zero, since it’s easier for the average player to hit the clock extra times or forget to hit it altogether for a move. The move counter can easily be off. But, for Carlsen vs Anand and the world watching, it’s easier to keep the move counter accurate.
It’s perfectly easy for average players as well. Move counters are accurate 100 percent of the time when the players operate the clock in accordance with the laws of chess.
The high profile cases often cited as why move counters are evil universally involve players who either failed to operate their clocks in accordance with the laws of chess or who failed to correct their opponents’ obvious and correctable failures to operate their clocks in accordance with the laws of chess.
I completely agree. In the few tournaments I’ve played that had a secondary time control, it’s never been an issue and I certainly would be considered an average player at best.
That pretty much sums it up. I’ve never thought of move counters as evil. I think they’re actually quite useful, but because of the above, it can’t be used as the official measurement.
It hasn’t happened yet in a dual time control, but there have been a few times that I’ve caught myself making making a move without realizing my opponent didn’t hit his clock first. I then mentally berate myself for the misstep mainly because of the lost time advantage I could have had. I didn’t bother adjusting the move counter since it didn’t matter, but I would if this was in a dual time control.
If you make a move and then notice that your opponent didn’t press his clock after his previous move, your best course of action, IMHO, is, having made your move, to then press first your opponent’s clock and then your own. That way, the move count remains accurate, and neither player is deprived of his increment time.
Maybe, but this just won’t happen in real life. It’s a more extreme case of the rule about dividing time equally if both players show up late and it’s up to the first-arriving player to set the clock. It sounds good but it just doesn’t happen.
There. This proves that clock-press counters are more trouble than they are worth. Now we can stop debating it.
The technique of pressing first one’s opponent’s clock and then one’s own isn’t done so much to make the move count accurate as it is to restore both players’ earned increment time.
We’re talking about my pressing first your clock, then mine, after you forgot to press yours. You’d have no good reason to become upset. After all, I just saved you from the far worse fate of losing on time because you forgot to press your clock.
If a player wishes to make a move after an opponent has failed to press his clock, this is the only correct approach, move counter or no.
This doesn’t mean a player has an obligation to do this. It is also perfectly acceptable to let the opponent’s clock run until punched. In neither case does the opponent have standing to complain.
Any other treatment of the clock is a failure by the players to operate the clock properly, for which I have no sympathy.
Yes, you make clear you have no sympathy, but the fact is: It happens. Even strong, experienced players who are quite familiar with digital clocks find themselves a move off now and then. It happened to me a few times when I was a middling-weak player in the same boat. (Before I saw the light about clock-press counters that Mr. Price and others filter out.)
Our wish that all tournament players will handle the clock perfectly all the time does not change reality: It happens. Move counts get thrown off for lots of reasons. Either a player is late and the clock is not started properly, someone does not bother to press his clock button after capturing the Queen with a forced re-capture, someone presses the clock after a quick re-capture before the opponent gets to press his side after the original capture, the “First” sign is set on the wrong side of an Excalibur, or the classic “I forgot” and the opponent eventually moves, perhaps not even noticing that he was thinking on the other guy’s time.
It happens. That’s reality. Rules need to deal with things that happen in real life.
Well, since the topic title includes the term FIDE, I will respond from that context.
When either player’s flag falls in a non-sudden-death time control, the arbiter should verify that the required number of moves have been made for each player. (Rule 6.4)
So, let’s say we’re running a 40/120+30,SD60+30 time control, and the players forgot to press the clock for a move pair, so the counter says 39, and a player’s flag falls. Does he lose on time? No. He made the required number of moves in the required time.
Similarly, in the same time control, if the move counter was not reset after an illegal move, and the extra hour is added after move 39, if a player’s clock shows 60:00.0, he loses. He has not made the required number of moves in the required time, and the arbiter should step in.
With these multiple time controls, the flag has fallen either when the clock reads 0:00.00, or when it reaches down into the added time. The arbiter is responsible for ensuring that the required number of moves have been made.
It’s not that simple. If the move counter is off (high), then so is the increment. Someone who has made only 39 moves but has a move counter reading 40 will actually have “flagged” if his time reads anything less than 60:30 after making move 40 (though it will then add another 30 upon pressing the clock, so I guess it would be 61:00, correct?).
I’ve never played in nor directed a tournament with increment. Just out of curiosity, how often does someone flag with a +30 time control? With a d5 time control, I’ve seen even very good, experienced players fail to get a move off when faced with having only a few seconds of base time—after all, getting a move off doesn’t really fix the underlying problem of having almost no time to think. With +30, you’re not going to have that seemingly impossible task of having to fire out moves with almost no thought for the rest of the game.
I had 2 wins on time in one tournament: UTDALLAS SPRING FIDE OPEN (201303131592) that had Time Control: G/90;+30. They were against FM John Jacobs and IM Darwin Yang. In both cases, the players who lost on time had winning but complicated positions, where they lost track of the clock. In fact, in the game against IM Darwin Yang, the time forfeit claim was a surprise for both of us (the players). The claim was made by the arbiter Bill Snead who was watching the game.
I think the fact that many increment events use FIDE rules (arbiter calling the flags) contributes significantly to the number of time forfeits with increment time control.