More clock regs fun: FIDE this time

Running Chess Tournaments
41

That’s right: another good example of potential problems caused by a clock-press counter. It also shows why it’s a terrible idea to allow a clock to add secondary time based on an internal move counter that is not displayed, as can happen on a DGT NA in increment mode.

Also, Mr. Scheible makes a good point about illegal moves. I should have thought of that. I’m guessing there are still more potential issues not listed in the last few posts.

And still folks will not part with clock-press counters. “If only everyone operated their clocks perfectly all the time there would be no problems.” True enough, but not connected to reality.

Sorry to somewhat hijack the thread, but as the OP I hope I will not be prosecuted. My personal evolution is thus: (Those with things to do can stop reading here.)

  1. I hated SD rated chess, especially G/30, played with analog clocks right after SD was approved as ratable, in the late 1980s. Part of it was timing. I had just reached 2000 for the first time, was in my 20s and still had delusions I might someday learn how the horsey really moves.

The way “serious” games ended in an ill-mannered red-faced clock-smash filled me with horror and loathing—even when I won that way. 14H/ILC was a highly imperfect “solution.”

  1. When I first read about the clock and timing method to be used in Fischer-Spassky II something clicked; I knew right away that here was another, better way to do things—if it could be implemented properly and affordably.

Fast forward a few years and suddenly the big creamy-white clocks that look like a shop project start showing up at big tournaments, often in the hands of young players from the nice neighborhoods. Aha…maybe this is it, finally?

  1. Once I took the plunge, spent the money and wrestled with the manual, I forged a bond with my Chronos that lasted 16 years of pure bliss. Finally a sane way to play SD rated chess…and for many years when I played a tournament with more than one time control I set it to show the “move” counter with the blinking symbol-delay rather than the numeric countdown delay.

  2. Then one night at the club I directed a tournament where two players used an Excalibur and did not set the clock-press counter. I watched their time scramble near the end of the primary control, in case someone flagged or made a claim—and suddenly, with a flash, the great goodness and purity of this occurred to me. Like the day I read about the time control in Fischer-Spassky II.

I went home to my lonely writer’s room and pondered it further, researched online and read what smart people had said about this issue for years. Then I recalled what Seirawan wrote many years ago, when electronic display screens started to be used in top events and Korchnoi would check the display to see what move he was on in time pressure: Is this proper in principle?—even before getting into the potential practical problems.

Then I was convinced. Not long after that I played in the 2011 USATE. After that I was double-dog convinced.

Here’s the thing. Many players would sign off on 1-3 above, but balk at number 4, since using a clock-press counter “just feels right” to them—in spite of all the problems we have seen. I will never again agree with them, but I respect that their feelings are genuine.

But comfort level and “what feels right” aside: Is it really worth the trouble?

42

I find move counters personally useful as a player, for two reasons. They provide me a quick visual check I can use on my score sheet, to ensure I am up to date. They also automatically adjust the clock as needed for secondary time controls, allowing the game to continue without interruption and removing the need for a player to adjust the clock.

I’ve used move counters ever since I bought my first Chronos, back in 2000. I have yet to play a game where they did not work properly for me. I have always been able to adjust the move counter if needed.

I have handled a number of disputes related to move counters as a director (or arbiter) in that time. In all those disputes, I have yet to encounter a single one that was due to the clock malfunctioning, rather than players improperly setting the clock.

I have no issue with a personal preference against the use of move counters. I have an issue with a proposed rule to ban the use of move counters. If such a measure passes, it will do so in spite of my vocal opposition on the floor of the Delegates Meeting.

43

Excellent point. That may be why they do not like to put increment into the non-sudden-death periods.

Yes, the arbiter should keep the increment in mind when determining whether one has overstepped the limit.

44

I don’t quite understand some of this hatred toward move counters. What’s the big deal? Why “ban move counters”? Quite understandably, it can’t be used as primary evidence of flagging in the first time control. That’s what the scoresheet is for. But, what’s the problem with the move counter itself? It’s just a counter. It’s as accurate as the players allow it to be. The same is true with the clock. Even the scoresheet may be incorrect. If the players have fewer or too many clock presses, then the clock is also off when using an increment. Both can be adjusted back to reality if someone notices.

Now an argument could be made whether the clock should auto add the secondary time after “40 moves or whatever” (like some of the DGT models) or wait until the primary time has completely run out like the Saitek Pro. Either way the move counter itself isn’t hurting anyone.

45

You make my case with the paragraph bolded above. It’s a safe bet that most of the players who had problems with clock-press counters were experienced tournament competitors, well-used to playing with digital clocks—and they still had problems. Right?

More to the point: Would it not have been easier for everyone if there were no problems at all, rather than problems that can be blamed on the players and not the clock? If a clock-press counter causes problems in rated play, per the testimony of an experienced high-level TD/arbiter who strongly supports their use as a player, why not just eliminate the cause of the problems?

The fewer problems the better. The tough parts of a chess tournament should be finding good moves at the board and to some extent making good pairings and rulings as a TD. We don’t need problems caused by a clock—even problems that can be assigned to user error.

46

Not hatred, at least not from me. I set my Chronos to use the clock-press counter for the first 12 years I had it. It never occurred to me to do otherwise, since that’s how digital clocks were set for multi-time control games I played and observed, almost without exception. The world did not end. To turn Boyd Reed’s statement 180 degrees, if USCF mandates the use of clock-press counters I would oppose it strongly but would comply if the Delegates so decree. It does not rise to hate-worthy level.

But the problems caused by clock-press counters are just so darn unnecessary. Why? There is also the Seirawan-Korchnoi principle I mentioned. Is it proper for a player to gain information as to what move it is by looking at the clock? Yes, the counter could be wrong and the player does so at his own risk, but still.

To me, a clock should be just that: a clock. I like to think of a digital clock as an analog in disguise, so to speak. The delay/increment function and to some extent the “seconds-precision” make it preferred over analogs for rated SD games.

But the BHB or Jerger did not have clock-press counters. They did not add time after move 40 (or whatever) without player/TD action. They did not flash, chirp or beep at time control or end of game. They did not stop ticking for one side when the other side flagged.

Keep it simple. We don’t need unnecessary problems.

47

To pile on to FM Langer’s anecdotal evidence, I see a flag fall about once per tournament that I direct with 30 second increment. Usually it happens as above or when one player realizes that the position is hopeless and lets himself flag rather than resign. It should be noted that usually only the top section in these tournaments is FIDE rated. In lower sections, players still must call flags.

Alex Relyea

48

There were some old analog BHBs with a move counter. There were small number tumblers in the lower middle between the two clocks.

49

The old BHB move counter was atrocious. There was only one move count for both players. It advanced by 1 move whenever black pressed his clock (assuming black’s clock was on the right). The mechanism was such that excessive force was required for black to press his clock – a huge disadvantage for black in a time scramble.

Bill Smythe

50

Yet another example of why analog clocks should go the way of the Dodo.

Having started chess as an adult I never grew up on analog clocks. Strangely (or perhaps not so strange) I find analog clocks more difficult to use and harder to tell exactly how much time I have left. I resented the few times I was forced to use one. I’ve since bought my own clock, so I won’t have that problem.

51

It’s interesting how much this thread is like a microcosm of the Delegates Meeting, with one faction saying that it’s too bad if players mess up with the clocks or the rules-- it’s their own fault for messing up, it serves them right and they should have done it the right way and that will sure teach them a lesson on how to do things right.

Another faction wants to preempt and circumvent the circumstances which result in the misunderstandings and mistakes. Especially where new or inexperienced players might likely be involved, let alone experienced tournament veterans.

Would be nice to see the Delegate Meetings on video whenever a debate involving these factions occurs.

52

deleted as duplicate…argh

53

(My apologies for the delay in this response; I’ve been trying to track candidate issues in a different forum, and missed this post until someone pointed out Mr. Immitt’s contribution downthread, and I read Mr. Mark’s comments here as part of that.)

I think this argument fails for a number of reasons, perhaps none more so than the fallacious assumption that “simpler” = “better”. I think that rules attempting to impose this fallacy solely for its own sake are short-sighted at best, not to mention virtually impossible to enforce unless we standardize on digital clock makers/features (good luck with that).

I am heartened that the current rules about move counters support my position, and will leave that (along with my prior posts on the subject) as my final comments.

As for Mr. Immitt’s rather uneven oversimplification later in the thread, I’m not sure it deserves a response. So I’ll err on the side of caution.

54

Mr. Reed is right. He’s also a better person than I am.

You know what preempts and circumvents circumstances which result in misunderstandings and mistakes 100 percent of the time? A properly set and properly operated chess clock with a move counter.

Proper clock setting is a required part of each pregame’s due diligence, just as integral as h1 and a8 being light squares, queens being on their colors, and horsies going between the towers and the pointy pieces. Proper clock operation is simply a requirement for proper tournament play.

Nanny-state chiding (at best) or bullying (at worst) of players into not using a useful clock feature that is accurate 100 percent of the time given elementary due diligence and elementary clock operation is offensive. Someone else’s screwup on a high board of a major event a few years ago ought not, and so far as I’m concerned, does not, create a problem for which anyone else should change their practices.

55

Mr. Immitt’s reasoning is faulty. If in order to prevent the problems caused by players who mishandle move counters I must forgo the capability of setting the clock before the game starts for the secondary time control, it’s not worth it. Having to reset the clock in the middle of the game is too high a price to pay for some people’s failure to operate it properly. The cure is worse than the disease.

56

This is true—but I do not know of a clock that requires users to re-set it for the secondary time control if the clock-press counter is disabled. Which clock are you thinking of? I think older Saiteks in Bronstein mode (the only delay mode they had) could handle only one control at a time, but that had nothing to do with clock-press counters.

Scratching my head. Can you give an example of a clock that behaves the way you describe? Thanks.

57

I do not believe the secondary time controls work on the Excalibur without the move counter turned on.

58

They do but the red light comes on indicating a forfeit for whichever side used up its initial time first, which could be annoying.

59

If the Chronos is set for two time controls (e.g. 40/120 SD/60, d/5) without the move counter, the secondary time is added when the primary time runs out. This happens independently for the two players. If white’s primary time expires at move 43 and black’s at move 57, then for 14 moves the clock shows white’s remaining secondary time and black’s remaining primary time. An indicator (the position of a hyphen) on each clock shows whether that side is in the primary or secondary control.

If the Chronos is set for two time controls with the move counter, the secondary time is added at move 40.

Bill Smythe

60

I’ve got a DGT XL. On that one, both sides get the extra time when one side runs out. (Number of moves for the period is set to 00.)