I’ve seen that too, as well as all number of odd hours. It isn’t a problem unless the first time control is longer than an hour, or if there are multiple time controls. My tournament right now is 40/90, and one player set his clock for 4:00. Figure that one out.
Alex Relyea
P.S. I did instruct players to set their analog clocks at 4:30.
The clock-makers designed them that way.
Also, note that the revised rule directly contradicts the wording of 16B as printed in the 5th Edition—which says that any and all devices that indicate flag-fall—including sound—“should” be enabled. That was the 4th Edition rule, too, as I recall.
I suspect that 16B, as well as all rules and policies related to setting digital clocks, are among the most mis-understood and unknown recesses of tournament life for the average player.
I have never seen a TD direct a player to enable (or not) any devices that signal flag-fall, nor have a seen a player complain that his opponent’s clock was set incorrectly in re flag-fall signalling devices.
How are we supposed to police this rule, in either direction? Check all clocks before the start of each round? For that matter, I have never heard “here’s how to set flag-fall mechanisms for digital clocks” included as a TD announcement at the start of a round.
It all comes down to either: A. only players can call flags. Period. or B. The clock is an impartial witness—not the same thing as a potentially partial spectator—so it’s OK for the clock to go ding and flash at time control.
I lean toward A, but I understand the logic behind B. Best of all would be if we live to see the day when players are not afraid to set their own digital clocks for the designated time control. At that point, a discussion of the merits of “beep/flash at time control” might have some practical effect.
When I am asked to set clocks I always turn the sound off and disable any flag type notification. I make no comments about how others should set their clocks unless asked.
I certainly agree with this rule. And it is not Asinine to be courteous to
others in the playing hall. Hey, chess is a difficult game requiring much concentration. How rude is it to have your clock going beep, beep, beep, distracting all around you?? Time is a part of the game.
Simple as that.
However, that said, if this is a rant of yours, you are entitled to run
and advertise tournaments as you see fit, allowing such noise. I have
certainly direct tournaments with worse condidtions, ie concerts and
weddings on the other side of a thin wall. Even a very loud “Dirge”
Worship Service, with very loud chanting to the Gods. Even those
playing of that particular religion complained.
Rob Jones
OK, so all clocks were designed with a sound. I’m not getting it.
Personally, I think the existing beep on hear from most clocks is a little “too noticable”, and would prefer something softer, and perhaps more like a click. Perhaps if we are lucky someone will design a clock that will play MP3’s and we can have photon torpedo blasts when we push the clock button.
When I joined USCF in 1968, it was standard practice to set clocks to expire at 12:00. About a year later, it was decided that this was bad because the minute hand and hour hand interfere with each other visually at 12:00. So the convention was changed from 12:00 to 6:00.
Bill Smythe
Yes and no. Or rather, no and yes.
Silence is good, if only to avoid disrupting other games in progress. This is especially true if an expired clock would continue to beep on every move if the players continue playing.
Freezing at time expiration, by contrast, is a wonderful idea. It’s about time some people in USCF stopped opposing it. “Both flags down is a draw” was a convenience rule for large tournaments, to prevent the arbiter from having to figure out whose time expired first. Now that technology can perform this function, the old rule has obsolesced. USCF rules should either encourage freeze-at-end, or adopt a neutral stance.
Bill Smythe
On a clock like the touch-sensitive Chronos, a low-level click on every move is a good thing, to assure the players that the touch registered. This low-level click can be set so low as to be less noisy than the button-pressing on even the “regular” Chronos or the DGT, let alone their noisier competitors like the newer Saiteks or the older Excaliburs.
Bill Smythe
This is a matter of opinion. I see nothing wrong with players being responsible for calling their opponents flags. A clock which freezes is an aid to the ignorant player. Does anyone really want a rule that rewards ignorance?
I can see potential problems with a clock that freezes.
I haven’t noticed that anyone has suggested that the freezing only be limited to the last time control. If there is more than one time control, the freezing would have to be tied to the move counter. As a TD I have much first hand experience with problems created when the number of moves played does not equal the number of times the clock was pressed. The damage that an incorrect move counter can do is far worse than the benefit of relying on it when it’s correct. As if it wasn’t bad enough to have some players relying on the move counter, requiring the clock to rely on it is just asking for more problems.
There’s also the problem of the clock not knowing if the claimant’s scoresheet meets the definition of reasonably complete. In such a case the game continues to the next control even if the player did overstep the time limit. But this clock is improperly frozen. This would mean that there would now need to be some intervention for not only verifying that the scoresheet requirement was met, but also that the clock would need to be adjusted because the clock was set to stop running even when both players agree that the scoresheet is incomplete. This adjustment would include a way to “unfreeze” it and might have to be done for every control except sudden death. It would also require an estimate of how long ago it was that the clock froze to adjust the time so that the side which froze doesn’t get the benefit of extra time.
Then there is the issue of almost every clock currently available in the US suddenly being obsolete. It might mean big business for the equipment sellers but another undesired expense for the players.
I suspect most TDs would not be fans of dealing with improperly set clocks (not freezing) as this will only become visibly apparent when one side’s time has expired.
When I consider all of these potential problems, this idea seems like anything but “wonderful”.
Hm. I missed 16Ba when it came out. Disappointing. I have a touchpad Chronos, and to me the “mip” that signifies a successful clock press is a necessary substitute for the absence of tactile feedback. No doubt this is the case for many of my opponents as well, judging from the number of times they’ve touched the pad with a piece rather than their hands and done a double-take when nothing happened. Having to disable the “mip” makes the touchpad Chronos a much less desirable device. (Why did I get the touchpad version instead of the pushbutton version? Because something about the pushbutton Chronos compels kids in particular to pound the daylights out of the buttons, and to do so multiple times on each move – smacksmacksmacksmack! – and I can’t #### stand that.)
Now, the Saitek beep . . . I can totally understand why the USCF would want to ban that one.
You also got the touchpad version because the buttons on the push button version are extremely breakable, which is silly on a $100+ clock that’s otherwise built like a tank.
Harold, I can not even begin to state how strongly I agree with your statement.
That “something” is that the fool buttons don’t stay down.
Amen.
I said the idea is wonderful, not every current implementation of it.
Harold’s entire argument is directed against the concept of a clock freezing in a non-SD time control. None of it comes even close to refuting the main (and wonderful) idea of the clock freezing at the end of the final SD control.
Certainly, if there is to be any kind of quasi-freezing during a preliminary control, it should be a “softer” freeze. At the very least, there should be an easy way to unfreeze the clock and continue the game.
The best idea would be that, if the time expires in a non-SD situation, the clock could display a flag on the side that expired, and not on the other side, and both sides would continue running. That way it would always be possible to figure out whose time expired first. (What should be done with this information is a rules matter, not a clock design question.) The flag could disappear after, say, 5 minutes if the game is stiill in progress.
I don’t understand this statement at all. A rule that encourages, but does not require, freeze-at-end would not make anything obsolete.
In fact, didn’t the asinine rule passed recently by the Delegates effectively make the DGT obsolete, or even illegal, in increment tournaments? What a joke – the most popular clock in the world, and in some events the only legal clock, is now illegal in the USA. This rule is obviously going to be ignored by those organizers who furnish DGT clocks, as well it should be.
Bill Smythe
The Chronos beep is tolerable if set to about 1,000. (One of the many great things about Chronos; you can customize how it beeps.) However, as you point out, the Saitek beep is loud and harsh enough to distract players—not to mention pressing the buttons on a Saitek makes enough noise to notice.
So, if we are going to have a rule about sound, I agree that the “no-sound” state of the rulebook, as of this year, is best.
The DGT clock is less-preferred than other increment-capable clocks for increment games—but not illegal or even obsolete, I think. Why would it be illegal? The rule just means that if you have a Chronos and I have a DGT NA and we play at an increment tournament, your clock is preferred, regardless of color. If you have no clock, then we use my DGT.
Whether your Chronos would still be preferred at an increment event in which the organizer supplies DGT clocks for all boards—as advertised in advance—is an interesting question.
Freeze-at-end becomes a bigger issue as the amount of delay/increment time decreases. With a 30-second increment it’s moot. At 10-second increment/delay, a player in zeitnot might overlook an opponent’s time forfeit, but it’s still not likely. At 5 seconds, it’s much more likely. At 2 or 3 seconds delay/increment, whether the clock freezes could determine who wins the game in a non-trivial number of cases. That is why USCF Blitz rules state the clock must continue to run—and said that prior to the rules change for Quick/Regular that took effect this year.
But the bigger issue: I was a relatively early adopter of delay-digital clocks, circa 1998. I do not play nearly as much as I used to, but at one time was fairly active, from club level to GP-level events. I also directed many club events and a few weekend Swisses.
In all that time, not once did an opponent in a game I played, or a player at an event I directed, ask whether to set freeze-at-end on a digital clock. Not once did I hear a complaint either way about it.
I lean toward the view that the new rule is not at all asinine—but I do not think it will have any effect on tournament praxis for the vast majority of even informed tournament players.
This is not at all accurate! In my very first paragraph I wrote:
I still don’t know what’s so “wonderful” about rewarding ignorance. I see nothing unreasonable about making players be responsible for noticing when their opponent runs out of time. If they don’t notice before their own time runs out then they should pay the price for their ignorance.
Think of the following scenario. White flags but Black doesn’t immediately notice. Five moves later Black also flags. Depending on the clock we have 2 different results. With a clock that continues to run it’s a draw. If the clock freezes then, except for checkmate or stalemate, Black wins no matter how long it takes him to notice.
There is also the law of unintended consequences. Having a clock that freezes in a sudden death time control we have a potential problem that could not be as severe with a clock that continues to run. The TD can call a double flag but not when only one side expires. The problem is that the TD must allow the game with the freezing clock to continue. This game could continue for some unreasonable length of time potentially causing the next round to be delayed. This won’t happen if the clock continues to run as eventually the other side will also run out of time and the TD would step in and declare a draw.
I’m still convinced it’s not “wonderful”.
The new rule is asinine simply because it directly, and needlessly, contradicts the FIDE rule. There was no good reason for USCF to go its own way on this one.
The effect is that a USCF-preferred clock is illegal by FIDE standards, and a FIDE-legal clock is non-preferred by USCF standards. Ridiculous.
It’s certain to happen sooner or later. An American player enters a USA tournament at G/90 inc/30, where the organizer supplies DGT North American clocks for all the players. The player demands to use his own clock, on the grounds that it does not freeze at end. The player cites the new rule in support of his demand. The organizer insists on the DGT clock, citing the rule that players must use organizer-supplied equipment. All hall breaks loose.
Freeze-at-end is still compatible with the USCF notion that only the players, not the arbiter, may call time expiration. Nothing needed to be changed. Let’s repeal this stupid and contradictory new USCF rule.
Bill Smythe
Note that I am the author of the “asinine rule” (as you describe it). Not that you should care, or that it should matter …
The rule does not make the DGT obsolete or illegal. It does make it not preferred equipment for an increment time control, but it does not preclude its use. Personally, I find the omission of the ability to not freeze the clock in an increment time control to be unfortunate.
I carefully worded the rule so that the clock would not be illegal (again, not that you should care).