2a.) Whatever timer is used (analog or digital), a standard timer must continue to run for both sides even if
one side’s time has expired (See 8c).
2b.) A digital timer (given it meets the requirements of 2a) is preferred over an analog timer due to the
precision of setting and the accuracy of timing. If no digital timer is available, then an analog timer may be
considered standard."
This means that for blitz time controls with no increment or delay, an analog clock would be considered more standard than a digital clock if the digital clock can’t be set continue to run for both sides even if one side’s time has expired. Do you like this rule or do you think a digital clock should still be preferred to an analog clock in this case due to digital clocks being more precise than analog clocks?
That seems OK with me. I remember that this was the same complaint I had years ago about digital clocks. At the time all digitals [except 1 from Italy] would stop if either player exceeded the time control. So with a 40/90, SD/30 control if either player failed to make move 40 in 90 minutes both clocks would stop. that meant that the game was being played without any time coming off either side’s clock.
That blitz rule is absolutely, absolutely ridiculous.
In the Chicago area, most blitz tournaments (run as side events to 2-day and 3-day tournaments) are played at G/3 inc/2, where the organizer furnishes clocks. Usually those clocks are the DGT North American, which always halts at end when in increment mode. I have never heard of any complaints by players about this feature, although I suppose there could have been a few.
A couple of years ago, FIDE cleaned up its blitz rules considerably, bringing them more into line with rules for standard (slow) chess, making exceptions only when obviously required by the inherent differences between the two forms of the game. U.S.Chess continues to plod along with blitz rules that are wa-a-a-a-ay out of date, and where almost every blitz rule is the exact opposite of the corresponding standard rule.
For example, under current FIDE blitz rules, a player does not automatically lose the game when he completes an illegal move. Instead, there is a time penalty for the first violation, with an automatic loss only for the second violation (by the same player in the same game). This is also the FIDE rule now in slow (regular-rated) chess as well.
For another example, U.S.Chess continues to recommend G/5 d/0 as the “standard” blitz time control. This should certainly be changed to G/3 inc/2.
If the time control is G/3 inc/2, I think most TD’s would rule an increment capable clock more standard than an analog clock even if the increment capable clock can’t be set to continue to run for both sides even if one side’s time has expired. I don’t think ruling an analog clock more standard in cases like this is the intent of the rule. The intent is blitz time controls with no increment or delay.
Sort of. Rule 5 E now recommends two seconds of increment or delay in blitz but the blitz rules state “Standard time control (TC) for blitz is G/5 with no delay” and the first TD Tip after rule 5C states “Standard blitz uses no delay or increment”. When rule 5E was updated to recommended two seconds of increment or delay in blitz, the statements about “standard” times controls in blitz using no increment or delay should have been removed. I’ve brought this issue up before to no avail.
Technically, that would happen if one player failed to press the button 40 times when his clock was running regardless of whether or not 40 moves had been made…
White - makes move 39 with 20 seconds left and hits the clock
Black - makes move 39 with five minutes left and does not hit the clock (clock thinks it is still Black’s 39th move)
White - makes his move in 10 seconds and hits the clock (does not trigger the move counter since Black’s clock is still running)
Black - makes his move with two minutes left and hits the clock (clock now thinks it is White’s 40th move)
White - now that it is move 41 spends a minute reviewing the position and the clock flags because it is still registering that it is move 40 - the clock is frozen and any time spent before that is noticed does not run off the clock.
Historically, blitz chess has been played without delay or increment. It was played without needing to make a certain number of moves. It was for fun, not for soul destroying quests for profit or rating points. Blitz chess, known by many as 5 minute chess, replaced the 10 second speed games where one had to move within ten seconds or instantly when a bell rang, else be forfeited. It is my understanding from talking to older players that 10 second chess led to lots of arguments over whether a person made his move in time. TDs were pilloried for being biased in the application of forfeits caused by players not moving fast enough. As analogue clocks improved and became cheaper, blitz rather than the 10 second format became the norm. The common practice was to set the clock and have the opponent check it to see if the setting of the clock hands was acceptable. It is a shame that some players cannot read clock faces because of the digital world fetish for sterile numbers and flashing lights.
Much of the country thinks of blitz as 5 minute chess, not Game 3/inc 2. Most of the blitz tournaments I have seen or played in while in multiple states over the years, were run using a Game 5 format without adding time in any way. Game 5 is the standard for most of us. What you do in your own local area is fine, but it is not the standard form that the rest of us know. Those of us in “flyover country” do not like to be talked down to or having dumb rules imposed on us by Rulebook or far away city slicker autocrats trying to make a fast buck. Tradition is fine. Not everything must be ruined by electronic technology.
There are a mix of clocks used in blitz tournaments. Some digital users often set them aside and use an analogue clock because they do not want to beat up their digital clocks. The Coldfield, Insa, and BHB analogue clocks are sturdier than most of the digital clocks on the market. Blitz players are trying to run their opponents out of time. Giving players extra time defeats the whole purpose of blitz which is to have fun while trying to run the other guy out of time no matter how good his position is. Swindling, blunders, raucous laughter, and moaning about how you were winning but lost because you spent so much time winning material is part and parcel of the game of blitz. Adding the notion of “precision” and extra time makes the games more like those long time control tournaments than the fun style of chess blitz is supposed to be.
There are quite a few “clock bashing monkeys” who use digital clocks. They have to buy more than one such clock as their blitz clocks take quite a beating from play, looking more like a scratched up, camouflaged IED terrorist devices. There are complaints that the clocks end up operating differently when used in regular tournament chess. Those touch buttons sometimes do not register a move. The LED lights go haywire. The constant pounding can mess up the electronics inside the ugly boxes. Sometimes the numbers just freeze. As a club official, I tended not lend out the club’s digital clocks so that players could play blitz. We had a number of BHB clocks, a Master Quartz, and a couple of odd analogues to hand out. We saved our digital clocks for longer time control events.
At the scholastic nationals the blitz tournaments are G/5;d0.
The US Open blitz used G/5;d0 (per MSA).
The National Open last year used G/3;+2 (per MSA).
The other 18 tournaments with both “blitz” and “2019” in their tournament names in MSA included
2 @ G/3;+2
10 @ G/5;d0
6 @ G/10;d0 (all from the same affiliate)
I think the inaccuracies in analog clock timing are a bigger and more common issue than the issue with digital clocks that can’t be set to continue to run for both sides even if one sides time has expired. Thus, I think this rule should be changed so that a digital clock is always considered preferable to an analog clock.
The alleged inaccuracies of the analog clock are insignificant. We used to let one player set the clock and the other player check it to see if he was satisfied with the setting. Then they played.
Among digital clocks, my personal preference was to use the old, gray Saitek clock. Easy to set, sturdy, quiet, accurate. The buttons on top let you use a piece to press after captures. No thunking sound when pressed. I use the DGT NA for longer time controls for ease of setting. YMMV.
That old gray Saitek was one of my least favorite clocks. It required way too much pressure on the buttons to press the clock. And there have been reports of trouble in double time scrambles, such as the clock refusing to stop one side and start the other when the clock was pressed, or showing all zeroes while still not signaling a time forfeit (similar to one of Micah’s experiences with the Tap N Set), etc. And it did not have USA-style (discrete) delay mode, only Bronstein.
The old gray Saitek was the first clock I got when I was a kid (I think I got it for Christmas one year but the shipping of the clock got delayed so I didn’t receive it until after Christmas). On my clock, you have to press one of the sides of the clock more firmly than the other for it to register the press. The clock not having discrete delay confused a lot of people (including myself when I was a kid) into thinking the clock didn’t support delay at all. Didn’t know about the all zeros issue with the clock.
The experience I’ve had with a clock showing all zeros (due to it rounding down) but not signaling a time forfeit (due to their still being some tenths of a second left) is with the VTEK 300 clock, not the Tap N Set clock. I’ve brought this issue up to one of the designers of the VTEK and the response I got was “I am pretty sure the other clocks out there do the same thing” (round down), which is not correct.
Since the timer must continue to run for both sides even if one side’s time has expired, does this mean a digital clock must start counting negative and continue giving the increment time (for blitz time controls with increment) for the player whose time has expired?
