Setting for different delay/increment for each time control would make a lot more sense if there was ever a clock that had a move counter. Currently they only have clock-punch counters that don’t necessarily align to the number of moves that have actually been made.
Last weekend at the Chicago Open I ended up involved with two cases of extra punches causing the second control’s time to be awarded early and resulting in people thinking they had more time and flagging. Another TD said there had been at least seven such cases during the couple thousand games that weekend. That is why setting clocks without a move counter is safer, but having different delay or increment for the different time controls would not work with such a setting.
And this very issue decided a national championship title (one-fourth of a national title, to be precise) a few years ago. Even so, some folks defend and support the use of clock-press counters. Go figure.
Count me among them. A move counter is 100 percent accurate and useful when the clock is operated properly. I have no sympathy for players who fail to operate the clock properly (an extra or missed punch is incorrect ab initio, and the failure to correct the counter after an extra or missed punch compounds the error).
I am quite capable of operating my clock properly 100 percent of the time, and corrrecting errors if I note a discrepancy. And in my experience, move counters are usually more accurate than players’ scoresheets in determining the number of moves made. If someone comes to me with a time claim when the move counter says it’s someone’s 41st move, his scoresheet is getting very close scrutiny. In the one such case I’ve had in my career, a missing move pair was quickly detected, and the claim denied.
How is a move counter useful if it cannot be used to support or refute any claim? Do you mean it’s useful to the player, to know when the first control has been reached—if he is 100% confident in his ability to ensure the counter is accurate 100% of the time?
It is useful as a check against the moves indicated on a player’s score sheet. If there is a mismatch, one or the other is incorrect, and the player should investigate.
It is useful as a mechanism to automatically add time for a subsequent time control at the end of a previous time control.
While the move counter cannot in itself support or refute any claim, it can and certainly should suggest that evidence to the contrary should be given close scrutiny.
Situation: Time scramble. Both players stop keeping score. When the clock indicates it’s White’s 41st move, Black reconstructs a scoresheet that shows 39 moves completed per side and claims a win before White has reconstructed his scoresheet.
TD: “What happened to get the move counter to 41?” (Expecting an answer of “We had an extra punch early in the game due to some confusion.”)
Black: "Uh . . . "
TD: “[BS meter swings to high.] Hmm. OK. Let me play this out. [Plays out Black’s reconstructed score, until . . .] How did your queen go from a8 to f6 in one move on move 35?”
Black: "Uh . . . "
TD: “And how did white’s queen take your queen on f6 from e1 on his move 36?”
Black: "Er, uh . . . "
TD: “You’ve missed a move pair. Claim denied.”
I will defend the consideration of a move counter never to support or refute a claim in isolation, but always to justify closer scrutiny of a evidence that contradicts the move counter. And I will defend such consideration any day of the week to any USCF committee.
I know that I am not the only NTD who feels that move counters ought to either be banned or removed from clocks. I’ve seen them cause more problems than they solve. Seen kids grow too used to relying on move counters rather than being accurate in their score keeping, which is probably just another corrolary of kids in this generation not being able to read analog clocks. At this past weekend’s FIDE IA training in Chicago I heard a story of a TD who asked the kid to set the clock at " a quarter to five" and the response was " what is that"?"
And there was the large CCA tournament where I watched the same old guy, two years in a row, involved in a dispute where his opponent was convinced the flag had fallen 1 move early. Certainly tempting for an ethically challenged player, who sees the move counter being used, to do a push-push when the opponent is away. And the the kid agrees he has lost on time, bewildered, seeing the extra time being added. Yes someone alert can defend this but if you agree that you lost and only realize the deception hours later…
Just offers less advantages than learning to accurately keep score withou being overly reliant on technology.
Move counters cause more problems than they solve only when you don’t know how to operate your clock.
I’ve always used to move counters when they’re available. In the tournament games I’ve played with one, I have never once had a problem operating or adjusting the counter. I personally find the counter useful, even in a single time control, because I sometimes skip moves under pressure. With the counter, I can easily tell if I am on move. Obviously, I’m not allowed to use the counter as evidence in any claim. But it is a handy visual reference, and one that will be quite accurate – especially if I set the clock up properly in the first place.
Quite frankly, I think the concern about issues with the move counter is overblown. Every tournament I run, I see many more issues with improperly set delay or increment features, or with people who cannot properly set a clock for multiple time controls, than I ever do with move counters.
These are all symptoms of the same problem. The solution is not to go off the deep end, by banning any of these perfectly useful, correctly operating features. The solution is to tell the players to RTFM.
If you can’t be bothered to learn how to use a move counter, fine. Don’t use it. IMO, it is ludicrous to ban a feature that works fine, simply because some players/directors want to transfer their personal peccadilloes to me.
I wonder how many players actually follow the rules for dealing with minor mistakes?
Back in the days of analog clocks, if I had, say, put an opponent in check, and they missed that and made a move that did not get them out of check, and I was not in time trouble and he made his illegal move while I was at the board, I almost certainly would not have stopped the clocks and summoned a TD. I would have just punched my clock, said “you are in check”, and let him undo the illegal move and deal with the check as if the illegal move had never happened. I would not have felt harmed by the 2 or 3 seconds lost time on clock, so would not feel entitled to having the TD put a couple minutes on my clock to penalize the illegal move.
My guess is that a lot of players think this way, and don’t think about the fact that with a move counter clock the above procedure throws off the counter.
What do you do when you have White and your opponent shows up on time with a properly set Chronos, with the clock-press counter enabled, and insists on using it?
What do you do when the players at the next board are in exactly the same situation, and when the TD bellows “start those clocks” Black is away from the board, so White on instinct makes his first move without starting his own clock? That’s what happened at USATE 2011, I think.
I think the answer is to have players learn to use the scoresheet and not rely on a move counter that inhibits self-reliance and increases dependence on an instrument that can’t be used for any type of claim. But this is just my opinion and we’re all entitled to opinions. I don’t think any one person can create a movement to get rid of move-counters and I don’t plan on starting a crusade so you can relax. However, I don’t set clocks to move counter settings when asked to set clocks and explain why they are bad. No one has died from that yet. Maybe they’ll learn to read a clock with hands
OBTW, My peccadilloes are very impersonal and not targeted to anyone in person
The rules already say that the move counter should not be relied upon. Any player who is relying upon it doesn’t know the rules. I find such erroneous reliance utterly unpersuasive.
Obviously, I categorically disagree that the move counter is bad. I’m willing to agree to disagree on that point. What I will not compromise is my position that the only negative issue that ever arises with the move counter comes from someone not setting or adjusting their clock correctly.
When this talk about banning move counters stops, I’ll relax on the subject. Until then, I figure responding in this way should be fair warning that I will energetically oppose any such attempt.
Not sure how we could “ban” move counters, since they are included on several oft-used clocks that won’t go away any time soon. But what if a TD announces at the start of a tournament or a round that he does not want to see a move counter in use on any clock? That’s just happened at the USATE in 2012, in the big side room where the teams that just miss the cut for the ballroom play.
I was there. The TD in question had been there for the debacle the previous year, where a move counter mistake decided which team won the tournament. Was he within his rights to so announce?
And, while I respect the TD in question and acknowledge him to be highly capable and motivated by good intentions, I think that particular announcement was an out of bounds overreaction. “If you enable a move counter, make very sure you properly operate your clock” would have been preferable.
As far as negative issues, you are saying that these are not potential issues:
The opportunistic cheater who secretly pushes the counter ahead by one move so the addition of secondary time fools the opponent into relaxing one move short
The completely accidental mis-management or pushing by accident to get it out of sequence, which has nothing to do with setting or adjusting the clock correctly
Contributing to the analog delinquency and clock reading deficiency of minors
Brennan - You will agree that an organizer can set a tournament rule up that does not allow move counters, right? For at least 5 years after the use of Delay was started, the US Chess Center in DC didn’t allow it because they felt it bad for a kid’s development. When I went to force the use of my digital delay clock and found that house rules forbade it, it was annoying to say the least. Players can then vote their acceptance or displeasure with their wallets in an open market.
Mike, agreed, with ample and adequate advance notice.
EDIT: The bigger the variation, the more explicit the notice needs to be. In my view, a prohibition on either delay or move counter use would need to be extremely explicit.
I use move counters that are visible throughout the entire game. Since I primarily use them as a check on my notation, any such attempt at cheating won’t work here. This concern also seems rather contrived.
This issue has everything to do with adjusting the clock correctly. Move counters, if in use during a game, can and should be adjusted to remove extra counts. Adjusting a move counter is no more challenging than adding or subtracting time - especially if the user has bothered to RTFM.
This seems even more contrived than the first concern. Moreover, schools still introduce the concept of time with analog clock faces. So a scholastic player who cannot read an analog clock face has a problem that really has nothing to do with chess.
Did you see my other example of the kid who didn’t know what a quarter of five meant? And that kid you mention is being enabled in his problem by digital everything.
(admitting a little stretch here so I’ll drop this point)…
