I think adding the following TD Tip would be beneficial.
TD Tip: For digital clocks that support time controls with more than one time period, they usually have an option to add the subsequent time control to the clock display in one or more of the following ways, which are all equally standard: 1) The subsequent time control is added once the prescribed number of moves (or more precisely, the number of clock presses) in the current time control are met. 2) The subsequent time control is added once the time in the current time control runs out and only if the prescribed number of moves in the current time control were met. 3) The subsequent time control is added independently for each player once their time in the current time control runs out, regardless of if the prescribed number of moves in the current time control were met. 4) The subsequent time control is added simultaneously for both players once the time in the current time control runs out for one of the players, regardless of if the prescribed number of moves in the current time control were met. If a player runs out of time in the current time control without completing the required number of moves but the clock adds the subsequent time control to the display, the player has still flagged and the opponent should claim a time forfeit.
Just get rid of 16U entirely – it’s mostly about analog clocks – and make a stripped-down, streamlined version of your proposed TD Tip the main rule. Something like this:
[b]16U. Avoiding the need to reset clocks. In a time control with two or more periods (for example 40/90 SD/30) it may be necessary to adjust the time shown on the clocks when the secondary period begins. Many clocks can be set to make this adjustment automatically, but clocks vary widely in their methods for doing so. Some clocks add the secondary time when the prescribed move count (e.g. 40 moves) has been reached. Others add the secondary time for each player only when that player’s initial time (e.g. 90 minutes) runs out.
If a player runs out of time in the initial period before reaching the prescribed move count, that player has overstepped the time control regardless of how the clock handles the time adjustment.[/b]
This looks pretty good (as we agreed on in a previous thread, on principle a time control example should include an increment or delay). However, having a delegate sponsor an ADM on this is unlikely to happen.
I think the first part of rule 16U is outdated. It says:
“It is recommended for analog clocks that secondary and subsequent time controls allow one hour per player so that the minute hand will be at twelve (12:00) and the flag will fall when the player’s time expires. This avoids the need to reset clocks and the problems sometimes caused by resetting.”
Since digital clocks are preferred over analog clocks in all cases, I don’t think any organizer should choose to use a secondary time control of an hour just because this avoids the need to reset an analog clock (using a secondary time control of an hour for other reasons is fine). Those who are still using analog clocks deserve to suffer all the consequences associated with them.
Normally, I would agree – in fact, I would agree on steroids – but in this case the increment or delay (or even the lack thereof) seems irrelevant. By having 40 and 90 as the only two numbers in the control, I felt I made it easier for the reader to figure out what the later phrases “e.g. 40” and “e.g. 90” were referring to. There was no “30” (as in inc/30) or “5” (as in d/5) to confuse matters.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
I no longer like long secondary controls, period, especially if there is 30-second increment. My feeling nowadays is that any secondary control ought to be 30 minutes or less.
TD Tip: Most digital clocks that support multiple time controls have an option to add the subsequent control to the clock display in at least one of the following ways, which are all equally standard: 1) The subsequent control is added right after, and only if, the prescribed number of moves (or more precisely, the number of clock presses) in the current control are met. 2) The subsequent control is added once the time in the current control runs out and only if the prescribed number of moves in the current control were met. 3) The subsequent control is added independently for each player once their time in the current control runs out, regardless of if the prescribed number of moves in the current control were met. 4) The subsequent control is added simultaneously for both players once the time in the current control runs out for one of the players, regardless of if the prescribed number of moves in the current control were met. If a player runs out of time in the current control without completing the prescribed number of moves but the clock adds the subsequent control to the display, the player has still flagged and the opponent should claim a time forfeit.
Is it your proposal to have this as a TD tip for the current 16U or to repeal 16U and place this TD tip somewhere (where)? in the rulebook? As I understand it the Delegates only have control over the rules, so they could repeal or not repeal. I would think any motion that involved a TD tip only would be ruled out of order.
Micah, your latest is slightly smoother, but it is still longer and more complicated than necessary. There are really only two major possibilities, with the clock adding time either at move 40 or at minute 90 (in the 40/90 SD/30 example). Your four ways are just minor variations of the basic two. Let’s try this:
[b]Clocks that support multiple time controls generally add time for the subsequent control either: 1) for each player, when that player completes the prescribed number of moves in the current control, or 2) for each player, when that player’s prescribed time in the current control runs out. Some clocks even allow the choice of either of these two options.
Regardless of the method used by the clock to add time for the subsequent control, if a player runs out of time in the current control before completing the prescribed number of moves, the player has overstepped the time control and is subject to a time forfeit.[/b]
Mr. Smith appears to think, for some reason, that since he’s unwilling or unable to be a delegate and the Rules Committee is unresponsive at best, hostile at worst, to his ideas, that getting TD Tips ratified by this Forum is the best way to amend the rulebook.
This comment suggests otherwise, that’s why I asked.
I would consider sponsoring an ADM provided:
A. It’s something the Delegates have jurisdiction over. Thus I believe it has to be a rule change, not a TD tip.
B. At least two members of the rules committee have indicated support (and correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Bill Smythe on that committee)?
C. The proposer recognizes that the ADM is going to get referred to the Rules Committee.
D. It seems reasonably coherent; this forum does a pretty good job in suggesting improvements in coherency in succinctness.
E. I don’t think it’s an idiotic idea. And since I’m not a TD, I’m probably not going to be employing this stipulation on anything that gets a warm reception here.
I have a number of potential ADM’s that I think meet these criteria. Can I send them to you via email so you can see if you would like to sponsor any of them?
You can send me any of them where you have two members of the Rules Committee endorsing the specific language you send. I won’t look at them until I have confirmation from those two members that the specific language is appropriate. Ideally, if they are also delegates, they’d co-sponsor. I realize not all of them are delegates.
I should probably add one more condition:
F. You have no objection to me sending the ADM to the chair of the Rules Committee.
I was under the impression that Alan Losoff was the co-chair, but I see he’s listed as the vice-chair. I’m confident Mr. Mulford would find Mr. Losoff acceptable until a new chair is named.
Al Losoff, as vice-chair, has taken over as chair for now, and is doing an excellent job of contacting everybody on the Rules Committee and trying to put the pieces back together. I am confident he’ll be willing to stay on as either chair or vice-chair, but somebody still needs to fill whichever office he doesn’t stay on as.
I, too, have the utmost confidence in Al Losoff.
As one member of the Rules Committee, I might agree to endorse one or two of these that I like a lot, but I might insist on a few changes. And I don’t want to burden the Committee too much right now with this sort of thing because, after all (as I said above), we are still trying to pick up the pieces. We all miss Ken Ballou a lot.
Oh, and I’m not a delegate. Haven’t been for years, and don’t want to be right now.
Picking up a second endorsement from the Committee might be tough at the moment, partly because many Committee members do not follow these Forums.
Alan Losoff is certainly the person I’d send any ADMs to. The reasons Bill gave are the reasons for the conditions I specified. Bill can effectively be a gatekeeper for both quantity and acceptability of the language. If there aren’t two committee members who support the motion and the language, it’s DOA.
Does a discussion of how clocks operate really need to part of the “rule”? That’s what TD tips are for - tips on how to implement the rule. This rule can simplified even further or just gotten rid of altogether. Perhaps just:
If a player runs out of time in the initial period before reaching the prescribed move count, that player has overstepped the time control
What else does the “rule” really need to say? You could add that the directors can adjust the clocks as needed to accurately show the second or subsequent time controls. The above sentence is really part of a different rule, so I’m not sure 16U is needed at all.
16W isn’t much needed either. 16V is also archaic. Plus it’s a “recommendation” and not a rule and a recommendation that is no longer valid. Looking at it again, this whole section can be reworked more efficiently.
You’re right, of course. All of rule 16 could use a complete rewrite.
The matter of handling second controls, however, is one that could use some specific attention. In the book Chess Handbook for Arbiters – not an official FIDE publication, but written by two FIDE IAs who make many interesting points (and available from U.S. Chess Sales) – the authors claim that it is best to set the clocks for only one control, and be reset by an arbiter at the second control. They argue that a clock that resets itself – whether (e.g. in a 40/90 SD/30 event) at move 40 or at minute 90 – is giving extra information to the players that they should not have.
I don’t necessarily buy that argument, but there is continuing debate among USA TDs and players regarding whether the clock should reset at move 40 or at minute 90. It wouldn’t hurt if the rulebook could discuss the pros and cons of each method, so that TDs and players can make informed decisions one way or the other.
On the DGT North American, for example, you can program it either way, and it’s the same mode number (I think it’s mode 16) either way. If you set the number of moves to 00, the clock adds time at minute 90, but if you set it to 40 moves, the clock adds time at move 40.
I’m betting that most players, and many TDs, will instinctively set the number of moves to 40 (“that is the number of moves in the first control, right?”), even those TDs who prefer that the time be added at minute 90 rather than at move 40. Some rulebook advice here might be useful.
Be aware that the deadline for ADMs to be received in Crossville is May 24. Because of my own personal schedule, I can’t promise to submit any pursuant to my offer to Micah if I don’t have the language and the verification that two rules committee members support it by May 17.
I agree. 16A and 16X are also archaic. 16D and 16R have essentially been deleted but remain as numbered rules.
Exactly, and that’s the point of my proposed TD Tip.
I believe this is only true on the DGT NA for increment time controls. For time controls with delay or time controls without increment or delay, you cannot set the number of moves in the first time control.
Unfortunately, I probably won’t have time to pursue this before the deadline.