A situation came up today I wanted to get some opinions about. I arrived late for my first round game. Six minutes had passed since my opponent started the clock. The time control was G/75. The clock was a regular analog clock. I had white. I asked my opponent if it would be ok to use instead my digital delay capable clock, and if so, I would subtract eight minutes from my time. My opponent agreed and seemed to be enthusiastic about changing to a delay capable clock. It had been a year since I played in a tournament and this was only the second time using a Chronos clock I got last year. Thinking that the TD would know how to set the clock much faster than I could, I asked the TD if he could do me the favor. The TD said that no problem he would split the time, four minutes each. I said that it wasn’t an issue with both of us being late, only me. The TD said that clocks cannot be replaced after the start of the game.
The TD believed that the decision was backed by the rules. My belief (I’m a local TD but far far less experienced than this TD) was that it was not backed by the rules one way or another. When that is the case, I believe that the TD is right whichever way he/she rules, so I accepted the ruling and continued the game with the analog clock.
I later checked the book and had a discussion with the TD about this. I could find no rule forbidding replacing the clock. The TD pointed out, quite rightly, that a player arriving late loses the right to choose a more standard clock (delay capable digital over analog) when arriving late. I pointed out that it is true that the right is lost, but that doesn’t mean that the opponent cannot exercise their right to choose more standard equipment. And what’s the harm if a clock is available and both players want to change the clock, especially if no move has been made yet?
Anyway, just wanted to get thoughts on whether some rules apply here.
I read with interest the thread about Insufficient Losing Chances (14H) claims a couple of months ago. Some of the posts touched on this same subject. One post representative of the proposals in there:
In that thread, there seems to be confirmation of no rule actually applying, and there are proposals to introduce new rules ranging forbidding changing of the clock that started the game to allowing the change in certain circumstances.
Please don’t discuss ILC which has been beaten to death in that other thread, I’m interested more in the particular scenario. Although ILC is certainly relevant insofar as why would a TD not want to make it less likely that an ILC claim will arise by allowing changing clocks at the start of the game?
The TD was being officious and bureaucratic. There is no rule which can require you to change clocks after the start of the game, but if both players agree, why on earth should the TD object? (See 21K2, Beware abuse of power.) However, there is also no rule requiring the TD to help you set the clock. If he doesn’t want to and you don’t know how, well, that’s tough.
Agreed. This is a friendly TD who is very knowledgeable about clocks. I was just trying to expedite matters, not really expecting help as a right. I know I’m responsible for the mess I got myself in when buying my Chronos.
Why on earth a TD would want to nullify a player agreement to change clocks so early in the game, I’ll never know. If I were the TD, I’d say more power to them, they’ll now be using the kind of equipment they should be using – not to mention the reduction by one in the number of potential ILC claims to deal with later on.
As for setting the clock, it’s not the TD’s responsibility, but if I were the TD and happened to know how to set the particular clock they were using, I’d gladly help out. Kudos to TDs who know how to set every imaginable brand of clock ever manufactured, but that’s above and beyond the call of duty.
Each clock owner should, however, make himself familiar enough with setting his clock to cover situations like this.
I have no problem with players changing the clock after the starting time if both players agree. Once moves have been played on the board (at least one by each side), unless 14H is claimed, I would require that they continue with the same clock, even if both players want to switch. I think a TD opens himself up to problems by allowing a change of clocks after the first move unless the clock is defective. Some players play at different strengths with time delay than they do without.
As for having the TD set the clock, I know how to set most of them and do so when asked to. The biggest problem I have, is when someone brings a clock to me to set and I’m unfamiliar with it. I ask where the booklet is that comes with the clock and a typical answer is “I lost it” or “I left it home”. At that point I suggest that even if they have black, they use white’s clock. I feel this is a better option than allowing the game to start late while trying to figure out how to set it. I work at some big tournaments and it seems like every year there is at least one new model introduced.
There are very few cases where a USCF TD should become involved in a game without a complaint from one of the players (a suspected case of collusion, for example). Selection of equipment, before the game really begins, is NOT one of the cases, IMHO (and in this case, not a single move had been made yet). If the players both agree to use a clock with delay, the TD should leave them alone. The fact that the decision is being made after the announced start of the game isn’t all that important. FORCING them to split the time seems overly intrusive. There might be justification for insuring that ONLY the elapsed time is subtracted from the late player’s clock – player’s can’t just “agree” to play with less than the announced amount of time (8 minutes taken off the clock when only six minutes had elapsed).
The only rule I can think of is 16M. It does require splitting the time, but it’s for when equipment is not available. Could having a ‘more standard’ clock fall under that category? I doubt it… Maybe that’s what the TD was thinking, though, or thought that this case was parallel to that? Or a logic something like, “If black now doesn’t want to use the analog clock that black provided then I [TD] won’t use its display so far in considering how to set the new clock. It is like it was never there.”
(I think a ruling could go any of the ways suggested, on allowing the substitution in this case. The key mistake seems to be in calling the TD over / thinking that a TD won’t treat such as a claim or ruling request, and also in the TD thinking that he or she was being called on to make a ruling.)
Yes, in my haste to get the round started, I probably did not make myself clear enough. I was not making a claim or expecting help, I just came to the TD for help setting the clock quickly, in case help could be had, just to resume the game as fast as possible. I believe I was probably not clear enough about both it not being a claim and about it being something that both players agreed on. I believe the TD was clear that I was not demanding help.
As a clarification, the TD did not agree to allow substituting the clock if the time was split, so the splitting of the time is not what needs to be justified. The TD initially thought that I was looking for help splitting the time because both players were late, or a player was late and the other did not have equipment set up. Once the TD realized we just wanted to switch the clock on a game that had started but in which no moves had been made, that’s when the TD said this was not allowed. Again, the TD believed that this was backed by the rules, and my point of view was that it was not allowed or disallowed by the rules, and I didn’t see any harm in players agreeing to do this before a move had been made. However, since I did not believe that it was allowed or disallowed, I agreed that the TD’s decision was legal, even if I didn’t think it was fair, so I dropped the subject and went back to resume the game on the analog clock.
Sure - that’s why I suggested as a both-and, as opposed to one or the other being the “cause.” To me, it sounds like ‘process’ as opposed to ‘persons’ or ‘rules’ that were at fault.
But it is good education to me as a new Club TD, and a reminder that not every player contact requires a ruling. (And I also wonder… If the TD went ahead and helped you set the clock, does that constitute a tacit condoning of the replacement - a de facto ruling allowance of equipment replacement?)
I believe it is indeed an adiaphora - a condition neither explicitly forbidden by the rules, nor explicitly mandated. Clearly a case can be made either way. A crucial question might be: If it is not in the Rules, does one tend to say it’s permitted or prohibited? Practically, the TD might ask: Which way is more equitable and less likely to be inequitable? (Not just to that game, but to the structure of the tournament, if necessary.)
Applied philosophy!
Then again, by the new FIDE rules you could have been forfeited immediately. (Sorry for opening that can of worms!) OK, seriously, adiaphora is addressed by one rule I know of: 1A. The TD is presumed to have the judgment to rule on it. (Though I understand neither of you were directly asking for a ruling here.)
Aside from that, 1A also calls on the director to apply similar cases or analogies. So, given the exact same circumstances as described above, would it make a difference if both players wanted to replace the board from a vinyl to a wood board? To replace the pieces with a Jacques wood set instead of plastic? Or did the game begin when the clock was started, therefore rendering equipment changes disallowed? (Just thinking out loud by typing…)
