If a delay- or increment-capable clock is used at an event with a delay or increment time control and the delay or increment is not set, this should be handled in the same fashion as an erroneously set clock. The delay or increment should be set and each player should be given an additional amount of time equal to the delay or increment multiplied by the number of moves which have been made.
Variation 16P1a, “Delay or increment not set after move one”
If a delay- or increment-capable clock is used at an event with a delay or increment time control and the delay or increment is not set, the clock should not be adjusted after each player has made a move. Use of this variation does not need to be announced in advance.
RATIONALE:
Under the current rule there is disagreement among tournament directors about how to handle situations where the delay or increment is not set. The new rules clarify that normally the clocks should be adjusted but allow a variation in which the clocks are not adjusted.
I like the rule. I dislike the variation. There are clocks with which it is not obvious that the delay or increment has not been set until well into the time control. (These are clocks that have “three and a half digit” displays, meaning they are capable of showing a 1 (or blank) followed by three digits. These clocks do not display seconds until the time remaining is under 20 minutes.)
In any case, organizers can (and will, I’m sure, especially CCA) post variants whether or not the rule book includes a variant. Frankly, in my never humble opinion, the rule book already has far too d**n many variants.
Agreed. It happens now and then that delay is not set on a delay-capable clock for a delay time control. The examples I see are clearly player confusion, but a darker scenario is possible.
Example: Last year I played in a small G/40 tournament run by a friend. Near crunch time, the players at a nearby board discovered the DGT NA in use had not been set for delay. They stopped the clock and stared at my friend the TD for help. These were neither newbies nor geezers, btw. It was two A players: one a promising junior who is now an expert, the other a veteran adult player, well used to delay clocks—but neither could set the DGT NA on the fly, in the middle of a tense game.
The TD could not set it, either. At that time he had never set that model of clock. (Since rectified.) He turned to me for help, but I was in zeitnot, in the throes of seizing defeat from the jaws of plus-over-minus, and did not understand what he was saying.
He decided to add a few minutes to each side of the clock, to compensate the players for not having the delay set earlier. The promising junior, who had won the clock as a prize at the USATE, at least knew how to do that.
And so it goes. The “shrug; the players failed to set the clock properly, for which we have no sympathy” brigade needs to hold off for a few years yet here. Maybe for the 7th Edition…
It’s gonna happen. Here we had two players who had played plenty of rated chess with delay clocks and a competent Local TD, none of whom could set the clock on the fly. For that matter, I am not sure I could have done it if approached out of the blue near the end of a tense game with the clock running down.
These solutions are much easier sitting in front of a PC in your living room, as you play with your collection of digital clocks in between Forum posts. Not so easy in real time under the stress of tournament play—especially when trying not to disturb other games in time pressure.
Set one standard, then accept that in real time in real life TDs will do the best they can to be fair and reasonable. A printed variation that encourages TDs to shrug and do nothing is not a good idea, at least for now.
I agree. The reason why I added the variation is that when I discussed this ADM with another TD at the National Elementary Championships, he said he’d support the ADM if I added a variation allowing TDs to disallow adding the delay after the game had started. I’m not sure whether he’s a delegate.
You’re right that even without the variation being in the rulebook TDs and organizers could make their own variation under rule 1B1. Putting it in the rulebook does clarify that it doesn’t need to be announced in advance.
I like the intent of this rule a lot. One issue I have with it as it is currently written is this. Lets say a G/60;d5 game starts with a delay capable clock but the delay is not set. Each players uses three seconds for his first move and then realizes the delay is not set. According to the rule as stated above, the delay would be set and each player would get an additional 5 seconds. However, this would mean both players would have sixty minutes and two seconds on their clock but a player should never have more than sixty minutes in a G/60;d5 game.
Also, I think this rule should be expanded to include situations where the delay or increment is set incorrectly (instead of just not being set at all). At the “Quad 45” tournament I run, we expanded the delay from 5 to 10 seconds a few months ago. We announced this in the pre-tournament publicity for the tournament, told everyone about it when they registered on-site, and announced it right before the first round began. However, a kid still set his clock for 5 second delay.
Also, sometimes you see a game that is suppose to have delay being used using increment instead. How should a situation like this be handled?
I’m willing to live with the two second discrepancy for the sake of keeping the rule simple.
For a situation like that I’d rely on rule 1A: “The United States Chess Federation (USCF) presumes that its tournament directors have the competence, sound judgment, and absolute objectivity needed to arrive at fair and logical solutions to problems not specifically treated by these rules.” As a corollary to the new rule 16P1, the clock should be set to 10 second delay and 5 seconds times the number of moves made should be added to each player’s remaining time.
Again, rule 1A. I think what I’d do is to change the increment to delay without adjusting the clocks, although if a player had gained more time than he started with I’d limit him to the maximum time for that time control.
I’m sure Mr. Mark will be surprised that I have a degree of sympathy for players in this situation–to an extent. The limits of such sympathy will be discussed below.
With that introduction:
I really don’t like the variation, for the reasons Ken mentions. We have so many variations that it’s unreasonable to expect people to know what the actual rules are.
If we were to make a change, I would prefer that we adopt the language and approach in FIDE Laws of Chess 6.10, which states that the arbiter will correct the settings and use his best judgment in adjusting the clock times. While adding delay times moves may be logical early in a game, a lesser adjustment may be equitable later in the game, particularly if someone “discovers” that the delay isn’t set three hours into the game with 90 seconds to make twelve moves, even on a model that displays seconds of base time from the start and has a visible delay countdown. That happened in a tournament I directed; the player with 90 seconds owned the clock and didn’t complain until zeitnot, despite watching the clock start immediately at least five moves before asking for a fix. I turned the delay on. I did not grant extra time. Under the circumstances, that was equitable, and permissible under the FIDE language.
come to think of it, is the best judgment approach not permitted by the current language and supported by rule 1A?
If so, is this something we really need to do now? We published the sixth edition less than a year ago. Does this change need to be made so badly that we make the sixth edition less accurate and the rulebook change document even thicker? I am willing to be persuaded on this point, as it’s clear Bob has given some thought to this, and he’s much more active than I am.
Brennan, you’re right that the 1A “judgment” rule can be used to apply the remedy that I’ve proposed for the delay not being set, with or without the new rule. I can also understand the reluctance to change the 6th edition so soon after it’s been published. I’m proposing this rule in an attempt to promote more uniformity of rules interpretation among TDs, because I’ve seen disagreements among TDs about how this should be handled (e.g. at this year’s National Elementary).
No one seems to like the variation so I’ll drop it, but I’ll modify my ADM somewhat along the lines you suggested, to give the TD more flexibility in adjusting the times.
Add rule 16P1, “Delay or increment not set.”
If a delay- or increment-capable clock is used at an event with a delay or increment time control and the delay or increment is not set, this should be handled in the same fashion as an erroneously set clock. The delay or increment should be set for the remainder of the game. The director should use his or her best judgment when determining the clock settings. For example, each player may be given an additional amount of time equal to the delay or increment multiplied by the number of moves which have been made.
RATIONALE:
Under the current rule there is disagreement among tournament directors about how to handle situations where the delay or increment is not set. The new rules clarify that the delay or increment should be set for the remainder of the game, giving the director flexibility in determining whether to add additional time to the players’ clocks.
I dislike this proposed rule because I think of a scenario of the darker side of this rule.
Let’s say I purposefully (but really hard to prove that I did) set a clock for G60 without delay for a tournament of G/60 d5. Once I got a nice/winning position but severely down on time, say 10 seconds left to my opponent’s 5 minutes, I request the delay based on this proposed rule. I get my 5 seconds delay and awarded for my gamesmanship.
For these type of scenarios, I would suggest using the following rules: 16P, 1A, and heavy emphasis on 16B2c. Players are responsible for setting clock correctly.
I guess my bottomline is when is the request being made? Is it made during the beginning of the game, say first 5 moves and they noticed the delay was not turned on, or like in the above scenario given? What if in the middlegame? What if in between two time controls (e.g. time pressure in the first control to make the required amount of moves)
With the new wording of the ADM, if you as a TD believe that a player deliberately left the delay off with the intention of getting time back if it turned out that he was the one in time trouble, you have the flexibility to use your “best judgment” and not put any time back on the clock. I don’t see this ploy as being very effective, because if the opponent ended up in time trouble at some point he’d most likely notice that the delay was turned off and probably would get time back since he wasn’t the one who set the clock.
That’s the thing. I don’t want them to get any time back, have any delay turned on or any other TD intervention to save one player over another. No TD should have to do 46 moves * 5 seconds / per move = ~3 minutes 50 seconds added to both sides etc. Oh, and while the TD does that and fiddling with the clock, I’ll take more time thinking about this position. Thanks.
Just finish the game as is between the two players. Thus, my follow up questions to my scenario was when was the request being made. Also, I said it was really hard to prove I deliberately not set the delay off.
Basically here’s the part of the proposed rule I didn’t like: “The delay or increment should be set for the remainder of the game.” Not always and this lets one person to get the delay.
I understand we would like some consistency in terms of TD rulings but that is why every rule in the rulebook doesn’t cover every possible situation. At the National Elementary, that is why there is a very extensive appeal system that the players may use if they would like a different ruling. From one Floor TD to another higher certified Floor TD to Section Chief to Floor Chief to etc. etc. Also, I remember from my experiences that there are many TDs there encountering various different ruling situation for the very first time so it is a learning opportunity to both the players and TDs.
If a delay- or increment-capable clock is used at an event with a delay or increment time control and the delay or increment is not set, this should be handled in the same fashion as an erroneously set clock. The delay or increment should be set for the remainder of the game. The director should use his or her best judgment when determining the clock settings. For example, each player may be given an additional amount of time equal to the delay or increment multiplied by the number of moves which have been made. A director who believes that a player deliberately set the clock without delay or increment may decline to adjust the clock if the adjustment would benefit the player who originally set the clock.
RATIONALE:
Under the current rule there is disagreement among tournament directors about how to handle situations where the delay or increment is not set. The new rule clarifies that normally the delay or increment should be set for the remainder of the game, giving the director flexibility in determining whether to adjust the clocks and add additional time to the players’ clocks.
“But the TD set our clock that I borrowed from a friend - thus I don’t know how to set the clock and I didn’t deliberately not set the delay off since the TD did it…”
but this player happens to read the rulebook cover-to-cover and knows this rule and gets delay/increment added.
Bob, the phrase “The delay or increment should be set for the remainder of the game.” is still in the proposed rule. <------ the part I really dislike because it limits what the TD can do in such a situation of an erroneous set clock. It forces the TD to have to turn on the delay because it is really difficult to prove that it was deliberately not properly set.
~25 TDs + 4 TDs in the backroom at the National Elementary out of the 2112 USCF TDs in total doesn’t seem apparent that there are many “disagreements” on how to rule on this. Was there really 29 different ways the other TDs would rule on this?
I can think of only two - delay/increment on; delay/increment off. My difference between when I would use “on” or “off” is when the request is being made. Thus, I would use 16P Errorneously set clocks as is [+16O if needed], 16B2c. Players are responsible for setting clock correctly + 1A scope - I don’t need additional rules to back my ruling as it only further restricts my discretionary powers as a TD.
Brian, if you don’t like the ADM as currently worded I suggest that you vote against it if you’re at the delegates meeting. It seems to me, though, that there is enough flexibility in it that you can continue to make rulings the way you want whether or not it passes.
Bob, I appreciate your willingness to adopt the FLC wording.
I appreciate the desire to give guidance, and for timely observation of something not being right, the guidance you give is difficult to argue against. Early notice is probably more likely to occur in an event using the FLC, where the arbiters are expected to intervene if they see something wrong.
In a culture where TD intervention is discouraged or prohibited absent an appeal, we’re more likely to encounter a situation where equity requires a remedy less extensive than awarding moves times delay or increment as additional time. Having flexibility in such situations is good, even if it leads to floor debates at large events sometimes.
Your amendment gives a standard and provides flexibility, AND does so without enumerating variations. It’s worthy of support, presuming one’s threshold for amending recently published rulebooks is reached. (And even if mine isn’t reached, the Delegates’ will be, I’m sure).
Have had this situation happen in several tournaments. Clock improperly set. Didn’t matter whether it was accidental or deliberate. If the clock was not on delay during moves 1 to 20, added 2 minutes and set clock for delay for the rest of the game. If the clock was not set on delay for more than 20 moves, added 3 minutes and set it for delay to continue. You can multiply the number of moves times 5 seconds and reset if you wish to be absolutely, perfectly accurate, but the method used is simpler and faster to do. Neither side is given any special advantage. Much of the language of 16P in the present Rulebook reads much like a TD tip. More than half of the rule is TD tips.
I guess I can’t wrap my head around the idea of adding more time for some the players be responsible in the first place ie setting the clock properly. Also, I find changing the game format between two players is something a TD should not be doing - whether it is adding more time or turning on increment/delay feature (which depends when the request was made). Other TDs have said “chess is a game between two players,” so less TD possible intervention the better, in my opinion.
If my ADM passes and you really don’t like 16P1 you can post a rules variation saying that no adjustments will be made after move one if the delay or increment isn’t set. I was going to make that a variation in the rulebook but was persuaded not to.
so it is a learning opportunity to both the players and TDs.