Post deleted for the sake of clarity. An unofficial summary of the 2012 USCF Delegates Meeting is available as a formatted Word doc in a recent BINFO at the Members Only Area.
The previous post may also have strikeover issues in it. (Followup: The OP has removed the full text.)
For those interested in the unofficial proceedings, see the WORD file in the BINFO system. This file will also be available in the Governance section of the website once Phil posts it.
(That document has strikeovers and bolding used to highlight text during debate. It was posted without revision in the interest of time. The official minutes, when prepared by the USCF office/Secretary will remove the stricken text and bold-face text.)
Edited to remove two short passages that were deleted (struck-through) from the motion as adopted.
So, does this mean that a DGT clock is less-preferred than a Chronos, an Excalibur Game Time or a Saitek Competition Pro for games played with increment?
The DGT “freezes” or “halts at end” by default once one player runs out of time in the ultimate time control in an increment game. There is no way to change that setting that I know of. That applies to the DGT NA, as I know first-hand. I assume it applies to other DGT clocks as well—since halt at end is required under FIDE rules for increment games.
So what happens once all FIDE-rated tournaments are required to use the FIDE LOC? (Or is this under “equipment standards” rather than part of the FIDE Laws?)
Not a big deal to me either way, but it seems we are moving farther away from FIDE rules here—not closer, which is clearly the direction in which some rules mavens want to go. Interesting.
Yes, the DGT North American is less preferred than the Excalibur, the Chronos, or the Saitek Pro for increment time controls, precisely because it can not be set to continue subtracting time from a player when the opponent oversteps the final time control.
IA Carol Jarecki (member of the rules committee) has stated in e-mail sent to the rules committee that there is no FIDE rule requiring “halt on end.” I agree insofar as I can not find any such rule in either the Laws of Chess or the Standards of Chess Equipment for FIDE Tournaments. All I can find is a reference in Testing procedure of Electronic Chess Timers:
This is especially puzzling because the text in section B of Testing procedure of Electronic Chess Timers specifically states:
I have not had a chance to experiment with a DGT 2010 clock (which has been approved by FIDE), but I am assuming based on the behavior of the DGT North American that it also halts at end in increment time controls. Color me confused …
Yes. In my opinion, the delegates made a serious error here.
On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is “halt-at-end not allowed” and 10 is “halt-at-end required”, FIDE is at a 10.
USCF’s stance ought to be at least in the 5-7 range, i.e. either neutral or mildly encouraging halt-at-end.
“Halt-at-end not allowed” seems to have grown out of “the opponent must call the flag” and “both flags down is a draw”. The latter two were originally designed largely as convenience rules, so that TDs do not need to watch time scrambles at large tournaments, nor to try to figure out which flag fell first.
Inevitably, players latched on to the convenience rules as devices to suit their own ends, e.g. to try to escape with a draw (or even a win, if checkmate or resignation occurs) after their time has expired.
Time and technology, however, have gotten to the point where all three of these rules ought to be re-examined.
Actually, “halt-at-end-permitted” or even “halt-at-end required” would still be compatible with both “opponent must call flag” and “both flags down is a draw”. The last, however, would be moot in the event the clock is set to halt-at-end.
The second part of this is halt-at-end. The first part, where the game shall continue after a flag fall except in sudden death, appears to be a reasonable concession to reality, to cover cases where the move count cannot be determined accurately.
Bill Smythe
According to the post prior to the one in which you wrote this, it is not at all clear that FIDE requires halt at end.
I think the Halt-at-the-End setting got a bad rep with the Delegates in part due to the less than eloquent manner in which opposition to this motion (ADM 12-24) was delivered. On the other hand, Ken (the sponsor of the motion) has a deserved high reputation with the Rules Committee and the Delegates.
If Bill Smythe was there at the meeting to express his doubt about the ban on Halt-at-the-End, who knows, maybe the tide would have been turned, and at least a variant would have been included for the Halt-at-the-End.
Michael Langer
Delegate - TX
The irony is that halt-at-end, or not, is almost a non-issue for games with a 30-second increment. (See below for a twist on this, though.)
It is a much bigger issue with five-second delay and bigger still with two- or three-second delay in Quick or Blitz. In those cases I think it is correct to disallow halt-at-end. I believe USCF Blitz rules already required that, before this latest rule change. (For instance, the DGT NA set to the FIDE-standard G/3, Inc-2 would not be allowed under USCF Blitz rules, since in increment mode that clock halts at end by default.)
The problem, though, is increment-capable clocks that allow a player to “un-flag.” This is not an issue on the DGT or the Chronos. I do not know about the Saitek Competition Pro.
It IS an issue with the Excalibur Game Time. On that clock, if its version of halt-at-end—I think it’s called “Claim”—is set to Off, then in increment mode a player can run out of time…the opponent does not notice…the player whose time expired presses the clock…and voila, he has time to think and move.
Yes, red lights and a flashing flag will display on the side of the clock of the player whose time ran out before he un-flagged…but is that basis for a claim? Either way, it is a sure recipe for confusion among players.
So: I think it makes sense to disallow halt-at-end for games played under delay or Bronstein. (Or if no delay/increment is used.) As long as at least one major clock line allows players to un-flag in increment mode, though, I think it would be best to at least allow increment games played with that clock to use halt-at-end.
Now for the real problem: If I showed this post and this thread to many of my chess friends and peers—some of them smarter, more experienced (at rated chess) and more tech-savvy than I—the reactions would be: shrug and log off before finishing it; blank stares; “You’re crazy”; “Digital clocks are more trouble than they are worth”; and others I cannot print here.
Worse, if I asked them to set clocks they have owned for years to either allow or disallow halt-at-end…most of them would hand the clock to me and ask me to do it.
Inaccurate. There is no “un-flagging” on a GameTime.
Absolutely it’s a basis for a claim. The red light and flag icon are perfectly clear that the player overstepped the time, even if that player continues to have a positive time balance.
The last time I played G90 + inc30, I was the guy that “flagged” with a GameTime. It was one of the first increment tournaments in Colorado so my opponent didn’t call it and the TD simply waited. It was easy for me to call my flag since I was in a losing position, but by now we’re all pretty aware of what the non-halt-at-end clocks do in an increment time control.
It would be GREAT if all those clocks halt-at-end…but the clock has other indicators that work just as well.