Saitek Clocks

All Things Chess
21

Agreed. (Bill Smythe is my digital clock sensei.) However, note that as of this year the DGT NA—maybe all DGT clocks—are less preferred than other digital clocks for USCF-rated games that use increment as part of the time control.

That’s because the DGT NA cannot be set to not halt-at-end or freeze when one player flags in an increment time control. There was a thread on this a few months ago. Not sure how much practical impact that will have, especially for games that use 30-second increment, but it’s something to consider.

Also agree that DGT implements increment correctly, adding time before the first move/clock press. Why Chronos does not so do is puzzling–especially since it ‘does’ add the time before the first move in Bronstein/adagio mode.

P.S. Most importantly: You can almost certainly find a better deal online than at USCF Sales. There have been threads on that, too.

22

Well, I own and use all of these clocks.

I bought a dozen blue Saiteks from American Chess Equipment a couple of years ago and use them with the scholastic club I run. They do hold up well.

I also have a silver or black Competition Pro Saitek that does have more timing features than the blue one.

The problem with Saitek is that the company has said it is going to stop making clocks, at least all but the blue ones. And the blue ones are harder to get. I paid a lot less for mine, two years ago, than anyone would pay now.

I also have a few Chronos clocks and I heartily agree they are the best. The little GX does a fine job, as well.

The DGT North American is alright and I can see using if for scholastics, however there is better or just as good at a far better price.

We, including me, seem to forget or discount the Excalibur GameTime II. We use the Excalibur clocks in our chess club and another fellow in Peoria uses them for his scholastic club. These clocks hold up just fine. For scholastic purposes they have not worn down or out. In our club, they get quite a beating treatment and they all have held up for a few years now with no problems.

Shelby, who bought American Chess Equipment from Dewain Barber, has continued a lot of Dewain’s equipment offerings and the Excalibur is certainly one of them. At just under $27 for a single clock with discounts coming for volume, the price for the quality product can’t be beat.

A few months ago, a guy I have kind of mentored for that last 5 or so years, wanted to make a purchase of 10 clocks for his local scholastic club that was just starting. I directed him to Am Chess Eq and he was very pleased with the price and the product is doing very well for them. The Excalibur is kind of a sleeper of chess clocks. Now that I think of it, this was the first available delay clock back in 1996. I remember buying my first one from the USCF bookstore about this time of year from them. It was a few years later, for me, that the Chronos came around as the one to have.

By the way, the Excalibur GameTime II does have increment as well as delay.

23

Has anyone had a chance to test ZMF clocks?

How are those fare against Chronos for example?

24

I recently acquired a ZMF-II clock.

The display is an LED compared to LCD which all the other clocks discussed have. It flashes between the delay time and regular time when in use. That’s a bit strange. The move counter is also kind of strange the way it displays.

The clock does have a nice feature that the DGT and Saitek clocks do not. It shows the complete time left, including seconds when the total time is under 60 minutes. The DGT and Saitek models only show the seconds when the time is under 20 minutes.

Setting the clock is not so hard, it just takes a bit of time getting adjusted to it. One shortfall of this clock is when we press the center button to pause the game, pressing that center button only once more resets the clock back to the beginning time. With the Chronos it takes more than only 2 short presses of the center button to reset the time, except when it is in a pure blitz mode.

The “buttons” are the touch sensor variety exactly like the Chronos touch sensor models and works the same as well.

The ZMF-II is not one I care to use in G/80, d/5 or longer times when the Chronos II (either button or touch model) or the Chronos GX all do a much better job at that.

I have put the ZMF-II with my HOS Championship series chess set and a silicone board for my G/30 - G’45 play.

For what it’s worth, I have a Chronos II button and a Chronos II touch clock that go together when I am going to play G/70 with either delay or increment. I use the touch model when the game is slower and quiet is desired. I have a Chronos GX that goes with my 1950 Dubrovnik set and vinyl roll-up board (my favorite set by the way, as it was Bobby Fischer’s) for G/60 and up, with either delay or increment. I also have a Chronos II button clock with the bare aluminum as the finish accompanying my HOS Liberty series chess set with a silicone board for Blitz and skittles in most all indoor situations.

i also have a DGT North American clock that goes with a Cavalier plastic set and silicone board from Am Chess Eq for blitz and skittles of the, perhaps rougher variety. I also have a DGT 2010 Limited Edition in red with black trim going along with a HOS plastic Collector Series 3.75" set with a silicone board for Blitz and Quick play when I’m in the mood. The problem with the DGT clocks, for me, is the rocker arm doesn’t show who is on the move as nicely as the Chronos, Saitek, Excalibur or ZMF-II clocks.

I have my Saitek Competition Pro III going with a HOS Zagreb '59 Rosewood set with a leather roll-up board for playing, pretty much all the time, at Barnes and Noble and at Starbucks. The green LEDs on the Saitek clock and the green of the leather board (House of Aragon) with the Rosewood set looks really cool on the B&N green tables.

I also have and Excalibur GameTime II for use in shorter events, but I find I don’t use it much, I must confess, when the others are available.

I also just got a DGT 960 in Black with Red trim (can you tell I like the color red?!?) and it goes in a little bag with a HOS plastic Marshall 2.875" set for when I’m out to eat with a chess playing friend at a Bob Evans or Perkins. We can play chess while eating.

If I would be limited to only one clock, it would be a Chronos II button model. If I needed to not spend that much money I would get either an Excalibur GameTime II or maybe a ZMF-II. The ZMF-II isn’t as nice with its move counter and the flashing numbers during the delay time is, well different. Yes, if I wanted to get only one clock and not spend more on a Chronos, the Excalibur would be the one.

25

Most players have the disease of time - not managing their cock time. You have a variant of this - you have too many clocks to manage :wink:

26

…and you know Sevan that a decent part, 3 or 4 clocks, is because of you…

27

Yeah, yeah always blame the dealer :mrgreen:

28

That’s probably because they were off the market for a while.

29

That’s probably because “straight” delay came first, then Chronos added Bronstein just so it could have that too. To make Bronstein mathematically equivalent to “straight” delay, you have to add the delay time to each side at the start of the game in Bronstein mode.

I suppose there ought to be such a thing as “straight” increment, but nobody does that as far as I know. “Straight” increment would work like “straight” delay, in that the increment time (say, 30 seconds) would have its own separate area of the display. The difference would be that, if you use less than 30 seconds (say, 22 seconds), the extra time (8 seconds) would then be added to your main time when you pressed your clock.

Then, to make “straight” increment mathematically equivalent to “regular” increment, you’d obviously have to add the increment time to each side at the start of the game, just as Chronos Bronstein does.

Bill Smythe

30

It is my fervent hope that this extremely ill-advised USCF rule change will be rescinded soon. It puts players, organizers, and clock manufacturers in the uncomfortable position of not having a clock that is preferred by both USCF and FIDE rules.

I can see USCF “going its own way” in some areas, but this one is simply arbitrary, contentious, and unnecessary.

Bill Smythe

31

In Vancouver, I argued against this rule first at the Rules workshop, but was the only dissenting vote, and then on the floor of the Delegates meeting, where again I was the only one speaking against it vs. more than a handful who spoke for it, with a clear message that this is how we, Americans, like it. I objected to passing it by acclamation and forced the vote. There might have been one or two delegated besides me who voted no. I wanted to at least retain “halt-at-end” option as a variant, so it wouldn’t be as hard to use for the tournaments and clubs who prefer it. Granted, my speech on the floor was in no way succinct, but rather rambling. I was actually heckled off the floor with the Chair’s silent approval. Clearly, the effort to rescind this rule needs a much better spokesman.

Michael Langer
Delegate - TX

32

It would seem that putting so many people out, would merit some deeper consideration concerning the rule. If it is deemed necessary (no thought on that) at least it should have a much longer Grace period. There must be away to set the clocks players already own to compensate. I can see where it would be a problem to someone who just spent 50/100 dollars on a clock and the rule changes. I agree with Bill Smythe on this one.
Harry.

33

I am the author of the rule change in question.

For clarity, here is the text of the revised rule 16B:

Note that I specifically had the DGT North American (and DGT 2010, a FIDE approved clock) in mind when I crafted wording of rule 16B2b. Allow me to emphasize the following: There is no reason a DGT North American clock can not be used for a game with an increment time control. The DGT North American does meet the requirements of the rule. Rule 16B2b states “If possible, …” (emphasis mine). That the clock is “less preferred” simply means that if an opponent has an increment-capable digital clock which can be set not to “halt at end” and wishes to use that clock for the game, that clock takes priority and must be used.

Regrettably, it is sometimes easier to jump to dramatic conclusions (“oh my, how terrible, woe is me, I spent $50 for this clock and can’t use it”) than to carefully read what the rules actually state.

34

We’re drifting off-topic, but since the OP chimed in on this side-issue:

I cannot speak for others but I did not jump to any dramatic conclusions. I never read the rule as a ban on DGT clocks for increment games; the “less preferred” status seems pretty clear. For the few months I owned a DGT NA I did not feel I was being unfairly treated, if I wanted to use it for increment play.

A good question, as usual with rule changes and digital clock issues in particular: How many players know about the new rule, and has the issue ever arisen in real-life since the change took effect?

It would have very little or no impact on a game with 30-second increment in use. For Blitz games, “clocks must continue to run” has been the rule since the last set of changes took effect. (If not before.) For games that use delay rather than increment, it’s moot—as the DGT NA continues to run/does not halt-at-end in delay mode.

So: This one particular model of clock got caught up in the rule change—maybe better to say “clarification,” since there was no clear standard before—based on games (30-second increment) in which the rule has close to zero effect. This since the clock was specifically designed to be “American” in delay mode, and “FIDE/International” in increment mode.

The cases in which a player has Black in an increment time control, shows up on time with a DGT NA, and White insists on using a Chronos or Game Time instead—since White knows the rule, and also knows the quirks of the DGT NA…what year do you figure this will happen the first time?

Still, when it does happen, I will understand where Black is coming from, if he objects. Pretty good bet he will not know the rule.

35

Just for the record, my objection to this rule in Vancouver had to do with being able to set Chronos clocks to “Halt-at-End”. I wasn’t aware at the time, that this setting is hardcoded on DGT clocks.

Michael Langer
Delegate - TX

36

Just curious. Where is the official list that has the order of digital clock preferences?

37

There is no such list, I reckon. Also, as far as I know all delay-capable digital clocks are equally preferred for games played using delay time controls. (A possible exception: If it is posted/announced that straight delay is preferred to Bronstein, the DGT 2010 is less preferred, since it only does Bronstein.)

Increment games is where the fun starts. Three clocks are less preferred, that I know of: DGT NA and DGT 2010 cannot be set not to halt-at-end in increment mode; while the Saitek blue Competition does not support increment at all.

So, for increment games I would say: (Please correct me if this is wrong, wise ones.)

PREFERRED status:

Chronos (all models)
Excalibur Game Time
Saitek Competition Pro

LESS PREFERRED status:

DGT 2010
DGT NA

STILL LESS PREFERRED status:

Saitek blue Competition (though the delay can be set to the increment time as a last resort, if no increment-capable clock is available)

LEAST PREFERRED:

Analogs

38

When I’m running tournaments with increment controls, I require clocks that can’t be set with increment to be treated as analogs. This also includes some very old Chronos.

Alex Relyea

39

I have always wondered if there was an official list or were we only going by an ad hoc formulation. If there is no “official” list, then if Black shows up with a digital clock with increment/delay and White shows up with a Chronos, then Black should still get clock preference. If Black show up first and is set up to go, I see no reason to change clocks as there is no codified list to guide TDs. We have had a couple of arguments about this. I ruled in favor of Black who had a DGT NA when White showed up with a Chronos. We were using delay. In another instance, Black had a Gametimer II and White had a Chronos. White showed up late and insisted his clock be used. Ruled against him based on the equality of clocks and that Black was already set up and clock running. Would have ruled differently if Black had an analog clock.

40

I do not understand the protest in either case you cite, Tom. What made the White players think their Chronos was more preferred—especially the one who showed up late?

For delay games, nothing has changed. For increment games, the new rule that a clock which can be set to not freeze or halt-at-end is preferred relegates the DGT line of clocks to less-preferred status, as they cannot be set that way in increment mode.

So, in the first case you cite—where Black had a DGT NA—you could (should) rule in favor of White if it’s an increment game as opposed to delay. That’s clear if White shows up on time. It’s less clear to me if White is late, Black has a DGT clock set up and running and White insists on swapping in his Chronos. Ken?

It’s logic only a chess-player could love.

Some USCF Rules mavens want to move closer to meshing USCF rules with the FIDE Laws of Chess. FIDE uses only increment, not delay. DGT is the official clock of FIDE. (if only de facto)

Now the official clock of FIDE, which endorses increment, is less preferred for increment games in USCF—which is trying to move its rules closer to FIDE’s.

H.G. Wells had a point.