This is an incorrect statement.
Are you sure the Saitek Competition Pro allows halt-at-end to be turned off?
Bill Smythe
Not the first time you told me this. Could you please provide some examples? I don’t mean USCF-rated events in the USA that use delay but are also FIDE-rated. I mean either FIDE-sponsored tournaments and matches, or international-level events held outside the USA.
I would be happy to hear if there are such events. The more I play increment the more I think it is the future—but Bronstein had a point that players should not get ‘extra’ thinking time they did not earn. Each has its merits.
No; that’s a good question. I thought the new rule only affected DGT clocks. Maybe I was wrong. I do not own a Saitek Competition Pro, but I do have a blue scholastic Saitek Competition clock—somewhere. Will check on that…
I just checked my Saitek Competition Pro and I cannot find any option or way to change the halt-at-end status either on or off.
In the Excalibur and the Chronos there is an option to do this.
The ZMF-II also has increment available and as with the DGT and Saitek models does not have an option to stop the halt-at-end process.
You are right about the Saitek. Even though I own a blue Competition clock, I seldom use it, thus did not consider the effect the new rule has on Saitek owners.
OK, you convinced me. The rule should be scrapped. As it stands, in delay games either player—even if White—can insist on using a Chronos, Excalibur or DGT NA over a Saitek Competition (either one) or—if Ron is correct, and I do not doubt him—the ZMF-II. I leave the DGT 2010 out of this for now, as I am not sure if it halts-at-end in Bronstein mode. (I would guess yes—which would make it less preferred.)
For increment games, it seems the Chronos and Excalibur are preferred over all other brands. My previous list that included the Saitek Pro as preferred was mistaken.
I see lots of blue Saiteks out there…Did anyone announce at SN that the blue Saitek is less preferred than a few other clocks for delay-control games? That would have been fun.
Laudable idea. Too many practical issues: mainly that clock manufacturers had no standards to guide their work, so they went several different directions.
Too much trouble.
Now you’ve changed / clarified your question to be FIDE sponsored tournaments and matches or international level events outside the US. There’s a world of difference there from your original statement of ‘FIDE doesn’t use delay’.
FIDE doesn’t use delay, at least not in the last decade that I know of, for official events. Why would they use an inferior time mechanism over a superior one (increment)?
Players and organizers in the US hold on to antiquated mechanisms - delay and analog clocks. Hopefully in my lifetime the analog clock will completely go away. I doubt that will happen with delay unfortunately.
I have been publishing a list of club rules to help address common questions and situations. If I have something like this:
Clocks with the ability for delay or increment are preferred over clocks that do not have this feature. In sudden death time controls, this means that if Black has an analog clock (or a clock without the appropriate delay/increment feature), and White has a clock with the appropriate feature, White’s clock should be used [42D].Is that sufficient to “overrule” the current USCF complicated scheme of what digital clock is preferred in which scenario? Not that I imagine any club members complaining over what digital clock to use (not just because few know/care about the preferred use, but because they have to play against each other all the time), but I’d like to follow the right procedure when possible.
Some in the USCF desire to move its rules closer to FIDE. Important distinction.
Others feel FIDE shouldn’t be in the business of endorsing “official clocks,” and/or that FIDE should respect the rules variations of its members.
Show me where it says that FIDE does not respect the rules variations of its member federations?
Your note on clock preference is helpful and correct—as far as it goes. The issue here is the new rule (passed last year by the Delegates, that took effect this year) that a clock which can be set not to freeze or halt-at-end when one player flags is preferred to a clock which cannot be set that way.
The note in the club rules memo you cite does not address that point; there was no reason to do so before this year.
This rule is consistent with the concept that only players may call flag-fall. (Not TDs, teammates, spectators, etc.) The counter-argument—that a clock is impartial, unlike an interfering human—was expressed in the 4th Edition Rulebook and vaguely supported by “should” language in the original wording of the 5th Edition. (Plus it’s how online server chess works.)
The problem is that the halt-at-end setting cannot be changed on several popular digital clocks. Chronos and Excalibur provide an option to enable or disable this function; other clocks do not.
That makes some clocks less preferred in some modes than other clocks—which were equally preferred up till this year. As soon as I read the rule last summer, I thought of the DGT NA: a clock I had recently acquired at the time. That clock cannot be set to not halt-at-end in increment mode. (Though it does not halt-at-end in delay mode—which makes it “most preferred” for delay games and “less preferred” for increment games…)
It turns out the DGT is not the only line of clocks affected. This makes things too confusing, IMO. I now believe this rule should be rescinded, though its intent might work as a guide for digital clock standards of the future.
Now try summarizing all that in a club rules memo…good luck.
Number 1 is key. So, as of Monday, is it true that all FIDE-rated events in the USA must follow the FIDE LOC, including flag-fall protocol?
That’s the one area I see as a quagmire in the making. You can bemoan that Swisses in the USA are not sufficiently staffed and that some TD/arbiters are not properly trained. You might be right.
Still, if arbiters are required to call flag-fall when they see it, at some point you will have a tournament in which a flag-fall is called on board x because an arbiter sees it, while flag-fall on board y is not called, because no one sees it. (Time scramble in a delay-based SD control, plus no arbiter watching, due to minimal staffing.)
It won’t happen often, probably, but it will happen at some point. Not good. Of course, if all such events use 30-second increment, that pretty much fixes that problem.
Will be fun to see how this goes.
July 1, 2014 is when all FIDE-rated events in the USA must follow the FIDE Laws of Chess.
Thanks. Did that get pushed back a year at some point?
Originally it was to be July 1, 2013 when the new Laws of Chess and various other regulations were to be updated at the Istanbul Congress. During the FIDE Presidential Board meeting some changes were added outside of the review of the Rules & Tournament Regulations Commission and it was decided to review these at the Tallin Congress this fall with implementation July 1, 2014.
In case you or others are wondering where the July 1 date comes from, its based on the majority of leagues that play in Europe and Asia which runs from January thru June. The concept was to have rules changes take affect after the league season had ended to give time for arbiters and players to become aware of the new rules.
Thanks, Sevan: good info I did not know.
So, why is the U.S. Open not FIDE-rated this year, then?
I’m guessing (a) the USCF didn’t want to pay the rating fee, (b) spend the time getting everything in order to submit to FIDE (making sure everyone has ID’s, Krause format for submission), (c) things were unsure regarding the licensing of players, and (d) having to get the TD’s familiar with FIDE rules. Probably importance is reverse order of what I listed.
If I had to guess, I’d say [c] was probably the most significant by far.
Well, let’s start here…
#3. If the member federation’s rules variation(s), “are not valid for any FIDE match, championship or qualifying event, or for a FIDE title or rating tournament,” what business is it of FIDE’s whether the member federation’s rules conflict with the FIDE Laws of Chess, or not?
If the preface were rewritten to say, “Member federations may establish their own rules variations, but a FIDE rated match (etc,) must use the FIDE Official Laws of Chess,” not disrespectful. Still moreso might be, “While rated FIDE play requires following the FIDE Laws of Chess, unaltered, member federations are free to establish different rules for play not directly sanctioned or rated by FIDE.”
As written, however, no clear respect that member federations may have and use their own rules outside of the context of FIDE rated play. Instead an implication (or more) that a member federation’s rules cannot ever conflict with the FIDE Laws of Chess, period.
Disrespectful? That’s a stretch… Can it be more optimally worded? Yeah probably. I can’t find in my email the updates to the Laws to see if the Preface was changed or not. If not, I’ll discuss it with the rest of the RTRC.