Hi everyone. I am a national master and I am playing in a key league game tonight for the championship. My suspected opponent has a habit of showing up late. I have an analog clock available and my question is after I make the first move as white with my analog clock and he shows up late, can he substitute my analog clock for a digital clock? If he can, is it considered a draw offer as similar to a substitution under insufficient losing chances rule? Please help clarify my question and thanks for your time.
Hi Andrew,
A rule was passed a year or two ago to allow an opponent who arrives late to substitute a digital clock for an analog clock as long as he does it before he makes his first move. This is not considered to be a draw offer.
Bold face for emphasis.
No draw claim is being made here (rule 14 below). A 14H claim (ILC) can’t even be made until there are only two minutes left on the analog clock (see rule 14H in the rulebook), which is not happening here. So, a 14H claim is not possible; therefore, the draw offer is not being made via the claim.
42D. Delay clock preferable in sudden death.
A properly set clock with time delay or increment capability is preferable to any other clock in a game with any sudden death time control. Therefore, if White has such a clock available and Black does not, White’s clock should be used. If either player arrives late for the start of the game, and a clock without time delay or increment has already been started, the player has the right to furnish and substitute a properly set time-delay or increment clock, prior to the determination of Black’s first move. The player substituting the time-delay or increment clock must also transfer the elapsed times shown on the non-delay clock to the delay or increment clock, without any additional adjustments (except to correct any errors in the display of the elapsed time). The player substituting the delay or increment clock must have arrived at the board before the grace period for forfeit loss of the game by non-appearance (13D) has expired. Notwithstanding the above, the only occasions where Black retains the right to use his/her non-time-delay clock are in games with no sudden death time control, in cases where both players have the same type of non-time-delay clock, or if the delay mode were not being used in a sudden death time control game, and if, in all these cases, Black has arrived in time for the start of the game (or if White is late, before White has arrived). In any particular game, if the delay clock cannot be properly set, then the opponent of the player providing the delay or increment clock may choose which legal clock is to be used (5F).
- The Drawn Game
All draw claims are also draw offers (14B). The player by making any draw claim (for example: triple occurrence of position (14C), insufficient material to continue (14D), insufficient material to win on time (14E), the 50-move rule (14F), both flags down in sudden death (14G), insufficient losing chances (14H), …) is also making an implied offer of a draw to the opponent. If the opponent accepts the implied draw offer, the game is over.
Yes, but digital-for-analog clock substitution at start of game was intended to be a standard variation—not the main rule. The sponsor of the relevant ADM said as much. For some reason, the precise wording of what the Delegates approved compelled the people tasked with updating the Rules Update doc to frame it as though it is in fact the standard rule. I assume the 6th Edition maintains that policy.
The question remains as to why a player, especially a strong one, would prefer to use an analog clock for a Regular-rated game that ends in SD.
An analog clock is still better than no clock at all. I have seen too many instances of players who don’t know enough about their clocks to set them properly at the start of the game, much less setting them to account for the already elapsed time.
Andrew,
Absent an unusual DC Chess League variation of which I am not aware (I am neither a DCCL participant nor a director, but I do know DCCL has some variations), the prior posts are correct. Late arrival does not preclude the substitution of a standard clock (with delay) upon the arrival of the late player. Such a substitution is not a draw offer.
I value your patronage in area events, mine included. But I would be doing you a disservice by not encouraging you to purchase and use a standard clock in the strongest possible terms (clocks with delay capability have been standard for at least two decades now).
Yes, the 6th edition maintains the policy passed by the Delegates. What the Delegates intended and what they passed are not always the same thing. The maker of the motion intended it as a variation; however, the wording of the motion passed made the motion a substitution for the main rule, not a variation. --sigh?!
This is not the only instance when a rule gets passed expressing idea A, but has wording that needs to be reviewed and coordinated with other rules plus proper rules references (See Also…). That happens in part because the wording of rules gets changed on the fly on the floor of a Delegate’s meeting. Perhaps some consideration of having all rules changes passed by the Delegates reviewed for proper wording/references might be in order. Further, any wording change in rule A should also be reflected in other rules affected by the new wording.
Wouldn’t it be great if all rules changes (others?) had to have final wording agreed to at the relevant workshop, and the delegates had to vote it either up or down? Kind of like trade promotion authority in the senate.
Alex Relyea
Now that we no longer have the Delegates as the Board of Directors, that means a number of procedural rules could be revised without running afoul of Illinois law.
For example, Bylaws and Rules changes could be initially passed as ‘sense of the Delegates’ motions, and handed over to drafting committees for final wording. Then that could be submitted back to the Delegates for a mail/email vote for final passage, with the only options being ‘Approve’ or Disapprove’, the latter being an automatic referral to the Delegates in the next year (and affected committees.)
If you would be doing him a disservice by not mentioning this, doesn’t the USCF introduction to chess tournaments:
uschess.org/docs/forms/Intro … aments.pdf
also do a disservice by not mentioning this?
Bob
This little gem from the same is also quaintly anachronistic:
The disservice has less to do with the content of the document than it does with its decades-long staleness.
Well, I’m happy it got to be the main rule, even if some sneakiness may have been perpetrated to get it that way. That ought to have been the main rule right from the beginning.
Bill Smythe
Have you ever read the USCF Rules book?
Unsure if this is serious or a friendly jab, as Mr. Chrisney played in the same Open section on 5/2/2014 as Mr. Tichenor.
A very questionable rule change, I might add. A player who is late to the match should forfeit any such
right to a clock substitution. There are many who do prefer to play with analog clocks, and their preference should be honored. A clear message should be sent-being on time is important, and
respectful. Yes, I am an oldtimer. And, actually, I think for my events, I will publicize an exception
to this rule, that those late lose the right to make such substitutions.
Rob Jones
While I think digital clocks should be preferred over analog by rule, I tend to agree with Rob that a player who is late should forfeit any right of choice.
I certainly agree with this thought. There are some events that have even taken the step to forfeit
players not present at the start of the match. While I do think this may be draconian, it certainly
does place an emphasis on being on time. Players not showing up is a concern for all of us who
try to respect the desires of those who are punctual. And it does seem to me that proper respect
for those who are punctual starts with allowing the punctual player’s choice of clocks.
Rob Jones
Just to clarify, would the late player also have to play on the Renaissance set that is on the board, or on a set with yellow and white squared board and pink and blue pieces? I think the reason for the clock substitution is that the digital clock is considered to be the most standard clock to use. As a TD, I would rather they use the digital clock then see this late game devolve into a loud, clock bashing mess later on.
For the civilized player, the “devolving into a loud clock bashing mess later on” does not happen. Now
I do, of course realize that not all players are at this point civilized, but, it also must be pointed out
that many do play with respectful behavior a well. Pressing a clock gently as they were meant to be
pressed, is the method used by these gentlemen and ladies. Alas, I do cherish a time passed, it seems
long ago. Perhaps this was when the “good ole days” existed??
A second point, for your clarification, first, at tournaments that I organize and direct, I provide the
boards. At a the bulk of the others that I merely direct, either the boards are provided by either
the organizer, or myself. I do take steps to ensure USCF standard boards are used, of which yellow
and white squared boards do not comply, as well as the pink and blue pieces. Besides neither the
board nor the pieces conforming to the standards set by USCF, they are what most of the civilized
world would regard as an eyesore. Thus, such a set would never see the light of day in an event
I direct.
Rob Jones
Rob Jones