At any rate, thankfully the rules disagree with the “good ol’ days.”
Krush v Zatonskih, 2008. Even civilized players can all too easily become clock bashing monkeys.
As a TD I find the rule change preferable. Note that I do not announce different total time settings for delay versus non-delay game.
The one thing I’d be willing to entertain is a revision to only apply the swap-ability for Sudden Death time controls with an amount greater than zero for delay and/or increment, and even then only if 5E and 5F are changed to say that analog and digital clocks are equally standard in sudden death games with no delay or increment. I’d still be hesitant to actually vote for it because I’m not sure what will be done in the future with time controls (voting for such a standard equipment rules change regarding SD with no delay, in the pre-increment days, would have caused problems once increment controls without delay came into being).
Jeff, You do realize of course, that your position could be interpreted as a reward for the improper
behavior of showing up late. Is this what you would wish to encourage?? Is prompt attendance not
a priority?? I guess this is where the decision lies, then, and that is the decision of what the greater
priorities are.
Rob Jones
If prompt attendance is that big of a priority to you, you should use the FIDE no-tolerance policy and forfeit anyone who isn’t at the board when you start the round!
But if you’re willing to allow people to show up to the board late (possibly for reasons beyond their control), then you should also be willing to allow them to start the game with equipment that best meets the standard. Having standard equipment is for everyone’s benefit, including players on other boards who might be affected by a time scramble on another board when it comes time to pair a later round or hand out prizes, though players with analog clocks might argue otherwise.
Again, I do believe the incidents of clock pounding to be over-stated as justification for the digital
argument. My personal inventory includes only digital clocks. However, I do respect those with
differing opinions. You have expressed your opinion, which of course, you are entitled to. My point
is that many of us do believe that the delegates have erred in several major rules changes, and this
is one of them. And thus, we continue to use perhaps an older definition of the word standard. Just
as we respect the opinion of the digital crowd, we have the right to expect that our opinions be
tolerated as well, at least in the tournaments we host. And, certainly, I have met many
with analog clocks who certainly would argue the point. (You are indeed correct here.) The point
made, is not that they are right or wrong, but is the ensuing argument worth the disruption??
A last point, those delegates who expect changes made suit their “whims” about the way things should be should also expect to see additional exceptions made so that the events run but others
are run the way they deem proper.
Rob Jones
What happened to the Rob Jones who has argued at length in other threads that hewing to standards on a nationwide basis is good for the USCF, even if local organizers or TDs don’t like those standards?
With proper notification that such swapping will not be done, a local organizer could make that variation (see 1B1 and 1B2).
I wouldn’t vary, but as long as 1B1 and 1B2 exist I’m not going to prevent others from varying.
Mike the standard is USCF. Twisting again, I see. I have always argued that the
local USCF organizer has the right to do his own thing. As long as it is USCF.
Rob Jones