I noticed in some of these posts that the move counter on the clock was mentioned. What does the move counting mechanism have to do with the result of the game? Doesn’t an accurate scoresheet decide the result? I rather liked the logic behind getting to see the first move before arriving and preparing. Would it be cheating to be at the board and simply walk away to study after white moved? In my humble opinion, it would be and by extension it would render the person with the surreptitious view a cheater as well.
All sorts of characters play chess. I got the privilege of watching two players compete in a tournament game where all 32 units were from unique sets. The men were different sizes, compositions, and colors. I don’t recall the result of this game but talk about disconcerting! Once, I presented my opponent with a wooden set where the board was the box. To my surprise, he agreed to play on the thing. It was my first time ever playing a tournament game on such a set and it was my last! Even though I won the game, I could not get rid of this set fast enough.
The dirty set mentioned earlier may have been a psychological ploy or it may have been the opponent’s “lucky” set. It is doubtful that the issue is one of not being able to afford a nicer set. I have seen several sets of this type at the World Open where entry fees run into the hundreds of dollars. Lively discussion!
Some clocks are set to automatically add time when it reaches the number of moves for the time periods. If the move counter gets off, this can lead to confusion later on. Most problems of these types are caused on the 1st move rather than by double presses later on.
There was a spectacular example of this at the 2011 US Amateur Team East on the first board in the last round. The winner of the tournament was decided essentially because a player had relied on an incorrect “move counter” (more properly, “clock press counter”) to decide when the first time control had been met. The clock in question was a Chronos. Black was late, and White had (incorrectly) started Black’s clock without first making a move. (Of course, the correct procedure is for White to start his own clock, make his move, and then press the clock.) When Black arrived at the board, he immediately pressed the clock to start White’s clock. However, the clock counted that press as a “move.” After 39 actual moves, the clock added the time for the second time control to Black’s clock. Black had been in severe time pressure and had stopped recording moves. When Black saw the additional time, he assumed he had completed the time control and left the board for a much-needed break. While Black was absent, White completed his 40th move and pressed the clock. When Black’s clock showed less than one hour remaining (the time control being 40/120 SD/60 d/5), White claimed that Black had overstepped the time limit. White had a scoresheet that supported the claim, and the director awarded the win to White. (There was an appeal to the chief TD, who upheld the ruling.)
This points out an inherent problem with virtually every clock on the market. There is usually no easy way to look at a clock and determine that the move counter and time control are both set properly.
Interesting. I would have been reluctant to uphold the ruling since White improperly started Black’s clock and caused the problem, and illegally ran off Black’s time.
Technically, you’re right that White did not start the game correctly. On the other hand, had White made his first move properly, he could have done so within the five second delay. At worst, White would probably have used only a few seconds of his base time making the first move.
As a hypothetical, what if either player had made an illegal move and the opponent immediately pressed the clock without moving to cause the player to correct the illegal move on his own time? In that case, both players’ “move counter” would have been off by one move. Suppose neither player had thought to correct the move counter, or to ask a TD to do so. (In fact, suppose the illegal move had happened while Black was in time pressure.) Would you then have disallowed the claim?
The hypothetical drifts. I played in a Carol Jarecki tournament a few years ago, and at the beginning of each round she would announce that if the player of the Black pieces was not at the board, White was to start his own clock, play a move, and only then start Black’s clock. Wise lady. The announcement took 5-10 seconds. Here, that simple procedure was not adhered to and the time was taken off Black’s clock contrary to the rules. One can take the view that Black should not be rewarded for being tardy, and I would agree, but the rule deals with the problem. It has the added benefit of preserving the move count. It seems a sensible approach. If White can just start Black’s clock without penalty, then there is no rule, and the move count will be thrown off. As for what to do about the violation, simply return Black’s time. (This, of course, may potentially screw up the organizer’s/TD’s schedule. So, ensure the rule is adhered to…Carol’s announcement.)
Both the hypothetical and the 2011 USATE situation are cases in which the players fail to use the move counter properly and correct obvious defects. I have little sympathy if a player suffers the consequences of such failures.
What I have even less sympathy for is the denigration of move counters as bad things because they were used incorrectly at a decisive board of a high profile event. The dismissal of move counters as “clock press counters” ignores the fact that when the clock is used properly, clock presses == moves. I am capable of using a chess clock properly 100 percent of the time, and all other players are too.
Move counters are a useful sanity check. At last weekend’s Fairfax Open, I watched two players make it to move 40 in a mutual time scramble. A few minutes later, they both sought me out, saying that in their reconstruction of the score sheets, they were only able to get to move 39. If it was presently White’s 40th move, White had flagged. What followed, more or less, was this:
Me: “I was there, watching the scramble. I counted to 40. The clock counted to 40.”
Black: “But we’re only able to reconstruct to 39.”
Me: “So when did you have the extra clock press?”
Black: . . .
Me: “Let’s go to the board. I want to reconstruct the game myself.”
My reconstruction demonstrated that both players were missing a move pair. It was White’s 41st move, and time control had been made. White won shortly thereafter.
The move counter was right. And they usually are. Yes, the rulebook says you can’t use them to rule. But I will sure as #### use them to be skeptical of marginal claims.
Players should never trust the clock to let them know they’ve made time control. (In fact, a strong argument can be made that the clock should not provide any indication as to whether the time control has been made or not.)
All the player with Black did wrong at the start of the game was arrive at the board late. White was the one who messed up the clock. It probably wasn’t intentional, but I know some players about whom I’d have my doubts.
When the rule changed several years ago, I made a point of reminding players that under the current rules White’s clock should be started and White should make his first move, even if Black was not present. I generally phrased it something like this:
The problem lies in very specific rulebook language that only the score sheets are to be relied upon in resolving a time forfeit claim, and that the move counters may not be relied upon, or at least solely relied upon. If the move counter shows more moves than the score sheet, and the score sheet is reasonably complete, the move counter is to be disregarded (at least under USCF rules).
The game I ruled in last weekend was played under FIDE rules, which give arbiters considerably more leeway in determining whether the time control has been exceeded (while at the same time obligating arbiters to declare the game finished once they determine the time control has been exceeded).
I would prefer that the move counter be considered as any other indication by the clock, and that it be deemed correct unless it can be demonstrated incorrect. But I’m in the minority, as far as I can tell. So be it.
I would prefer that there not BE move counters. If that means TDs have to take time to set clocks at the onset of secondary time controls, so be it. Organizers who don’t want to assign TDs to do that can use sudden death primary time controls.
On this, I must disagree. I have no problem using move counters, either as a player or as a TD. I have never had one malfunction that I have used, and they are quite useful to me as a player. Any attempt to get rid of this useful feature because some players can’t be bothered to RTFM that came with their clocks will encounter very vocal resistance from this director.
Except that TDs are not responsible for knowing how to set a player’s clock. (Even though I know what you meant.)
That’s the other problem with move counters: resetting them in the event of a claim. I already do not know how to set every chess clock. While I can have great confidence that a result would be correct, for many clocks I’d have to ultimately rely on the player’s assurance ‘this sets that.’ (And not, for example, that it is the secondary control’s counter that has just been reset.)
Every clock owner should know how to make a mid-game time adjustment, including how to adjust the move counter. If he does not, he may forfeit the right to a time adjustment that would be in his favor.
If player A has furnished the clock, and player B is entitled to a time adjustment (or move-counter adjustment) in his (player B’s) favor, player B should have the right to substitute his own clock if player A is unable or unwilling to make the adjustment.