No need to do so in last night’s game, or any game in which the last time control is sudden death.
There have been similar time forfeits at the World Open and at other tournaments that I’ve directed. It’s a problem because players don’t want to lose on time, and as a TD I don’t want to have to tell a player that he lost on time because he didn’t understand the clock he was using or didn’t adjust the move counter corrected.
That depends.
If the move counter is low because your opponent misses a clock press, you could do what I often do. I remind him to press his clock, at least on the first or second occasion. After that, I just let his clock run, then when I finally make my move, I press first his clock and then mine. Corrects the move count, and my opponent never even notices.
If the move count is off in the opposite direction (e.g. completed illegal move), of course that’s another matter. It’s not so bad IF the clock makes it easy AND the player knows how to adjust it.
Bill Smythe
Players who don’t want to lose on time shouldn’t lose on time. And I have no problem telling a player who lost on time that s/he lost on time.
I’m sorry - but so what?
The move counter cannot be used to defend against or enforce a time forfeit claim.
If a player who lost on time wants to defend against that claim, prove it via the scoresheet. A player who wants to enforce a time forfeit claim, prove it via the scoresheet.
A TD who doesn’t want to tell a player that he lost on time because the player(s) didn’t understand the clock’s functions - well is that TD doing their job by enforcing a time forfeit claim by looking at the clock solely and not looking at the scoresheet to see what move the scoresheets say they are on?
One cautionary note to add here, about the DGT North American clock.
The DGT NA has no pre-set for the increasingly popular and FIDE norm-approved 40/90, SD/30, Inc-30. A memo at the DGT site says there is such a pre-set, but it just ain’t so. is.gd/iBWhoK (The mode the site memo refers to is actually SD/15—not SD/30—for the secondary control on the NA.)
The “FIDE Olympiad control”—as well as almost any time control—can be manually programmed into the clock. (option 16) But…beware a potential perfect storm of problems, if you do so.
- The NA allows the option to either set a specific number of moves for the primary control, or leave the counter at zero.
a. If you choose the former, the secondary time is added after move xx;
b. if you choose the latter, secondary time is added when the first player uses up the primary control time.
- If you set the primary control for xx number of moves and one of the players uses up all the primary time before move xx is reached, a flashing flag appears and both sides of the clock freeze; no further time will tick off either clock: game over. (Per FIDE rules; the increment modes are FIDE-centric while the delay modes are USCF-centric on the NA.)
a. But what happens if the move counter is off, when the first player’s primary time expires? Suppose they really played 40 moves, when the clock ‘thinks’ they played 39?
- This is the big problem; Bill Smythe warned about this in other threads. The DGT NA counts moves (clock presses) internally—and if it’s set for xx moves in a primary control it adds secondary time when the primary control is reached…but there is no move-count displayed on the clock.
Neither player can tell, by looking at the clock, how many moves have been played. Like the Saitek Competition, you can press a button to see how many presses the clock has recorded—but that’s not something a player would think of in time pressure, assuming he knows of the function in the first place.
It is very bad for a clock to add secondary time based on xx number of moves in the primary control, but to NOT show the alleged move-count on the display.
Thus, it is far better to set the DGT NA to 000 (moves) when setting it for multiple time control increment games. Problem there is that some players, as we see in this thread, support the use of the move counter as strongly as some oppose it…and moreso: Some players set the counter out of habit, without thinking. I used to be such a player.
This reinforces my belief that move counters are—if not “evil,” at least more trouble than they could ever be worth. Even for move-counter fans, though, I suggest setting the counter to 000 on the DGT NA.
The NA is a good clock overall—in the running for the “best dollar-for-dollar” title—but this strikes me as a big oversight.
As I see it, I’m doing my job when I do what I can to prevent such problems from happening in the first place. When players ask me to set a clock I always suggest setting it without a move counter if that’s a reasonable option (this mainly applies to the Chronos.) If I’m a floor TD and I see that a clock is incorrectly set I wait for a player to move and then I interrupt the game to set the clock correctly. YMMV and obviously does.
As a player, I like having a move counter enabled. It allows me to quickly verify move numbers in my notation. The move counter is not a problem if you know how your clock operates; it can be changed during the game if needed.
(For the record, I know one of the biggest valid reasons for not using the move counter is the question of what happens if the clock gets pressed an extra time. I’ve never - as in “not once, not one time, ever” - had that happen to me as a player in any tournament with multiple time controls.)
As a TD, I certainly understand the arguments for having the move counter turned off. As Bob Messenger correctly notes, there have been time-control forfeits at CCA events because a player relied on the move counter when it was, in fact, incorrect. (I’ve seen this twice with the Excalibur GameTime, actually - both times, because the “FIRST” option was not set correctly at the start of the game.) I also agree with Bob that trying to avoid the problems in the first place is sound practice - and a good reason why floor directors should check all the clocks ASAP after a round starts, whenever they can.
However, what I don’t do is encourage players not to use the move counter. As I said, I prefer using it myself, so I completely understand if a player is using it. What I will quietly remind both opponents, is that the move counter cannot be used as evidence in any claim made during or after the game.
As far as I can see this question has not been answered directly in this interesting thread.
The answer is no: There is no way to set a Saitek Competition blue clock so that the secondary time is added at move xx, when the first control expires. I am 99.9% sure that is correct; I own and occasionally use this clock and have studied the manual—which is almost comprehensible, unlike the manual for the more complicated silver Saitek Pro.
Perhaps one of the Saitek groupies who will stop by here soon knows a hack to set the clock that way…but I doubt it. If so, it would be a bad idea: As noted in my post about the DGT NA, it is not good for a clock to: count moves internally; NOT display the move count where players can see it; and also use move xx at the end of primary control as the signal to add the secondary control time.
The blue Saitek is OK for what it is. I would not recommend it as the only clock for an active tournament player—if only since it does not support increment—but it’s OK.
I am fairly sure you are correct. It is significant to note that there is no time control for the blue Saitek Competition clock where you have a chance to enter a number of moves, as far as I know. (I used to have a handful of these clocks for use at scholastic tournaments. I have since sold them off, so I’m doing this from memory.)
I’m not 100% sure what you mean, but I can edit the default setting 2D, which is 40/2 SD/1 by changing the 40 moves to a different number of moves.
OK, I think that means my memory is faulty. 
If the clock doesn’t add additional time when the Nth move is made, why does the value of N matter? Does the clock do anything differently when you change the number of moves for the first time control?
Dang it, now y’all are gonna make me haul out my Saitek and see what it actually does.
OK, this is a Competition Pro, not a Competition, so I’m starting from preset 3A, with only primary and secondary time (no tertiary) of 40/120, SD/60, d/5. The move counter seems to count move on, not moves completed. And the answer is, the secondary time is not added after move 40; the timer continues to count down in primary time.
In answer to BobMessenger’s question, however: If the clock doesn’t add time when the nth move is made, the value of n still matters because it tells the clock whether to add secondary time or flag when the primary time runs out.
Sigh … I would argue in this case that it is not up to the clock to make a decision. The clock should simply add the secondary time and clearly indicate this has happened. It is up to the player(s) to observe this and make any appropriate claim. Otherwise, if the clock press counter does not match the actual number of moves (in particular, if the press counter is less than the number of moves), the clock may stop keeping time inappropriately.
As an aside, I do not believe it is proper for a player to press the opponent’s clock when the opponent has forgotten to do so. I see kids do this all the time, and it annoys me. But I suppose I am easily annoyed …
This is the question that I haven’t had time to test out, and that Keith didn’t exactly answer - if the clock believes that fewer than 40 moves have been made, then when the clock counts down to zero at the end of the first time control, does it add the 2nd control’s time regardless, or does it stop everything and flag? (or both - add the time, continue ticking, but put up a flag)?
If it adds the time regardless of move count, then what’s the point of telling the clock the number of moves? And if it stops everything and flags (the way it would if time runs out in sudden death), then… well that’s quite bad, since the move count may be incorrect (which makes me think this isn’t what happens).
I don’t know the answer to your question, but also point out that the answer could vary from manufacturer to manufacturer or even clock to clock.
(I’ll just address this “aside” here, since I brought it up in the first place. The rest of you can continue arguing about the Saitek.)
In general, I agree that one should be wary about pressing the opponent’s clock if he has forgotten to do so.
But in the scenario I occasionally encounter, the opponent has already forgotten to press his clock on two previous occasions during the game, and I have reminded him each time. On the third lapse, I figure enough is enough. Do I:
- Let his clock run indefinitely, until he notices and presses it?
- Let his clock run until I have decided on my next move, then remind him?
- Let his clock run until I have decided on my next move, then go ahead and move (no need to press the clock, since it’s already pressed)?
- Let his clock run until I have decided on my next move, then go ahead and move and “press” the clock (perhaps pretending I didn’t notice it was already pressed)?
- Press his clock myself, before starting to consider my next move?
- Let his clock run until I have decided on my next move, then go ahead and move, then press first his clock and then mine (almost in a single motion)?
- Other?
If you consider all these options, you may just discover there are potential issues with all of them.
Bill Smythe
My answer is (f) if I am feeling nice and the move count is relevant, (d) if I am feeling nice and the move count is not relevant, and (a) if I’m not feeling nice.
While there may be issues with all of these options, they are entirely preventable by the opponent properly and timely pressing the clock. I have little sympathy, as either a TD or opponent, for a player who fails to do so.
In the interest of keeping the clock press counter in sync with the number of actual moves, option (f) is the one I would suggest. On the other hand, especially since I don’t use a press counter myself, I tend to use option (d) (the empty gesture of pressing the clock after determining my move satisfies rules 9A-9D and may serve as a reminder to the opponent), though I can see a case for (c) as well. Options (b) and (e) are decidedly non-starters, and since I think six is enough, I’m ruling out (g) as well. 
On the other hand, I have long claimed that a very strict reading of the USCF Official Rules of Chess lead to the conclusion that one may not move if the opponent has forgotten to press the move counter:
- Rule 6b states that a player is said to be on the move or to have the move when the opponent’s move has been completed.
- Rules 9A, 9B, 9C, and 9D state that a move in each of those circumstances is completed when the player presses the clock. (An opponent who has forgotten to press the clock has technically not completed his move and is therefore still has the move, even though his move is determined.)
- Rules 10A, 10B, and 10C refer to a player on the move.
Of course, at some point, common sense prevails. However, I would argue that a player who simply sits there waiting for the opponent to press the clock (possibly until the opponent runs out of time) has done nothing wrong.
As an interesting exercise, I’ve been working through this same question with the FIDE Laws of Chess. I had originally thought there was no reading of the laws that disallows a player from moving if the opponent has not pressed the clock, but now I’m not so sure. While the Laws of Chess do not make the distinction between determined and completed moves (instead only using the phrase “the move has been made”, the reference to article 6.7 at the end of article 1.1 gives me pause. Because of that reference, I can find two paths through the Laws of Chess concerning when a move is “made.” One path requires the player to press the clock; the other does not.
While this seems like an academic distinction, I believe it has a practical application in blitz. Neither the USCF rules nor the FIDE Laws of Chess specifically alter the definition of when a move is completed (USCF)/made (FIDE) in blitz, and moving while one’s opponent’s clock is still running is a common practice. As I have written before, an incorrect widespread practice is still incorrect.