In reference to the repeal of 5Fa, Time reduction according to the Base-(d*60) formula, I’m pleased to see that the repeal will take effect in 2012. It is now puts analogs on a slight disadvantage in time, and hopefully encourages the full-fledged adoption of digital with delay or increment. I see how this will work, but I cannot find any notes or definitive passages.
All I can find is, essentially paraphrased, “All players must use the base time control regardless of clock type (digital or analog). Separate base controls for digital and analog clocks must be published in advance.”
Can someone please provide the verbiage that will take effect on January 1, 2012 that (a) disallows time reduction (b) confirms that everyone (analog and digital) must play with the published base control?
This is from the email sent to affiliates and TDs last fall; it’s also posted at TD/A:
Rule 5Fa will be deleted from the rulebook effective 1/1/2012.
Note: The Rules committee and the Scholastic council are working on the wording for a proposal to allow G/25 d/5 as dual rated to present before the delegates at the 2011 meeting.
I really just don’t know why we don’t come out and say analog clocks can no longer be used in USCF rated tournaments. Force everyone to digital that way. It’s heavy handed but sometimes you just have to forcibly drag everyone into the modern age (which began a long time ago).
I agree with Sevan. Let’s just make delay and/or increment clocks mandatory for USCF tournament play.
It has been 15 years since the delay feature was made the standard.
Digital clocks have dropped in price to an affordable level. An Excalibur II, which is completely able to run all delays and increments, is available for well under $30.
The only reasons I see why a person might want to use an analog instead of a delay/increment digital is either because they want to cause complications in the game that the delay/increment would avoid, or they are nostalgic and like the analog clock. This is tournament chess. There is no reason to allow a person to complicate the tournament needlessly. Also, the nostalgia can be done elsewhere than a tournament.
Nothing was said about it at the Rules Workshop, the TDCC Workshop or the Delegates Meeting. If it comes up for a vote next year I’ll vote against it (assuming I’m a delegate again). Although most players use digital clocks some still use analog, and we can’t afford to alienate those people. I’d be willing to allow an individual organizer to ban analog clocks at his or her own tournaments as long as this was advertised in advance, but IMO this is already allowable as a major variation under the current rules.
I’m happy that the rules were changed to allow G/25 with a 5 second delay to be dual rated starting in 2012. Players in a G/25 d5 event who have an analog clock will play at G/25 and those games will be dual rated. This satisfies the objections of some/many delegates who voted against the 5Fa time deduction last year because players with digital clocks aren’t forced to play at a faster time limit than players with analog clocks.
There are chess clubs which provide equipment for tournaments, such as league matches, scholastic team events, club tournaments, etc. They may not be in a position to replace their entire inventory of clocks. Some players don’t know how to set a delay correctly, and their opponent only has an analog. I’ve seen players attempt to set a digital clock unsuccessfully, give up and just use an analog because it’s simpler to set.
Yes and some players just like using their analog if their opponent provides such an opportunity by not having a digital. These are probably the same players who have been writing their move down first before making it on the board for the last 40 years. Eliminating that practice seemed like such a no-brainer for some, yet that wasn’t at all so well-received by the membership, which the Delegates represent.
Personally, I think one of the best motions passed this year, besides continuing to allow Game/25 + 5-second delay to be dualy-rated, was the Bylaw change requiring a two-thirds vote to change the USCF Rules. Up to now it seemed that almost every year there was some proposal to enact some sweeping and widescale change to a long-established rule or tradition, or even eliminate it completely, without giving due consideration to all the possible ramifications or unintended consequences which would likely result, and it would pass by a narrow margin, only to be rescinded or undone the following year. I think the USCF members (TDs and players) benefit by having a lot of consistency in the rules from year to year, and requiring a much higher mandate to change them.
Most of the entries the offfice receives for tournaments are online, as well as the memberships. So why is it necessary to contniue to allow people to enter tournaments by mail, or by phone? We could probably save a significant staff expenditure by just abolishing these 20th-century practices. My guess is that we still have them because a minority of the customers still want to do business that way.
I agree that some day, analog clocks, “a clear white space,” overwinding, underwinding, etc., will go the way of the adjournment envelope. But I just don’t think that we are ready to be there at this point.
This question is rapidly becoming moot. In my area, the Evanston club already requires digital clocks, and the Skokie club actually furnishes them. It’s been a few years since I’ve seen an analog clock used in a tournament in Illinois. (One player had one, but he waited for his opponent to arrive, knowing he’d end up using another clock.)
I’m not quite ready to have USCF ban analog clocks, but I certainly am ready to explicitly give organizers this option. That would be a good start.
I think that’s an excellent idea. I would be interested in hearing what effect, if any, such a ban would have. I wonder if there are any tournament organizers who are ready now to take the plunge? Or might they be having second thoughts?
The analog vs digital issue is just another scholastic vs adult topic.
Here in Northern California, most scholastic clubs (those with most kids rated under 1000) use cheap analog clocks. Novice kids have trouble setting the clocks and don’t know how to read the settings of all different kinds of clocks. For many years, the CalChess Scholastics advertised a rule variation: analog clocks were preferred over digital unless both players agreed.
The new clock rule passed in 2007 states analog-preferred for all K-6 sections and digital-preferred (USCF rule) for all 7-12 sections. Officially, this rule applies to only two championship tournaments, but reality is that most K-6 games use analog clocks, often supplied by the organizer.
What?!? The discussion in this thread and forum regarding the analog vs the delay/increment clock has not taken into consideration whether it is scholastic or adult.
This is certainly not just another scholastic vs adult topic. The problem is in non-scholastic tournaments when someone uses an analog which makes the game and tournament in that time instance complicated and inefficient in a tournament viewpoint.
Well, this is a scholastic problem in Northern California. The scholastic organizers and directors can and do change the rules in these competitions. There is the rule about keeping a game notation. That rule is changed for the young, novice kids.
As you said, Michael, the CalChess Scholastics advertised a rule variation. That is a variation of the normal rules. The new rules can and will also be varied by the scholastic organizations, I bet.
So, the reality is that most K-6 game event organizers have a variation of the digital clock preferred rule. This rule change will not stop these organizers from continuing to vary or change the rules for their events.
This discussion did not take any consideration about the scholastic scene until Michael mentioned it. With that, I think it is appropriate to look at that briefly, in light of the topic of this thread as well.
What is the standard time control for most of these scholastic events? I believe that G/30 (with or without delay) is common.
The argument that the young novices don’t know how to set a delay clock or understand it, is a poor one at best. I have seen a number of young kids come to the TD asking how to operate and/or set an analog clock because they have no experience with them.
If all you do is give the kids experience with analog clocks, then that is all they will know and understand.
I believe if you allow the kids to experience and learn about and with the digital delay/increment clocks they will know and understand them.
I can’t help it if the CalChess people don’t want to educate their young to use digital clocks. I’m serious about this statement and am not trying to insult or belittle them. If they would use the Saitek Scholastic clocks, for instance, the kids would learn quickly how to use them, no matter their age. I have personally worked with some kids aged 5 - 8 and they knew how to operate the blue Saitek.
I just personally bought and donated a case of these clocks to our parishes Catholic school and chess club that I coach. We have kids from kindergarten through 8th grade come and play. There are no analog clocks. These kids know and assume the digital clocks with delay. It’s not a big deal.
Now, if we mandated that all USCF rated tournaments had to use delay/increment clocks, ALL children would end up using them and learning how to set and run them irrespective of what the organizers think.
I’ll give you that the kindergartners might have a difficulty with them, but those same aged children would also have a difficult time writing a game score as well. The scholastic organizers that I know, including me, don’t make these kids keep score. Well, we also would and do set their clocks for them as well. Once again it’s no big deal.
USCF Sales has both digital and analog clocks availble for sale. The analog clocks are generally cheaper. I would have to assume there is a market for these clocks, otherwise they would not be on sale on a number of websites and at major tournaments. Since the USCF sanctions the use of these clocks, to suddenly make a shift away from them would have a significant impact on companies who make them.
Our club has 10 analog clocks available for use at our tournaments. We also have several digital clocks. At our events we provide equipment as a courtesy for the players. They have the option to use a digital clock, but if one is not available, then we use the analogs. There have been no problems in using the analog clocks. In fact, our kids like the analog clocks better.
A number of players still have Jerger and Insa clocks which are of high quality. They continue to bring them to tournaments. Some have handed these clocks down to their children to use. Banning the use of analog clocks would, to put it mildly, cause a greater uproar than when digital clocks were first given preference in tournament play. This isn’t an just because of a Luddite attitude. People paid good money for these clocks, bought them from the very organization that sanctioned their use, and see no need to spend $100+ to buy an “approved” digital clock. Push them and some tournament players will stay home. Chess players are pretty stubborn.
Yes, nostalgia is one of the reasons I cited for people to want to continue using their analog clocks.
It is certainly an exaggeration to say that a person has to spend $100 to buy a delay/increment capable clock. In fact that $100 will buy 2 - 4 of these type of clocks today.
If a person is willing to pay $20 for an entry fee to a tournament, $30 for a delay/increment clock is certainly a reasonable expectation.
I understand that the House of Staunton and other chess equipment sellers do offer the old analog clocks for sale. They also offer chess sets and boards that are not legal for tournament play.
Look at all the talk about delay and increment time currently going on in this forum. I just read in another thread how it is now mandatory for TD’s and organizers to list the delay/increment time along with the main time of the game. This is not an option. They now have to write something like, G75 d/5sec, instead of, G75. All tournament listings now will have a delay or increment time included in the time control listing, by the rules.
I have no problem with analog clocks that offer the delay or increment option. Since the USCF rated games now require a delay or increment time listed, it should also require that a clock capable of providing a delay or increment is used.
If that’s true, let’s also make sure that any lack of delay is also explicitly mentioned in the TLA. The best way to do this would be (for example) G/90 d/0.
Examples:
G/90 inc/30 for 90 minutes with a 30-second increment
G/90 d/5 for 90 minutes with a 5-second delay
G/90 d/0 for 90 minutes with neither delay nor increment
In theory, I guess you could also have:
G/90 inc/30 d/5 for 90 minutes with both an increment and a delay
Any TLA submitted without increment/delay information would have to be rejected, and returned for correction – and not just assumed to be d/0 or d/5.
The most popular clock around here is the Chronos. Most advanced juniors have one. I have seen a few of the blue Saiteks, but the old gray Saiteks are still more popular here.
The biggest problem with digital clocks is the wide variety of brands and different ways to operate each one. I get complaints from adult players because of the (perfectly legal) way that I set my Chronos. And if you’ve never seen anyone cheat by using a clever clock setting, well… I have. Now do we really expect some 2nd grader rated 500 to understand the settings of all of these clocks?
I said that I expected you would run into opposition, primarily from scholastics and perhaps seniors. I don’t believe the CalChess K-6 coaches are unique in this matter.
By the way, please don’t jump to a conclusion what my personal view on this issue is. I posted only because I thought my information could be relevant. If you disagree, then I apologize for wasting your time.
As for my view, I’ll just offer two hints: most of my local students are junior high or high school and almost all own a Chronos clock.
I too use my Chronos clocks and I think they are the best for tournament play of any time control over 20 minutes.
I also own a Saitek Competition Pro (the gray or silver one), two DGT clocks, North American and XL and an Excalibur II. These are pretty similar to each other.
The Chronos is the only one without anything written on the clock itself about the various settings. So the TD only needs to know how to set this one from total memory. Of course it is also important to know which buttons to push and in which sequence on the others to change the times.
I also wouldn’t expect a 2nd grader to know how to set all these clocks. I would teach them how to have the opponent that has a clock he is unfamiliar with show the child how the clock is set for the game and that it is set correctly.
I know that there would be a lot of opposition to outlawing non-delay/increment capable clocks. I also don’t expect such a rule for quite awhile in our history. The fact is that the listing of tournament times now must include either a delay or increment time amount for the game(s). I believe it only a matter of time for all clocks used in rated play to have to be delay/increment capable to be legal, as a natural continuation of the new ruling.
Golly, Ron, I’m starting to wonder what planet you live on! House of Stauton? Analog clocks are being sold right now, today, by an organization called the U.S. Chess Federation (have you ever heard of them?) which clearly states that they are standard for tournament play. If you’re really not aware of that, go to this page, right now:
Now, if you really want to discontinue the use of analog clocks, the first step is to change that page to indicate that the clocks are non-standard rather than standard. I’ll even help you. Change:
“This basic clock is a must for serious tournament players or casual players who want to put a time limit on their games.”
to say:
“This basic clock is useful for casual players who want to put a time limit on their games. WARNING: Analog clocks are no longer considered standard for tournament play.”
Change:
“This clock is perfect for schools, clubs or tournament play.”
to say:
“This clock is useful for schools and clubs. WARNING: Analog clocks are no longer considered standard for tournament play.”
Change:
“A favorite amongst tournament Chess players, the INSA Wooden Mechanical Clock features the beauty and precision of European production.”
to say:
“A favorite amongst casual Chess players, the INSA Wooden Mechanical Clock features the beauty and precision of European production. WARNING: Analog clocks are no longer considered standard for tournament play.”
If you really want to eliminate analog clocks, make these changes to the USCF website today, and then in 2026, when analog clocks really have been non-standard at USCF tournaments for 15 years, propose that they be officially banned.