5Fa (Shortened Time Control) in 2012

Running Chess Tournaments
41

You might be right if you mean an ABSOLUTE ban of analog clocks—as in: If neither player has a digital clock, then they play the game with NO clock, even if one of them has an analog…with no exceptions, even for scholastics or small local clubs.

From the practical POV, it will be many years before that motion would get more than a few votes at a Delegates Meeting.

What I and others propose is less draconian and more practical: Declare that by date X, analog clocks are considered non-standard for any game with a Sudden Death ultimate time control. “Non-standard” is not the same as “banned outright.”

Right now analog clocks are less-preferred in such games; Sevan, apparently, wants them to be banned—period. The “non-standard” designation is between those two. (The beta version, between the stable and dev channels, so to speak.)

As I have said, I think analog clocks in SD games should be treated the way under-sized drug-store chess sets are treated for any rated game. It is non-standard equipment; the opponent has the right to use his standard equipment in place of it—even if he shows up late for the game.

If neither side has standard equipment, then they either: A. Agree to use the non-standard equipment; or B. Try to borrow standard equipment from other players or the TD, etc.

The key difference between an absolute ban and a “non-standard” designation is that in the latter case two players can agree to use an analog clock if both agree and prefer the analog to a digital. (For whatever reason, strange as that seems to most of us.)

For instance, in a small local club filled with amateur class players in highly advanced youth, that runs rated events for fun, with no TLAs: Yes, go ahead and use an outdated, non-standard analog clock if BOTH players agree in advance that they prefer to so do. Exactly the same logic that allows both players to agree in advance to use a drug-store chess set, or Civil War set, etc.

Just do not show up at a semi-serious tournament—with a TLA, cash prizes and so on—and expect to ever use your non-standard analog clock, any more than you would expect to use a drug store chess set at such an event.

Even that won’t pass muster with the Delegates for some time yet, I reckon—but it’s something to try…

42

Moderator Mode: Off

As one that agreed about banning analog clocks, I completely agree with what Eric says in the above post. I used the term banned in a looser sense. I certainly did not envision a ban on analogs such that if someone even carried an analog into the playing area, the police would be called and the clock removed from the premises…

I feel the cheap drugstore sets and boards are currently banned as much as the analogs should be. As a TD I have had people play on non-standard sets and boards in tournaments. I remember one game being played on a smaller set and board with 1 1/4" squares. The players were both novices and neither had any standard equipment. They agreed to play their game on that small set with a borrowed clock. It was funny to see with all the standard sets and boards surrounding this small one. I just shook my head in amusement.

The analog clocks, today, are as sub-standard and limited in timing as that 1 1/4" square set was in comparison to the standard 2 1/4" square set you normally see. The analog lacks the delay or increment that is now standard and normal in rated chess, just as the lack of space and size of the pieces is lacking in that smaller set that is also standard in rated play.

Eric nailed it.

43

I saw something like that once, too, and it made me laugh. It was an Illinois Class a couple of decades ago.

The set was a peg-in set with 1-inch squares. The clock, though, was huge – an old Garde, I think. The clock was bigger than the set.

It almost made me look under the table to make sure the clock’s pendulum was swinging.

Bill Smythe

44

I don’t understand the direction that this discussion has taken. As of 1 January, according to what we passed in Orlando, the TD has discretion (minor variation requiring no advance publicity) to allow a late player to substitute a properly set “delay” clock. Isn’t this what you’re asking for?

Alex Relyea

45

Yes, the “Steve Immitt rule” variation will achieve in practice most of what I would like to see achieved in theory aka print, in the rulebook.

If TDs utilize the permitted minor variation, that is. First they have to know it exists. Then they have to grasp the point behind it, agree with that point and put it into practice…which in some cases will require a request from a late-arriving player with a digital clock.

It will be a long time before Joe Swiss-pack finds out about this permitted rules variation.

I would like to see Steve’s variation become a ‘real’ rule. It would still take time for the masses to catch on, but it’s a start. Also, I would like to see analog clocks’ status for SD rated games downgraded from “less-preferred” to “non-standard,” so to speak. That should also be in the rulebook, or the rules changes document.

That might be a bit of a pedantic distinction, but it will catch folks’ attention that way. Maybe.

None of which would prevent two amateur class players sitting around at a club from deciding to play a rated game and grabbing an analog as the only available clock, or even mutually agreeing in advance to use an analog for old-times’ sake. In either case they know they have consciously and mutually decided to use non-standard equipment. Fine: just like the drug store chess set.

Declaring analogs non-standard rather than less-preferred for SD would get across the point that—nostalgia aside—delay/increment-digital clocks are MUCH better for SD rated games—to the point that using an analog…while not absolutely banned in all circumstances…is a bad thing to be avoided and only done as a last resort and/or by mutual advance agreement.

Maybe someday.

46

One of the arguments made in support of “Abolish Analogs” is that no one uses them anyway. However, I know from experience that this is not true. But the argument is still made over and over and over and over again anyway, as though somehow it becomes “true” by just repeating it. Having seen the clocks used at tournaments throughout the country, of course digital clocks vastly outnumber analogs, no question. But that is not the same thing as “no analog clocks are used.”

I counted the analog clocks used at the recent Central California Open in Fresno, for example, and although I can’t find my notes right now, I recall one round with about a dozen analogs for about 50+ games. I suspect the percentage of analogs increases in tournaments where a chess club supplies most of the equipment, such as a school tournament or league match, and even at some tournaments where the venue is a chess club. I bet they even have BHBs at the St. Louis Chess Club.

These players are all using sub-standard, non-preferred, scorned, shunned, ostracized, deviant, perverted, chronopathic, despised equipment. So what?! No one is forcing them or their opponents to use an analog clock. If both players nevertheless decide to use a (correctly set) BHB in their tournament game, why is this my business?? In a “worst-case” scenario, the game might end up with a 14-H claim, but that wouldn’t be the first time such a thing has happened, and a lot more games used to end that way anyway before digitals became so commonplace.

The USCF office still receives memberships, entries to national tournaments, “Letters to the Editor”-- even tournament rating reports-- by mail. Do we just send them back with a note chastizing the customers to “go digital?”

At the end of the Delegates Meeting in Orlando the delegates passed a motion expressing interest in the Office conducting an email survey of the members about their preferences in the format, details and location of future U.S. Opens. I wish they would also include on the survey what kind of clock the respondent uses in tournaments.

47

I actually handled a couple of analog clock disputes at the Manhattan Open.

Well, probably not in St. Louis. :slight_smile: But the four clubs I know in the Pittsburgh area that provide clocks all have a supply of analog clocks. In fact, the only reason the Pittsburgh Chess Club has some digital clocks is because it was able to use part of a windfall 7 years ago to buy Excaliburs. Even then, though, the BHBs have come in handy.

48

It never ceases to amaze me how, judging from reports like the above two posts, the Chicago area seems to be way ahead of both coasts in the use of digital clocks.

To be sure, in very recent times (3 years or so), an extremely prominent organizer here has pushed things along by furnishing digital clocks at every table, even in events with 100+ players.

But that’s not the whole story, because this regional difference was apparent even before that. It’s been quite a while since the number of analogs in any tournament here couldn’t be counted on the fingers of one finger.

In the case of Manhattan, could all the “G/25 d/5, or G/30 if d/0” events have something to do with this? Some players may have been furnishing analog clocks to get that “extra” five minutes. If so, that should change as of 1-1-2012.

Bill Smythe

49

The short answer to this question, at least in the disputes I resolved, is “no”. The two players who owned the analog clocks do not live in the NYC area. As a side note, neither player was over 40.

The main arguments I have heard against digital clocks are cost, expense and difficulty of setup. At the Manhattan Open, however, the bookseller was selling new DGT NA clocks for $45. I have a hard time processing the idea that someone who can pay entry fees in excess of $200 cannot afford a reliable, fairly intuitive digital clock. Even with that, though, analogs have their place still.

50

I would think that a first step would be getting “USCF Sales” to stop selling something called a “Regulation Plastic Mechanical Chess Clock”. YMMV.

Alex Relyea

51

The fifth edition of the USCF rule book, which stated that a digital clock with delay is preferred equipment if there is a sudden death time control, took effect January, 2005. If one had set aside $0.50 each month since then, one would now have $42.00 – nearly enough to pay for that DGT NA clock, and more than enough to buy it from other sources.

As another data point, the Excalibur can currently be had for $26.95 from one very reliable vendor. While its construction leaves something to be desired, it is simple to set this clock, and the clock actually has so many presets that the needed time control is likely available as a preset. The Excalibur is also fully capable of increment time controls.

It is difficult to be sympathetic with arguments about cost of digital clocks or difficulty in setting the clock. Not every digital clock is a Chronos. :smiling_imp:

52

I doubt that. But the Midwest Class Championships usually draws over 200 players each year. I bet if you counted the number of analogs being used at this year’s Midwest Class in Wheeling in October, particularly in the 3-Day Schedule (the slow games), you will have to extend your finger.

53

Steve_Immitt wrote:

Was Steve being sarcastic?

54

After chronopathic I wasn’t so sure. The rest of it seemed par for the course for a normal local tournament. :smiling_imp:

55

Greetings,

14H6 (No claim of ILC in sudden death) may be another useful method of strongly encouraging the use of delay clocks.

The only catch is, a lot of people I have encountered who resist using delay like the idea of winning on time. In fact, many are in love with that idea. :open_mouth: So no ILC would be just fine with them!

How about instead strengthening ILC–make it so that someone could claim a draw in an even position, and if their opponent rejects the draw, put a delay clock on. If no delay clock is available, the TD rules it a draw if he considers the position to be equal within reason.

This would not penalize scholastic players playing with an analog, nor those who are borrowing an analog clock from the TD. TDs and organizers would not have to throw out all their backup analog clocks, but might consider having some digitals available for ILC claims.

This would also provide a more consistent playing experience. By today’s rules, players with analog clocks must be winning in order to stay execution by a falling flag. The standard for an ILC is high, and confusing to most players (and many TDs!) :confused: .

Some may say it is unfair to reward someone who has squandered too much of his time; they deserve to lose. Problem is, the flag falls whether the difference is 1 hour or 1 second. Transferring the game to a delay clock doesn’t completely remove the sting of a time advantage.

To sum it all up: my feeling is that by removing any potential benefit for using an analog clock, digitals will naturally replace them over time.

Humbly submitted,

Tom Hales

56

Your first idea (TDs refusing to rule on a 14H claim) is the best.

Sure, there will always be players who like to take advantage of their physical dexterity to win dead-drawn positions. But their opponents, after they have been vicitimized in this way a couple of times, will soon see the light and come properly equipped with a delay clock. Poof – end of speed-demon strategy.

A couple of decades ago, at our former club on Lunt Avenue, there was a 1900 player who always managed to get into severe time pressure. Twice, in order to avoid losing on time, he had to claim 14H in crushing positions against opponents rated below 1200. Of course, both games immediately ended in draws.

There was no third time. He showed up with a delay clock.

Bill Smythe

57

I’ve seen an IM lose R+K vs R+K with 5 second delay. Although I admit that’s about as rare as Kramnik overlooking mate-in-one.

Michael Aigner