Not too long ago someone commented that they really like the new DGT NA clock - big easy to read display – big rocker switch - no blanking of time during delay countdown. Then there is the diminutive LEAP PQ9907S – technically does the job including the US no-freeze on flag and a super value at as low as $11; however, pretty poor ergonomically.
Hypothetical:
Site (not TD) provides PQ9907S w/o a policy to must use site equipment, so black gets choice to replace it if they have.
They do not, but white has the wonderful new version of the DGT/NA all ready to go.
Black says na - they prefer the PQ9907S.
White complains and says the display/clock is too small for serious play and his DGT is more standard.
TD states even though the PQ9907S is functionally standard the ergonomic superiority of the DGT/NA tips the scale.
Did the TD exceed his discretionary boundary overriding black’s choice?
As a TD I think I only had one ruling on equipment to rule where white did not like the blue squares – I ruled it was ok as they were not the crazy neon blue ones.
As a player I use to use the burgundy & caramel color Reykjavík pieces. White objected but I was the TD, too (they are 100% standard in my mind). Too make it easy I just switched to the black and ivory version that I had brought as an extra set.
The relevant rule is 39A, which I’m going to edit to the pertinent parts:
39A. Choice of equipment.
If the organizer of the tournament provides equipment conforming to the following standards, the players should expect that the organizer or TD would require the use of that equipment. If the organizer does not provide one or more elements of equipment, the players should agree on any that meets the standards or, failing such agreement, play with Black’s choice if it meets the standards.
…
The director is the final arbiter of whether the equipment in question is standard.
There is no “not as standard” option here, so based on your hypo that the “TD states…the PQ9907S is functionally standard”, we’re done.
If the TD had declared the PQ9907S “not standard”, it would all work but it would be extremely odd in the context of all the other boards using the PQ9907S.
Yeah, I should have been more careful with my wording. The point I was going for was the TD actually believes the clock is non-standard as it is too small. That is why he ruled that way despite it being a very popular clock in a lot of tournaments - especially at the scholastic level. The rule book is very light beyond timing standards for the type of time controls which the clock meets – unlike pieces where there is range of sizes – a 2.5" chess king is out of bounds – but nothing about the size of display on the clock so that is deferred to the TD.
One funny thing is FIDE (much tougher!) blessed the PQ9907S sister clock KK9908 as being FIDE approved. Not sure if FIDE has any size requirements for display of clock.
The director is the final arbiter of whether the equipment in question is standard.
…at this point, I don’t think you can say the director exceeded their discretionary authority, although I think they got the conclusion wrong, particularly in light of all the other boards using the PQ9907S.
Personally I love the PQ9907S. Inexpensive, does delay and increment, easy to set…I have one right here, in fact. I do also like the new DGT North American more, I admit, but not by a lot.
Does that include handling multiple time controls (like the K9909 and K9908)? If not, and the tournament is multiple controls, then my opinion would be that they are substandard for multiple time control events. In such tournaments I find the LEAP annoying because of the need to manually add the second time control.
That used to be why the second time control was preferable an hour when analog clocks were in general usage. No reset needed, first time control until the clock read 6:00 and second time control at 7:00.
The LEAP PQ9907S doesn’t support time controls with multiple time periods.
The clock also doesn’t automatically add the increment time for move one when you set the clock with an increment (for example, for G/90;inc30 the clock should give 1:30:30 at the start of move one but it only gives 1:30:00). A lot of people are unaware that the players get the increment time for move one and thus don’t know to manually add the increment time to the base time to get the increment for move one and thus set the clock wrong.
The clock also covers up the base time when showing the delay countdown. I don’t hate this as much as some do but it’s not 100% ideal.
So few tournaments use multiple periods & it is 100% mitigated by a manual action. edit: yeah no it is not mitigated at all since the clock does not run negative like the analog analogy.
The local place that runs blitz with increment never does this. I was once challenged that a clock with the initial bonus added was set incorrectly.
There are some that have been pretty vocal on this and as perhaps a TD might be sympathetic on this issue, too?
This first came up with Saitek clock which was sort of mitigated by just using Bronstein mode.
Seems like Bronstein timing is becoming more rare on clocks.
I had a friend who really liked Bronstein over delay since you knew directly in one place how much time you had no matter when you peeked at the clock. Kinda keeps it consistent with a Bonus view
@nolan Mike, do you have any data on what percentage of tournaments in the last few years (whatever is most easily accessible) used multiple time periods / controls?
Concerning the idea that manually adding the second time control on a clock that only has one is an easy thing way to take care of it: a number of players (particularly those borrowing a clock from somebody else) do not know how to adjust the clocks mid-game and try to simply reset them; those that do know how to adjust them do not know that doing the adjustment incorrectly may (on some clocks) reset to the original base time; many players do not even try to adjust them and call a TD over to fix it for them (hoping the TD knows enough about that model of the clock to handle it).
This is incorrect in that document. The correct phrasing appears on the “Information on FIDE Rated Tournaments in the USA” page at Information on FIDE Rated Tournaments in the USA | US Chess.org which correctly states “Where a certain number of moves is specified in the first time control, it shall be at least 30 moves.”
Is this events or sections or??
Why not at least adding dual rated in there – my guess a lot more dual rated the regular only and I am guessing 0 dual rated have multiple periods? 30/30,G/20;d10??
That was sections, since in multi-section events sections are not require to all have the same time control as the other sections.
I don’t think it’s very useful, but here’s the list of time controls for dual-rated events.
Note that there are ones that do not indicate the delay or increment used, so ;d0 is assumed. This is no longer permitted by the parser (it will add ;d0 if no increment/delay is given), and at some point they will add ;d0 to the end of the time control in those previously rated sections, but that’s not a high priority task.
