Halt-at-end and time forfeit rulings

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Yikes! That’s a really dumb way to design a clock. What are you supposed to do when a USA tournament uses increment, or a non-USA tournament uses delay? (Granted, the latter hardly ever happens, but the former is happening more and more often these days.)

I prefer the Chronos philosophy of giving the user a wide range of options (such as halt-at-end on or off) to the DGT philosophy of imposing uniformity.

Depending on what’s in it, such an ADM could be a recipe for disaster. If there is too much detail, every nitpicking violation could become an excuse for a player to request a strange ruling, or for a TD to make one. The chess lawyers will have a field day –

– and this could be a perfect example. If the sensor-touch version of the Chronos is set to click quietly on each button press, how long will it be before some opponent requests a forfeit ruling?

So you’re going to outlaw, or at least strongly discourage, the use of the DGT North American in increment tournaments? This manufacturer went out of his way to design a version acceptable to USA players, and his new design is becoming increasingly popular here. Now you’re telling him, sorry, that’s still not good enough?

This proposed TD Tip almost sounds like an apology for the proposed rule it goes along with.

USCF should move in exactly the opposite direction. Halt-at-end should be embraced, not discouraged. The ADM ought to go something like this:

“If a player makes a time forfeit claim, and the clock is set to halt at end, the director should use the time information provided by the clock to determine which player ran out of time. If the clock is not set in this way, and indicates that both players’ times have expired, then no time forfeit claim should be granted, and in the case of a sudden death time control, the game should be ruled a draw.”

Old rules have a nasty habit of hanging around long after their usefulness has expired, or worse yet, after new technology has rendered them undesirable. The both-flags-are-down-is-a-draw rule is a prime example. Obviously, one of its main purposes was to give TDs a reasonable option when it was difficult to determine which clock ran out first. Now a better way is available. Let’s allow its use.

With this, of course, I agree. In fact, all reference to “flags” anywhere in the rulebook should be changed to something like “time has expired”.

Bill Smythe

2

Guys,
Rather that acting on hearsay about how the DGT NA deals with running out of time, one option is to actually see how they work. I tested a DGT NA and it works as expected. If the time control is either no increment, no delay or if it is delay, then the clocks do not stop when one player runs out of time.
On the other hand, if the time control is increment. The clocks stop when one play flags. If you think about it, how else would you deal with increment. Would you just hold the flagged player’s time at zero and if he moves in less then the increment let him unflag? Would you keep track of the negative time and require him to work off the negative time to allow him to unflag? Overall, it is a mess and letting the clock stop when one play runs out of time makes sense.
The clock follows the FIDE rules for increment and we should transition our rules for using increment to match FIDE rules.
Mike Regan

3

Thank you for confirming what the other poster wrote about the behavior of the DGT North American in increment mode. (I always like to get my info from two sources.)

Neither of the above. Without halt-at-end, the clock of the player who runs out of time could freeze at 00:00, and would stay that way in the event of future button presses (increment would no longer be added at each move), while his opponent’s clock would continue operating normally.

So, even in increment mode, halt-at-end wouldn’t be absolutely necessary. It would, however, be highly desirable.

Absolutely. My version would go part way, by at least allowing halt-at-end, and not permitting a clock in halt-at-end mode to be convoluted into a “both flags are down” draw.

Bill Smythe

4

Now that first part is an actual argument as to why the setting should apply. I’d suggest you stick to that. Saying it needs changed just to match FIDE makes as much sense to me as saying our government needs laws that match up to the Soviet Union. I have far more faith in the USCF rules committee and delegates than in FIDE when it comes to tournament rules.

5

I have posted the ADM in the USCF Issues Forum. I think it would be better to discuss the actual ADM than to spread FUD.

Players can (and will) request anything they dang well please. That does not mean they get what they want, unless the TD is incompetent. The correct solution will be to apply rule 16P and disable the beeping.

Bill, I am somewhat surprised that you overlooked the words “if possible.” Please also note carefully the wording in my ADM.

I’m sorry, but the combination of halt at end, clock press counters, and non-sudden death time controls are a toxic mix. I have done simple experiments with both an Excalibur Game Time and a Chronos set for mode DL-C1. On the Excalibur, I used preset 60 (40/2 SD/1) and set “claim” on. I then simulated White running out of time when the move counter showed “38” (indicating that the clock registered 37 presses for both sides). The clock did indeed freeze.

On the Chronos, the default settings for DL-C1 are 40/2 SD/1 d/5. I set “halt at end” to 1. I then again simulated White running out of time when the move counter showed 37 for both players (indicating the clock registered 37 presses for each side). The clock did freeze as expected.

This is disastrous! What if the clock press counter is off because players have failed to press the clock? More importantly, halt at end does not eliminate the requirement that the opponent have a reasonably complete score sheet to support the claim. Well, too bad … the director is out of luck, I suppose.