Being slow on the uptake it just registered with me that the time control at the Candidates includes increment from move one. The last few WC cycles, including the WC match, featured increment only from move 61 on.
This makes a difference as to how “time pressure” is defined. Had increment from move one been in effect for the 2013 Candidates in London, things might have gone differently. (Ivanchuk.)
Very interesting. I assume this means the WC match this year will also use 40/100, 20/50, Inc-30. Good. Now they will not need to use a clock with a clock-press counter set.
Yes, if I recall correctly FIDE saw the light on this subject about two years ago, and now promotes the use of increment from move 1.
Indeed, this reduces the need to use a clock with a move counter. Of course, there will always be the perpetual arguments – use the move counter so that the second control will be added automatically at the appropriate move number, making it less confusing for the players, vs don’t use the move counter because it could become inaccurate and create a mess by adding the time too early or too late.
It also removes the need to have an arbiter available when both players have less than five minutes left in the time control.
(On the other topic, I prefer having the additional time added when the previous time runs out, NOT when the clock has been pressed a certain number of times.)
If I am playing in an event with two time controls, and if I am furnishing the clock, I will tend to set it with the move counter on, so that the extra time will be added automatically at the appropriate move count.
I do think I’m a bit more astute than the average player at keeping track of clock-press errors (that’s why the move counter seldom causes a problem in my games). If the opponent forgets to press his clock, I will either remind him, or, if it keeps happening, I’ll just go ahead and make my move, then press first my opponent’s clock and then my own, to keep the count accurate.
If, at the start of the game, my opponent tells me he’d prefer to have the move counter turned off, then I’ll gladly oblige him and change the setting, after explaining to him that this means time will not be added until the first control ticks down to 0:00:00. In such cases I half-expect the opponent, at move 40, to ask me why the clock didn’t add time. Ho hum.
Practical answer: If the opponent forgot to press his clock, he is probably unobservant enough not to notice that the player then pressed both clocks in rapid succession.
And why would the opponent want to object? The player did him a favor by correcting the move counter AND by not simply letting the opponent’s clock run indefinitely while it was actually the player’s move.
For practical purposes you are fine, particularly since you said you start with reminders and only press the clock if it is a chronic problem even after reminders.
Potential nit-picks:
after you press the clock the opponent exercises the right to press the clock following a move.
opponent says that a three-fold repetition claim was being contemplated (in the span between determination and completion of the move) and you denied even the opportunity of making that claim while disturbing your opponent’s concentration during your opponent’s move.
you may have thought your opponent moved when that hadn’t yet happened, and thus both disturbed your opponent and altered the position on the board.
What happens if an opponent insists on a clock-press counter when you supply a clock where that is not possible, such as a DGT NA or a Saitek Scholastic blue? On those clocks the only way to show a “move count” is by pressing a button on the clock; there is no way to make the move count visible as part of the regular display.
I prefer it that way, but others disagree. The quirks of various clocks make uniformity a challenge. Example: At the 2012 USATE, the year after the last-round clock-based mess that decided the title, a TD announced he “did not want to see a move counter on any clock” just before games started in the main side room.
That was fine with me; some players stared blankly…but suppose the TD said the opposite: The move counter must be enabled on digital clocks if possible. Would that make the Chronos and Excalibur preferred over the DGT NA and Saitek?
Even more fun would be pre-tournament publicicy/TLA saying that clocks with move counters were preferred, and then seeing Black’s DGT NA being set aside as White replaced it with one of those old BHBs that had a move counter.
The Saitek pros always have the move counter on. There is no way to turn it off. But, you have to press the move button to see it. For this purpose I don’t have a problem with players pressing that button to display it. Of course, I wouldn’t rely on it for claims. However, even with the move counter, the time is only added after it runs out.
I don’t know how the DGT NAs work in this regard or even if they have a move counter at all. I haven’t bothered to look yet.
But, realistically I don’t understand the obsession some people have over the move counter. Either it has one or it doesn’t. What’s the big deal? If the clock adds time after it runs out as with the Saitek (preferred), there’s no issue whatsoever with the move counter. And even if it adds the time based on the move counter, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to validate a claim.
I guess I’d just have to press the clock again, so that the correct clock is running. Of course, now the move counter would be a move off on the high side – harder to correct than if it is off on the low side.
I have confidence, though, in my judgment as to whether the opponent forgot to press, or is waiting for some other reason. In the former case, it’s unlikely he’d now insist on his right to a clock press, especially since I already exercised that right for him, and helped him out in the process.
Again, a judgment call. I’m pretty sure I’d recognize it if he were contemplating such a claim. But if it turned out my judgment was in error, of course I’d give him the opportunity to go ahead with the claim, and perhaps even offer to give him back a couple of minutes on the clock, or to seek other redress through the TD.
Well, of course that could happen. Of course, I’d be profusely apologetic, and try to bend over backwards to make sure he is made whole (at least) in every possible way.
It is a bad idea to have the clock add time for the next segment of the overall time-control before all the time for the current time-control is ticked off the clock. It adds unnecessary complexity.
Although in defense of premature adding, over the years on these forums I have noticed that USCF TDs place a low priority on rule simplification and stick-issue prevention.
All that touching of the other player’s clock is messy in multiple ways.
.
In defense of my original position, imagine what I believe would be a likely scenario. Let’s say the clock is set not to add time at move 40, but rather, when the time in the first control runs out. My opponent, after playing his 40th move, notices that the clock has not added time. He says, “Hey, I’m supposed to get 30 minutes added.” I reply, “Don’t worry. The clock will add 30 minutes when your existing time runs down to zero.” Not satisfied, he responds, “What if it doesn’t? Then I might lose on time.” Of course I could reply, “No you won’t. If I were to claim a win on time in that situation, the TD would simply deny my claim, and the game would continue.” I’m not exactly sure how such a reply might go down with a nervous opponent who might have it in his mind that when the clock says 0:00, he has lost the game, no matter what. Who knows, he might even start blitzing out moves to beat the imaginary clock, and ruin what otherwise might have been a beautiful game.
If, on the other hand, the clock adds 30 minutes at move 40, there is no problem. What my nervous opponent sees is what he gets. Everything is hunky-dory. Problem solved.
Of course, I realize that it would be possible to construct scenarios on the opposite side of this argument. It’s a legitimately double-edged sword. Let’s just say that, no matter which way you set the clock, you could run into problems, depending on a whole bunch of factors, including the knowledge level of the opponent, the familiarity of the TD with the situation, etc.
Ideally the clock would more directly display that the player is not yet in his final time allotment.
Unfortunately, even if one manufacturer of chess clocks implemented an explicit indicator, other clock makers would likely make their own different indicator, leaving the worried uncertain player still worried.
.
Agreed. It would be nice if the clock would show, in an area other than the main time display, something like “1st” or “2nd” (or “3rd”, etc). There should be two such displays, one for white and one for black.
If the switch from “1st” to “2nd” is to be triggered by the move count, then 30 minutes (or whatever the second control is) could be added when the clock thinks 40 moves have been played, and “1st” could switch to “2nd” at the same time.
If, however, the switch from “1st” to “2nd” is to be triggered by the expiration of the initial time, then the time should change from 0:00:00 to 30:00 and “1st” should change to “2nd” at the same time. This might mollify somewhat the hypothetical nervous opponent in my previous post.
True enough. FIDE is a bit ahead of USCF in creating clock standards, but neither really goes far enough in areas like this. If they did, several manufacturers might (I hope) jump on the bandwagon.