Ha!
Well now, maybe you aren’t and maybe you are, but having played in tournaments since at least 1969, I have to say I see very little reason for delay clocks. Given that, I can understand how people feel it’s unfair to lose just because the clock said so.
I know what it’s like to play in a tournament with adjournaments, and the delays that causes. I’ve played in many 40/2, 30/1 type tournaments myself, and yes, we had rounds start late because someone took too long and the game wasn’t over in a reasonable amount of time. That’s why I applauded the SD rules and the G/2 concept, because then you knew when the next round was likely to start.
But I’m still reminded that the clock was introduced for the sole purpose of stopping people from sitting at the board forever, as I had one person do against me one time. That’s what clocks were meant to prevent, and as Dan Heisman so often points out, time management is just another skill a player has to learn and deal with if they are going to play chess.
The argument about inaccurate analog clocks is trashed now that quartz analogs are on the market, whcih is what I use. Also, having reread the rules, I’m happy to say analogs are considered equally standard for tournament play. So unless my opponent has the right to say otherwise–and the rules say he does-- I will continue to use my analog clock.
Radishes
I played my first tournament in 1972. I stopped playing in 1990 becuase of the universal adoption of snash-clock time controls, and started again a couple of years ago ONLY becuase delay clocks are available.
The funny thing is, I’ve never seen a round start on time since returning to tournament play. TDs seem to think that “30/90, SD/60” means they can schedule rounds exactly 5 hours apart! Since someone always has a game go until flag-fall in a mutual time scramble–usually someone with an analog clock–the second round starts 15 minutes late becuase that’s how long it takes to do the pairings.
I’d gladly go back to 40/2, 25/1 and adjournments. Anything’s better than having the play of every single endgame distorted by the looming smash-clock time control. But now that we have digital clocks, we can do better than the old time-controls, by using a 30-second increment.
G/90 +30 seconds per move would be fine for a two-a-day tournament (the kind that now runs at 30/90, SD/60). Schedule to allow for a 120-moves–only a game in a thousand goes longer–and you still have rounds just 5 hours apart (plus pairing time). Plus, at 30 seconds increment a move we lose all the time-scrambles, and we can require players to always keep score (so no 14H or other judgement calls, and no counting of moves by a director).
You could even run 1-day quads at G/30 + 30 seconds; rounds at, say 11am, 2:15pm, 5:30pm. What’s not to love?
-ed g.
You should come to mine. The players have a lot of free time with the analog clocks. As I make sure the slow delay people get all the time they can get. The last tournament, since there was no slow delay people, the last round started 60 minutes early! If you want to make sure the delay people do not run into the next round. If it is a G/60, with the first round at 10, make round two start at 12:30.
OK, I give - CENSOR him!! 
Look again.
“5E. … The standard timers for games not concluded by a sudden death time control are either a delay clock with time delay (or add-back) capability or a mechanical apparatus consisting of two clocks that tell time by means of hands moving on a dial …”
“5F. … A delay clock (a clock with time delay or add-back capabilities) is the standard timer for sudden death time controls. …”
(Emphasis mine.)
Also see 42D.
In other words, unless the tournament uses old-style repeating controls (e.g. 40/120, then 20/60, then 20/60 etc indefinitely) your opponent DOES have the right to insist a delay clock, as long as he furnishes one.
Bill Smythe
Ahh, but please note that I did say my opponent had the right to insist on his clock, but that an analog clock could still be used. So I’m not arguing that point.
I’ve read 42C and 42D, and both say analog clocks can be used in a tournament with or without sudden death time controls, or even if the delay mode were not being used in sudden death. There are other cases where it says an analog clock may be used.
What I’ve found is that two players coming to the board may decide among themselves which clock to use, because they either don’t know the difference, don’t see the difference, or don’t care.
And to talk about clock smashing, it seems if you are given only a few seconds added to your time every time you make a move, then you are still going to have clock smashing whether it’s an analog or digital clock.
Radishes
You are correct that, as a practical matter, disputes about which clock to use are quite infrequent, even at large tournaments. A much more common problem where they can find a clock.
However, Bill Smythe is correct as to the wording of the rules. If both players have a clock they want to use, and if one of them is a digital time-delay and the other is not, and if the tournament uses sudden-death (for any time control), then the player with the time-delay gets his choice (because his clock is “more standard”). If the tournament does not use sudden-death (rare, but there are still a few), the clocks are “equally standard” and Black gets his choice. 42C and 42D are confusingly worded (possibly intentionally so), but that’s what they mean.
Aren’t we rehashing the same arguments as in several closed threads, with NO sign that anyone intends to change his opinion?
Yes. When these forums were created, they seemed to me to be a potentially useful idea – a means to exchange information (since none of us knows everything). If they are going to degenerate into a soapbox for everyone and the horse he rode in on to showcase opinions, they will soon be reduced to a den of barking moonbats like rgcp. Keep it focused – ask a question, get an answer, then stop.
This will keep it focused. The delay clock or the analog clock is just a total wash. If it is set at G/60 or G/60 (t/d 5), it does not matter as white and black get the same amount of time. The delay clock stops the 14H claim, one or both players have to be at or under [(blitz G/1 (t/d 2) quick G/2 (t/d 3) classical G/2 (t/d 5) ) fast blitz time, just to make having the delay clock worth the time. If you do not have the skills to play at these blitz speeds, then why have the delay clock.
I don’t think many would, either. But a few might, which is why I’m ambivalent about (notice I did not say “opposed to”) to your suggestion.
I guess you could argue that the player, having originally received a ruling favorable to him which was then overturned, lost only because he was upset at the unfavorable turn of events. That would imply, of course, that you’re pretty sure he would have drawn if the ORIGINAL ruling had been that the game continue with a delay clock. Could be, but to claim you’re certain of this is a bit of a stretch.
The phrase “ample time” is a relic from the 4th edition. I have said before that the 5th edition did not liberalize 14H enough, and this is a prime example. It can reasonably be argued that, when the TD option to install a delay clock was added in about 1996, “ample time” was thereby re-defined to be 5 seconds per move. Yet the wording “ample time” remains, giving rise to a wide range of interpretations by TDs.
Bill Smythe
Sure, and you’ve generally exercised good judgment as to when to close a conversation.
Keep in mind, though, that a debate between two posters may be read by many others. Sometimes, if X makes a point which could mislead many, Y may respond in such a way as to clear up the confusion. The response may not convince X (and may not have been intended to), but the various Z’s out there can still benefit from a more balanced discussion.
Many of the posts by Terry Winchester and John Hillery, among others, fall into this category.
A moderator’s lot is not an easy one, obviously. You could periodically go through and delete the off-topic or ranting posts after 30 days, but then what do you do with the replies to the deleted posts? On the one hand, they may be worth retaining on their own; on the other, they may no longer make sense outside the original context.
Bill Smythe
I have neither the time nor the inclination to make the moderator’s task THAT much work. If someone else wants to that kind of scut work, I’d consider making someone else a moderator.
At some point I may go through and delete all threads older than some number of months, though for the most part the disk space they take isn’t significant enough for that much work either. (And there are some older inactive threads that are worth keeping.)
As to closing down threads when they get repetitive, there really isn’t a hard and fast rule on this, and I don’t intend to create one that I would then have to enforce, but in general when it seems to me like the various sides have all stated their positions twice with no changes, I think it’s time to close a thread down. If it goes inactive before then, so much the better.
I was happy to see this forum come about, as I had a few, what I considered, tangible rules questions, and had the notion that other more experienced TDs could help answer. Yes, the forum needs moderation, and I agree that repetition gets old. While I like John’s idea of “ask the question, get the answer, then stop”, many times it’s not that easy. I don’t think we should continually argue about differences, but I do think there should be room to follow up and try to understand what’s being told to us.
I’m hoping that I’m not one of the “never let it end” posters. If I am, I will moderate myself 
Terry Winchester
I was happy to see this forum come about, as I had a few, what I considered, tangible rules questions, and had the notion that other more experienced TDs could help answer. Yes, the forum needs moderation, and I agree that repetition gets old. While I like John’s idea of “ask the question, get the answer, then stop”, many times it’s not that easy. I don’t think we should continually argue about differences, but I do think there should be room to follow up and try to understand what’s being told to us.
I’m hoping that I’m not one of the “never let it end” posters. If I am, I will moderate myself
Terry Winchester
Sir, while I understand someone may get tired of hearing what they think are the same arguments, I think a closer inspection will reveal that it’s a bit different.
While I do think the discussion of hypotheticals of a situation regarding delay clocks went on far too long, my subject was concerning the rules defining clock standards and what type of clocks were to be used.
Now along these lines, I have to ask that someone explain to me the difference between sudden death and a time control of G/2. Are they the same? That is, what’s the difference, or is there one, between a time control of G/2 and 40/30, SD/1 to pick an odd example that should result in the same ending time of 2 hours?
Radishes
In Game/120 (G/2 could be interpreted as a two minute rapids game), you could conceivably spend 90 minutes on your 10th move.
Try that in 40/30, SD/60 and you’ll lose on time.
I’ve got a terminology question. I tend to use the word ‘Game’ only for games with a primary sudden-death time control, while in games with a secondary sudden-death time control I prefer specifying it as ‘40/90, SD/60’ over ‘40/90, Game/60’.
(BTW, that’s how time controls should be specified in the TD/Affiliate Support Area to avoid causing an error or raising a cautionary note about the time control.)
Am I the only one this fussy about the terminology?
Hardly anyone makes a distinction between “SD/xx” and “G/xx.” The two terms arose because some early supporters of sudden death decided that the term “sudden death” was bad PR.
It seems conventional that single controls are called “game”, but that with multiple controls the final control is called “sudden death”. The rule is the same, though: in either case, a delay clock is a preferred clock. Only if the control is repeating, such as 40/120, then 20/60, then 20/60 etc indefinitely, would an analog clock be considered equally as standard as a delay clock.
(By the way, wouldn’t you have to change 40/30 to 40/60 in your example, to make the total time 2 hours?)
I prefer to specify minutes rather than hours, e.g. I would always state 40/120 (or game/120) rather than 40/2 (or game/2). Seems less ambiguous.
Bill Smythe