It’s rather early in ADM season, but I’m starting several topics for ADMs I intend to submit for this year’s Delegates meeting.
Rule 16B2b concerns itself with how to set digital clocks properly. Specifically, this is the rule that says the opponent’s clock must continue to run even if a player runs out of time. Here is the current wording:
Originally, I avoided saying “this feature must be turned off” because I was concerned that there would be a clock that required the user to enable some setting to allow the opponent’s clock to continue to run. So, I studiously avoided saying either “enable” or “disable” in the rule.
I am distressed that several people whose opinions I regard very highly have said that they read the rule to mean enable halt on end/claim mode/freeze. And, if I reread the text objectively, I can understand the source of confusion.
ADM: Replace the sentence “This capability is variously called ‘halt on end,’ ‘claim mode,’ or ‘freeze’” with the following two sentences:
“The setting that controls this behavior is variously called ‘halt on end,’ ‘claim mode,’ or ‘freeze.’ The setting must be disabled (off) to comply with this rule.”
I remain strongly opposed to this entire rule, regardless of the wording.
It puts us unnecessarily at odds with FIDE. In fact, the DGT clocks, at least in increment mode, automatically halt at end – they cannot be set not to.
What about an organizer who supplies DGT North American clocks for every board in his tournaments? Does a player have the right to replace this clock with his own, over the objections of both the opponent and the organizer, just because of this feature?
One would think that, with the USCF protocol of time forfeitures being called by the players rather than by the arbiter, it would be even more important in USCF than in FIDE that the clock be able to decide the issue. Players should not be allowed to assume they have a God-given right to escape from a time forfeit in the hope their opponent will flag too.
Bill, am I reading this right? I absolutely don’t want any outside interference in determining a flag fall, whether it is a spectator, TD, or equipment (the clock) in my game.
So, you are pro clock indicating, beeping, warning that a player’s flag has fallen? Well, I suppose I can understand different philosophies, but it has been, for decades, incumbent upon the players, themselves, to call attention to the flag. “A game of chess is between two players”, as much as possible, and should be preserved.
Just because technology exists to automate more and more, doesn’t mean we need to endorse it. Pretty soon, we won’t need directors at all, EVERYTHING will be done via computer/internet.
Then this is a problem that should be addressed. As I understand the current rule, the halt at end must be turned off. I don’t know how the first sentence in that rule could be interpreted any other way. The second sentence could be rewritten, or deleted.
Sympathizing with the organizer over the fact he/she has made a possibly large purchase notwithstanding, I would expect it, as a player.
I don’t see how this will be “addressed” short of persuading DGT to change the programming of its clocks, which I don’t think likely. I was aware of this limitation when I proposed the original ADM. That’s why rule 16B2b starts with the words “if possible.” The rule still allows the use of clocks that can not be set to disable “halt at end,” but it favors clocks that can be so configured.
To answer another question, if the organizer provides DGT clocks as equipment for the tournament, then players do not have a choice of replacing the clock with their own (see rule 39A). The fact that a clock on which halt at end can be disabled is preferable would only come into play if there is a dispute about which player’s equipment to use for the game.
The issue of whether a clock that freezes when a player runs out of time is a good thing goes back to the dawn of digital days.
I wish I had saved my copy of the 4th Edition but it went missing in my last move. That edition—which came out in 1993-94—suggested that any indication a clock gives of a time forfeit is proper and even helpful. But that was more planning for the future, since digital clocks were just starting to appear then.
The question is whether a clock freezing, beeping or dancing a jig is equivalent to A. a spectator blurting out that a flag fell; (interference) or B. an arbiter who watches a time scramble calling a flag. (objective)
The latter is closer to the FIDE approach, which explains how DGT clocks work in increment mode. It’s interesting that even as the trend shifts toward aligning USCF rules with the FIDE LOC, the Delegates took a strong stance on this rule, which leans the other way.
And it’s a logical argument. 1. We need a standard, rather than have games played on adjacent boards with clocks set one way on one board and another way on the board next door; and 2. Better to err on the side of non-interference, since that accords with USCF rules mindset on most issues, not just flag-fall.
I could make that argument myself, especially under my view of a clock as just that—a clock. Still, I think we might be over-regulating here. If we wanted to set firm standards for secondary functions of digital clocks the time was 20 years ago.
At this point, we have finally reached the promised land where the vast majority of tournament players own and use digital clocks. Issues with setting clocks to non pre-set controls persist, but general grumbling over delay/increment in concept has played itself out.
There comes a point where you need to stop tweaking.
Let’s address the concept: “I absolutely don’t want any outside interference in determining a flag fall…” including from equipment.
But I pose a questions: Is the equipment (if it freezes the time on the clocks at the fall of the first flag) causing “outside interference”?
For the sake of discussion, I argue that it doesn’t. I understand Terry’s perspective - that it appears to be an outside influence. But I would argue that this is an appearance only - based on our historical bias of older analog clocks which continued to run - even after flag fall. Had clocks - historically - stopped at flag fall - would this be seen as an outside influence? One must still SEE that the clock has stopped and call a flag.
The only reason why “both flags down” was treated the way it was - was because older clocks would allow the nonsense of both flags falling due to limited technology.
So, I think Bill has a very valid point. Let’s embrace the improvement.
I thought we no longer liked analog clocks. The original rules concerning flag fall concerned what to do if both flags had fallen since neither side of the windup clock would stop running once the flag fell. This rule is an archaic throwback to another era. Players got away with their opponents not seeing when time ran out in the chaos of time pressure. Since we do not have a rule like in golf where you are to call penalties on yourself, this practice remained enshrined in the rules. Very often I have watched players nervously hoping that the other player did not notice that time had run out so that they might get a draw. They were usually looked on as poor sports.
I have known a few rare players who call their own flag. Given that we are using digital clocks in most games, the game end feature should be the norm. Many players do set their clocks and leave on the setting to stop the time, beep, or flash when one of the players time runs out. They think that is the rule given the type of clock that they are using.
The phrasing of the rule even as amended still seems suspect to me. Paraphrasing, it says "digital clocks must be set so the opponent’s clock continues to run normally. This capability is called “halt on end” and must be disabled.
The sentences suggest that the “halt on end” feature is the one that allows the opponent clock’s to run continuously, which should be what is used and also what is disabled. That’s contradictory. If someone has never heard of the term “halt on end” before, these sentences are quite confusing. Halt on end is actually the opposite of the listed capability.
Regarding the general question whether or not to allow this feature, I don’t have a strong opinion either way. I’m sure it must happen occasionally, but I have yet to personally witness a situation where both flags have fallen. The closest I’ve come is in a game where my flag fell and the opponent didn’t notice for another 5 minutes. Unfortunately for me, he still had plenty of time.
The only thing disallowing this feature does is give the losing player a chance to draw on a technicality. It’s hard to say whether that’s a good thing or not.
No. This is wrong. Consider a not uncommon scenario in lower sections (perhaps only very low sections): one player attempts to resign. The opponent says something to the effect of “No, you can’t resign. I have to mate you.” It is not at all far fetched to have the first player in the above scenario point out that his flag had fallen, but have the opponent refuse to win that way. If halt-on-end is set, then the TD’s hands are tied, and the only thing he can do is, eventually, adjourn the game since he can’t point out “one flag down”. This way the TD can declare a 14G draw.
“No, no, you can’t resign. I have to mate you”?! Since when was that ever part of the rules? Once a player resigns, it ends the game. The TD marks the result and the tournament moves on.
If we still want to keep the archaic practice of allowing players to get draws by both flags falling, I am okay with it, but rather uncomfortably so. The new clock technology gives us a feature that the wind up or analog clocks could never do, show decisively when time ran out. In other sports and games where time and a timer is used, when the time runs out the team or player loses. Why chess has decided to hang on to this old practice is an oddity. Theoretically, a game can never end if no one pays any attention to the clocks.
The halt-at-end feature, I suppose, isn’t a big deal, but I don’t think the clock should beep, or otherwise call attention to a player overstepping the time limit.
That’s an odd one. It’s much more common in low sections that players never resign no matter what. I can easily see in that situation where the winning player has no idea how to check mate with a draw becoming increasingly likely.
If a player raised his hand and then told the TD “I resign, but my opponent won’t let me”, the resignation should be taken on the spot. But, if the TD just happened to hear the resignation while passing by, could he call the game as resigned? Or would that be interference?
In a 40/90 SD/30 inc30 setting, how many clock settings would halt at end at move 39 without adding the extra 30 minutes? Then, if it was really move 41, how will the TD decide how to set the times on the clocks to account for players having gone to the washroom after move 40 (when their clock should have been running) and come back not knowing how much of their time really should have been ticking away?
Are there clocks that “halt on end” in a primary time control when secondaries are available? That would be annoying. I confess it’s not a setting I’m familiar with. I have yet to use a clock with this setting in force. The Saitek Pro, which I have, doesn’t even have this as an option. As far I can tell, there is no setting in any mode that prevents the clock from running.
In tournament chess, we look at the clock as an integral part of the game, not as an outside spectator. With digital clocks, we get accurate timing to tenths and even hundreths of a second and a way to show when time runs out. That was never fully true for analog clocks. The rules governing flag fall were a concession. In other sports, when the game ends, horns go off, lights flash, the timers run to zero. Game over. In FIDE events, the arbiter may call your flag. We are starting to look stubborn and foolish hanging on to an old practice.
It can’t find a logical reason to not allow clocks to beep or flash to show the end of the time and the game. Except maybe we like to see players snicker and laugh about how they pulled out an undeserved draw when their opponent failed to see the flag fall. If this practice was allowed in other sports, there would be a hue and cry about how some teams were “cheating” by running plays when the time ran out, that the refs fixed the game by not noticing that time ran out.
That’s easy. Assuming no TD was watching, you know that the player whose flag is down used 110.5 minutes before his flag fell. Calculate the elapsed time from the start of the round. Subtract the 110.5 minutes. Subtract the time that the other player has used, not forgetting the 20.5 minutes of increment. Divide the remaining time by two and subtract that from 30 minutes. Add that to each player’s clock.
This thread was created to discuss cosmetic changes to this rule, to prevent misunderstanding. The sponsor is not interested in substantive changes to this rule, so discussing them in this thread is unhelpful.
If anyone here who argues for changing the substance can find a Delegate sponsor, then creating a new thread for the substantive changes to rule 16B2b would be appropriate.