Using ones own clock

[Sean Hewitt]

You say you find 20 minutes + 10 seconds ok in Rapidplay. What do you do when you have 12 secs on your clock and your opponent 2 secs, in one arm action he moves in such a way that he knocks over pieces including the one he moved so you do not know where he moved and also presses the clock. Of course he now has 12 secs on his clock ? Do you ignore FIDE rule 7.3 ?

I think my first instinct would be to press the clock and ask the opponent to adjust the pieces. If they knock pieces over again, or if they press their clock again (without having adjusted the pieces), I would certainly stop the clock and ask for the arbiter's assistance.

It is true that they have gained 10 seconds (less because they have to adjust pieces), but then so have I.

And of course the arbiter should be able to remove the additional 10 seconds from both players (once the pieces have been reset) so that no advantage has been gained whatsover.

[Edward Tandi]

When digital clocks go wrong they usually do so in a big way. For example if the clock is hit too hard both displays sometimes go to 0 - 1 and the times are completely lost. This is apparently quite common with one batch of clocks. If an analogue clock were broken by hitting it too hard it would probably still be possible to read the times and transfer to a new clock.

Any particular model? I think the DGT 2000 and DGT XL look OK viewed from wide angles.

[E Michael White]

And of course the arbiter should be able to remove the additional 10 seconds from both players (once the pieces have been reset) so that no advantage has been gained whatsover.

In practice it doesnt work that way.

A few years ago I did exactly as Edward suggests in a tournament in Scarborough, probably one of the British events which wasn't Rapidplay. The arbiter said I should not have restarted my opponents clock and refused to remove the seconds from the clocks adding that he didn't have the time.

In Rapidplay there are likely to be more displaced piece incidents making the arbiter even more reluctant to act which makes me think increment mode in Rapidplay is not viable.

[Mike Gunn]

If you knock over pieces near a time control then you have a problem anyway, regardless of whether increments are being used. I don't see why this is an argument against increments!

In my one rapidplay tournament using 10 second increments (20/10 time control) I found it fairly easy when playing endings to accumulate a minute or two on the clock to allow slightly longer thinks (or put back a piece I knocked over).

I think it's important to use a fairly standard clock if you are trying to persuade an opponent to use it. My first digital clock was a very nice Dutch one costing only £30 in a bright blue plastic case (purchased from Malc's emporium on Euston Road). Many players refused to use it because they had never seen anything like it before and one player used to sarcastically say "here's Mike with his Fisher-Price clock". I ended up using it to time things in the kitchen.

[Sean Hewitt]

And of course the arbiter should be able to remove the additional 10 seconds from both players (once the pieces have been reset) so that no advantage has been gained whatsover.

In practice it doesnt work that way.

A few years ago I did exactly as Edward suggests in a tournament in Scarborough, probably one of the British events which wasn't Rapidplay. The arbiter said I should not have restarted my opponents clock and refused to remove the seconds from the clocks adding that he didn't have the time.

In Rapidplay there are likely to be more displaced piece incidents making the arbiter even more reluctant to act which makes me think increment mode in Rapidplay is not viable.

The arbiter here was clearly wrong, but I dont think a mistake like this is a logical argument against increments.

[E Michael White]

I dont think a mistake like this is a logical argument against increments

Ok Lets move to logics. I know you're good at statistics Sean but this is more about arbiter economics and the pulls on their time being the driving force in arbiters' thinking for themselves and taking short cuts, always dangerous.

I wasn't suggesting a mistake justifies making changes. Yes the arbiter was wrong, pressing a clock when the attempted move made is not clear constitutes clock abuse as improper clock handling under FIDE 6.8c and must be punished under Rule 13.4. The arbiter does not have any discretion in the matter. Rule 13.4 says "can" and not "may" indicating that 13.4 is a list of possible sanctions not a discretionary list of sanctions, the directive being in 6.8c.

My point is that PDIs are likely to be more common under increment than under non increment modes so the arbiter will be under more time pressure and not be able to act in all cases or players will simply stop the clocks rather than restart their opponents clock. In either case the at fault player will gain seconds while the pieces are replaced and the other player will be distracted. I know players who have said if under time pressure they will deliberately knock over pieces to gain vital seconds, this ploy working better in increment than other modes.

Lets assume that Sean is playing Simon under 20/10 rules and in this unusual tournament Mike is playing Edward under all in 30 rules on the next board. The games are exactly the same and moves occur at the same time in both games and Mike Gunn is the arbiter. After 54 moves Simon is living off the increment ie he moves and has less than 10 seconds left before pressing the clock. At this point in the tournament Simon has been credited with 29 minutes and as Edward had 30 minutes he has more than a minute left.

If there are then simultaneous PDIs ie Simon and Edward play 55. Ne6 which could have been 55. Nd5, knock over the moved knight, other pieces and press the clock. Under the Mike v Edward game no arbiter intervention is needed as Mike simply restarts Edwards clock he bursts into action replaces the pieces says "sorry mate" and restarts Mike's clock and the game continues. Whereas in the other game Sean restarts Simons clock the pieces are replaced, the clocks are stopped then Mike Gunn who happens to be dealing with another incident is called to reset the clock. Simon is then able to study the position while Mike Gunn comes to the board 30 seconds later. The same thing then happens on the next move as Simon is still on the increment and then a similar thing in another game.

I think you should agree that in the big picture the demands on the arbiter time, if he fully complies with the rules are much higher under the increment mode and the arbiter GDP will not stretch that far which is when arbiters take short cuts.

To make increment mode practical in Rapidplay the rules probably need modification along the lines of:- in the event of a PDI the clocks are stopped the pieces replaced and the game continues and this overrides Fide 7.3 . To compensate and prevent abuse the rules probably need to be altered so that if a player knocks over pieces more than 3 times and presses the clock as for illegal moves they should lose the game.

[Greg Breed]

Mike, just for the rest of us morons, can you explain what "GDP", "DPI" & "PDI" are in your post?

And if anyone else likes using acronyms, abbreviations or initialisms, etc, can they qualify them first... just for the rest of us.

Thanks.

[E Michael White]

Greg

I meant PDI to be piece displacement incident and GDP to be arbiter gross domestic product or total productive time he has available to do all things which arbiters do. Not sure that GDP was a good word now and think I should have said TTATA. DPI should have been PDI.