NCCU AGM Minutes 2010

[Ian Kingston]

The time limit is 40/2 and 20/1. Your scoresheet shows that you are at move 50. The analogue clock shows 5.55 on the clock face as the time. That's not a problem because you know the next time control is at 7.00, so you have 65 minutes for 10 moves.

The digital clock shows 5.00 minutes remaining. Are you quite sure there's a hidden extra hour there ?- you've not kept track of the clock times.

This really isn't a problem. Chess players have a basic concept of time, so they probably realise subconsciously how many hours have passed since the start of their game. One hour is a long period of time, I don't know of anyone who would not be aware of its passing, and whether or not they have more time or not.

I think this is nit-picking for a problem that in reality doesn't exist.

I'm absolutely in favour of digital clocks, but this problem does occur - I've seen it at least twice. On one occasion a team mate of mine, very experienced in the use of digital clocks, lost a game because he thought he was in the second and final period (15 minutes, no increment) when in fact the additional 15 minutes had yet to be added. He blitzed out his moves, blundered and lost.

On the other occasion my opponent was using a digital clock for the first time. As the first time control approached he started to look panicky and played a couple of moves unnecessarily quickly (we'd gone past the number of moves needed for the time control). I quietly reminded him that there were still 15 minutes to be added and he slowed down to a normal playing speed.

And I second the proposal to move these off-topic posts.

[Mick Norris]

Reading the minutes, they even banned digital clocks in the County Championship, unless both captains agree. It seems they confuse Greater Manchester people. This would explain David Pardoe's previous question about them on this forum.

Alex

This is the kind of thing that really irritates me about you

Digital clocks have been used in MCCU competitions even if the Rules don't explicitly allow them

The MCF proposal was to formalise the use of digital clocks, and more importantly to allow the use of incremental time controls, which is why I took the trouble to draft it, and drive nearly 300 miles to ensure that it wasn't defeated (as it would have been if I wasn't there)

The point is that many MCCU delegates have no experience of incremental time controls, so the only way to get this introduced was to have a rule that allows either captain to veto it - the words I used to win the vote at the meeting were "don't oppose this, if Staffs, Warks and Manchester want to use it, let us, if you don't we won't force you"

If it is good enough for the SCCU, it should be good enough for the MCCU

The MCF are now purchasing digital clocks to be used in County matches and our Congresses

The new MCF President (me) wants to move us forward, and reopening discussions with the NCCU (with thanks to Andy) is one area to do this - since my appointment on Monday evening, I have appointed a new young Open captain and a captain for our 4NCL North team

[Alex Holowczak]

The point is, the MCCU rules didn't need to explicitly allow them. The FIDE Laws of Chess already do just this. However, one captain now has the right to disagree to use them. Before, this would not be the case, you'd use the clocks of the home team. So your proposal has actually had the opposite effect of what you wanted it to do, because now a captain (or county) has the right to block their use. Before they could use them, and no one could object.

With regard to using the incremental time controls, that's fair enough. If there, I would have suggested the same time Sean uses in e2e4 events, e.g. 90 minutes + 30 seconds/move from move 1. For the Open (which has a 5, not 4-hour session), then 120 minutes + 30 seconds/move from move 1 would do the trick. Unfortunately, I wasn't there to make this point.

[Mick Norris]

If you want to be helpful, rather than just criticise, put forward your view on incremental time controls to the MCCU either directly, or via the Worcs delegate - my proposal to copy the SCCU time limits was not accepted

The Rule in my view only covers agreement being needed for the use of incremental time controls, so I disagree with your conclusion

[Sean Hewitt]

The Rule in my view only covers agreement being needed for the use of incremental time controls, so I disagree with your conclusion

Mick,

Obviously you were at the meeting and Alex and I were not. However, if what you say above is correct then may I suggest that you might need to challenge the 2010 MCCU AGM minutes which state

The meeting decided to split the proposal into 2 parts, that of the basic principal to allow use of digital clocks where 2 captains agree, and the matter of the actual time controls to be used. The meeting voted in favour of allowing use by agreement, but felt that some research was required regarding the use of incremental time controls.

Last year Leicestershire were able to use digital clocks in our home games without exception. If the rule described in the MCCU AGM minutes is enacted, we can only do so with the agreement of the opposition captain. This is a backward step in my opinion and is troublesome for us as we have ditched all our old analogue clocks!

[John Philpott]

If the MCCU minutes say

that of the basic principal to allow use of digital clocks

then I think they need to be challenged on the basis of an offence against the English language!

[Mick Norris]

Sean

I queried this point in the minutes by email on 30 June and have done so again today

The meeting was interesting, as the point about blind players was not one I had been aware of having being raised before - no doubt there is an answer

It is certainly fair to say that some delegates would prefer not to use digital clocks, but I pointed out the problems of malfunction with analogue clocks too and the fact that digital clocks were accepted and widely used (I may have forgotten to make the point about using FIDE approved equipment, and it may be that some delegates had heard of or experienced the Saitek clock problems)

[Mick Norris]

If the MCCU minutes say

that of the basic principal to allow use of digital clocks

then I think they need to be challenged on the basis of an offence against the English language!

Lost in translation from Syston?

[Ian Thompson]

The meeting was interesting, as the point about blind players was not one I had been aware of having being raised before - no doubt there is an answer

The answer is covered by the FIDE rules. The blind player already has the right to use an assistant to tell him such things as the clock times. This would seem to be the only option at the moment as I don't think there are any digital clocks suitable for use by blind players unassisted. A Google search found nothing more than a comment that the current manufacturers of digital chess clocks did not think it was viable to produce clocks for blind players because they didn't think they would sell enough to cover their costs.

[Mick Norris]

Ian

Thanks for that, as always someone on the Forum knows the answer

[David Pardoe]

Regarding the use of FIDE approved digital clocks.
I was told at the recent MCF AGM that such clocks could be used for league matches, where these are played under FIDE rules... unconditionally. I took this to mean that, if the `home` team had such clocks, then these could be used and the opposing team could not object to this.
If not, then there would be little point in clubs investing in this new technology.
In the case of a blind person it is normal to use there own special braille clock, I believe, which seems entirely reasonable.
Again, I believe that until players have become familiar with this equipment, it would be a good idea for home clubs with such clocks to brief there opponents before the match about the main features.
I share concerns raised about these, particularly regarding time controls. I also worry that players can loose track of moves made, and thus not realise they have made (or not made) a time control, and therefore rush to make additional moves unnecessarily. This could easily happen in a time scramble, where a player might have several moves to make to reach the time control. It might happen because someone has mis-recorded moves.
An adjustable move counter display on these clocks would be helpful.
However, I am assured that, when the prescribed number of moves has been made, that some indicator on the clock face will clearly signal this. If so, then fair enough.

As regards joining the NCCU...yes, if satisfactory agreements can be reached. Our current membership of the MCCU has worked reasonably well for many years, despite some differences of opinion at times, and the county competitions have proved to be well supported and interesting events.

[Roger de Coverly]

In the case of a blind person it is normal to use there own special braille clock, I believe, which seems entirely reasonable.

The issue is that no digital clocks offer any special features for blind players - for example a digital voice that could announce the time remaining. If you aren't using increments, then you can carry on with the braille clock. If you are using increments, then you have a problem. The Fide solution appears to be that the blind player's board has to have a steward who can inform the player of the clock times periodically.

[Ian Thompson]

I share concerns raised about these, particularly regarding time controls. I also worry that players can loose track of moves made, and thus not realise they have made (or not made) a time control, and therefore rush to make additional moves unnecessarily. This could easily happen in a time scramble, where a player might have several moves to make to reach the time control. It might happen because someone has mis-recorded moves.

How does this differ from analogue clocks?

[David Pardoe]

Very simple...you can see the flag fall.
Otherwise, when you reach the time control, play stops..the clocks are reset, and play continues..you thus know precisely where you`re at...and how much actual time you have.

Regarding the blind person situation..the incremental time issue looks impossible. The concept of a time scramble, with the arbitor continually shouting `10 secs left`, would be highly amusing to say the least. Specially when you have those dreadful rules concerning mobile phones...
I`d like to see a two tier system for mobiles..
1..covering top level tournaments and Congresses, where major prizes and titles are at stake, and playing conditions are necessarily more strict.
and 2..for lesser events and league fixtures, where `silent mode` could be used, and where one warning is given prior to a game being awarded. These lesser events already have various low level distractions. Typical is the Football downstairs in the bar, with sudden shouts every time a goal is scored. But, the most important point in my view is that the penalty should fit the crime. An automatic loss for such infringements is far too severe, in my view. A standard 5 minute time penalty would be quite sufficient for league and county matches.

[Alex Holowczak]

Very simple...you can see the flag fall.
Otherwise, when you reach the time control, play stops..the clocks are reset, and play continues..you thus know precisely where you`re at...and how much actual time you have.

Which is exactly the same as it a digital clock. Instead of seeing the flag fall, the display reaches 0:00.