English Chess Forum

In a league match this evening an interesting but frustrating incident occured. On board two, the two players were both inside their last three minutes, playing with a DGT 2000 clock, when the clock suddenly went back to the initial menu - the one where you choose which of the modes you want - for no apparent reason. The clock had been working perfectly up to that point, and indeed performed well in tests afterwards. There was no "low battery" indicator, no flickering of the screen or anything to suggest a problem. So I have two questions:

1. Has anyone else experienced this or anything similar?

2. What should be done in this situation? Both myself and the opposing captain (who also posts on here) were watching other games at the time, and neither of the players was certain of the exact times on each of their clocks. None of us present was aware of any rule covering this situation nor of any precedent. In the end, we replaced the clock and awarded the home player (my team) three minutes and the away player five (an extra two to compensate for the incident as it was a "home" clock). Is the home team deemed to be responsible for equipment failures? Could the away player indeed have claimed the win?

In the end the away player won the game to win the match 3.5 - 2.5 for his team.

6.10a is your friend here:

6.10
a: Every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive in the absence of any evident defect. A chess clock with an evident defect shall be replaced. The arbiter shall replace the clock and use his best judgment when determining the times to be shown on the replacement chess clocks.

Thanks for that Jack. I suspected that there must be something in the rules covering such occurances, though it was not one of the ones that I knew. It says pretty much what I expected, though. It's potentially another one of those situations in which the team captains acting as arbiters is potentially less than ideal.

Regarding the arbiters' "best judgement" - in a team match should the player of the team who supplied the faulty clock be penalised, or would this be best viewed as a situation where both parties are innocent victims of an unfortunate technological failure?

Eoin Devane wrote: Regarding the arbiters' "best judgement" - in a team match should the player of the team who supplied the faulty clock be penalised, or would this be best viewed as a situation where both parties are innocent victims of an unfortunate technological failure?

I wouldn't go with any penalty more severe than a time penalty; I think the arrangement you came to in the match seems a reasonable one.

This sort of situation, incidentally, is why it's allowed to write down the time taken for your moves - it makes it much easier to sort out what the clock should be set to.

Eoin Devane wrote:Thanks for that Jack. I suspected that there must be something in the rules covering such occurances, though it was not one of the ones that I knew. It says pretty much what I expected, though. It's potentially another one of those situations in which the team captains acting as arbiters is potentially less than ideal.

Regarding the arbiters' "best judgement" - in a team match should the player of the team who supplied the faulty clock be penalised, or would this be best viewed as a situation where both parties are innocent victims of an unfortunate technological failure?

There is no reason to penalise the home player for this occurrence. He is much a 'victim' as the away team player. Put it another way, what you penalise him for, within the rules?

I've had this happen two or three times with the DGT 2000.

Obviously I cannot be certain in this case, but it is usually caused by a 'heavy' clock press loosening the batteries.
If only one player is abusing the clock then it is reasonable to penalise that player but when both are then I would consider them equally responsible regardless of who actually hit the clock last.

In the situation described it seems unfair to punish the home player. If a number of teams reported this happening at that venue then you could argue the home team should have taken action and removed that clock from use, and therefore could be penalised.

I would advise that the club looks at its clocks and makes sure the batteries are firmly in place. It is likely that the batteries are not firmly in place on that clock and a recurrence is more likely. A small piece of foam between the batteries and the retainer can reduce the chances of this happening again.

And people tell me to buy digital, yeah right.

I was the other captain in this match.

When I had looked at the game in question (about a minute before the clock stopped working) my player (Black) had what looked like an easily won position, but both sides still had queens and a perpetual didn't look out of the question. Both sides had less than four minutes, with Black having slightly more (perhaps 30 seconds advantage).

My reasoning for asking for a two minute penalty was the following section in our League Rules:

7. Match Rules - All Divisions
7.1 The home club is responsible for the venue and all match arrangements.
7.2 Home clubs are expected to provide scoresheets, clocks, and sets and boards of a uniform, recognised pattern.

I felt Black had been distracted in the same way as he might have been if White had played an illegal move in a blitz finish.

I think Alex might be right about the cause of the problem, Black said that the clock had just gone blank, and by the time I reached the board there was a flashing "01" on the left hand display, which I assume is what happens when the clock is switched off and on again.

Warren - although I personally find digital clocks difficult to play with, they are definitely the way to go. Analogue clocks go wrong more often (stopping, running at different speeds, flag falling prematurely due to twisted face etc.).

Warren,

It is only with this old model that I have experienced this problem. I have had far more problems with analogue clocks in time scrambles with claims of flags falling early or sticking upright when they should have fallen.

Alex McFarlane wrote:Obviously I cannot be certain in this case, but it is usually caused by a 'heavy' clock press loosening the batteries.

I've had this happen in a county game - it was most certainly not caused by 'heavy' pressing on the clock by either player.

I've mentioned this incident a couple of times on the forum. I was fortunate that

(a) the situation on the board was not critical (I was winning easily)
(b) the situation on the clock was not critical (we both had half an hour left each)
(c) we had an experienced FIDE arbiter sitting next to us (a frequent guest of these boards) so we didn't have a problem working out what to do.


I'll just add one more thing ...

isn't there a difference between a faulty clock and a clock that has been set incorrectly? If the latter, under the rules aren't both players equally liable?

Jonathan Bryant wrote:isn't there a difference between a faulty clock and a clock that has been set incorrectly? If the latter, under the rules aren't both players equally liable?

Yes, as below:

6.10a) Every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive in the absence of any evident defect. A chess clock with an evident defect shall be replaced. The arbiter shall replace the clock and use his best judgement when determining the times to be shown on the replacement chess clocks.

6.10b) If during a game it is found that the setting of either or both clocks was incorrect, either player or the arbiter shall stop the clocks immediately. The arbiter shall install the correct setting and adjust the times and move counter. He shall use his best judgement when determining the correct settings.

In neither case is the blame with the players.

We had a few problems this weekend (4NCL North) with the same clocks, but I don't know if the players or the clocks were responsible

Digital clocks are definitely much better, although I appreciate players need to get used to them

Have used digital clocks once, it was ok. Like Mick says just need to get used to them.

Jonathan Bryant wrote:....we had an experienced FIDE arbiter sitting next to us (a frequent guest of these boards)

Well then, he'd better be a guest of the boards in this thread also, hadn't he? Just to be pompous, I'm actually an International Arbiter rather than a FIDE Arbiter.

My experience is that these problems do happen occasionally, and for no apparent reason, with all types of electronic clocks, not just DGTs. In major events with a high ratio of arbiters to players, the arbiter should record the clock times on each board periodically so that there is always fairly recent information in the event of a clock failure. Obviously this is impracticable where you only have one arbiter for about a hundred players.

Where there is no precise information available as to the clock times, you use your judgment as indicated up thread and if appropriate compensate both players for the disturbance. In the game between Short and Ni Hua at the London Chess Classic 2009, Ni Hua's clock failed to operate from the start, a fact which became apparent to both players and me after three or four minutes play. I decided to give both players the full two hours on the replacement clock, thus giving each of them a couple of minutes extra.

It seems a bit harsh to hold the home team and player responsible for an unforeseeable clock failure. Surrey were the home team at the match to which Jonathan refers, but it never occurred to me nor to my opponent (also a qualified arbiter) that there should be any penalty.

I would agree with those who've said that there are far more problems with mechanical clocks. Electronic clocks work perfectly most of the time and when they do malfunction they usually don't work at all. With mechanical clocks you get problems and disputes about one or both clocks running slow, flags failing to lift or failing to fall, and, perhaps the most common, flags allegedly falling prematurely.

I wouldn’t advocate a return to mechanical clocks but feel the design of digitals should be improved. I cant see why some non-volatile memory cant be included to store the times in the event of battery failure or system reset. In their present state they are not fit for purpose if they are to be subject to the kind of thumping that happens in the final 2 minutes of a QPF.

Alex McFarlane wrote:It is only with this old model that I have experienced this problem. I have had far more problems with analogue clocks in time scrambles with claims of flags falling early or sticking upright when they should have fallen.

Its easy to misinterpret the data in cases like this. I have played since about 1956 and >90% of games were with mechanical clocks; I can recall only two incidents where a flag on my board fell early. It is possible that the mechanical clocks used now are becoming older and less reliable as clubs replace them less frequently to help finance a gradual purchase of more expensive digital clocks. With digital clocks, apart from frequent incorrect initial setting, I can recall one incident in 2004 in the Bristol Open, where the display went blank similarly to Eion’s description, after my opponent gave the clock an enormous thump. Mechanical failures per game for digitals which I observed were clearly 4 – 5 times higher than for mechanical clocks.

Although Alex says he has had fewer problems with digital clocks the faults which do occur are much more trouble if the display and the times are lost. For mechanical clocks the times are nearly always retrievable to transfer to a replacement clock.

Alex McFarlane wrote:Obviously I cannot be certain in this case, but it is usually caused by a 'heavy' clock press loosening the batteries.

I don’t believe loose batteries are necessarily the cause. It has been suggested, among others, that the system reset switch can be loose or the clock chassis warp when a clock is thumped causing the reset switch to close, could also account for the symptoms seen.