Digital Clocks - issues arising from introduction

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2970
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Digital Clocks - issues arising from introduction

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:29 am

"I recorded 49 moves until I had about 1 1/2 minutes left. A few moves later my opponent made an illegal move when in check.

Had the arbiter noticed, he might have intervened earlier, on the grounds that you weren't recording your moves. This would have made it clear which time period you were in!"

unless the arbiter thinks that would give helpful information to one of the players!

I have had occasions where people have lost on time and complained the time hasn't added for the second time control. Simple addition has shown they are wrong. It may help if you write the times down by each move so you are likely to notice clock readings more.

David Blower
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Digital Clocks - issues arising from introduction

Post by David Blower » Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:23 pm

Brewood have finally received the digital chess clock we have ordered it is the DGT2010. A club championship match was played using it today (not involving myself) at the end of the night I had a basic 5 minute demostration on how to use it.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Digital Clocks - issues arising from introduction

Post by NickFaulks » Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:35 am

I have never understood why games played with digital clocks, finishing in one session, do not routinely have a 3 second increment to avoid nonsenses like K+R v K+R being decided on time. I know such problems are rare in club chess, which reflects well on the players ( and, if I may be a bit provocative, may be helped by the general absence of any official arbiter ) but why not?

NickFaulks
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Digital Clocks - issues arising from introduction

Post by NickFaulks » Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:44 am

An amusing anecdote ( I thought ). When the QC was considering the regulations for FIDE's blitz ratings, it occurred to me to ask whether the use of digital clocks should be compulsory. Most people in the room though this was a silly question, since the answer was obvious, but it turned out that they were evenly split on what it was. Of course, it all depended on whether they came from those parts of the world where analogue clocks have already been retired to museums.
Last edited by NickFaulks on Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18102
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Digital Clocks - issues arising from introduction

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:53 am

NickFaulks wrote:I have never understood why games played with digital clocks, finishing in one session, do not routinely have a 3 second increment to avoid nonsenses like K+R v K+R being decided on time.
K+R v K+R is a bad example because of the existence of Appendix D and 10.2 which should award an instant draw to whichever player first claims it. The sporting point is that if the competition rules are that all the moves should be completed in 90 minutes, that means what it says and failure to do this results in a loss. This is however modified by the Appendix D and 10.2 provisions, which are largely based on empirical rules built up from British Congress experience from the 1970s onwards.

Rather than have an increment from the start of the game, an untried and possibly unsupported idea in the clock software would be to have the increment operate from when the first of the outstanding times hits five minutes or two minutes.

The other problem with a "small" increment is how a player in a position that might be a draw under threefold repetition or fifty moves can actually claim this given the absence of scoring.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Digital Clocks - issues arising from introduction

Post by NickFaulks » Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:16 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
NickFaulks wrote:I have never understood why games played with digital clocks, finishing in one session, do not routinely have a 3 second increment to avoid nonsenses like K+R v K+R being decided on time.
K+R v K+R is a bad example because of the existence of Appendix D and 10.2 which should award an instant draw to whichever player first claims it. The sporting point is that if the competition rules are that all the moves should be completed in 90 minutes, that means what it says and failure to do this results in a loss. This is however modified by the Appendix D and 10.2 provisions, which are largely based on empirical rules built up from British Congress experience from the 1970s onwards.

Rather than have an increment from the start of the game, an untried and possibly unsupported idea in the clock software would be to have the increment operate from when the first of the outstanding times hits five minutes or two minutes.

The other problem with a "small" increment is how a player in a position that might be a draw under threefold repetition or fifty moves can actually claim this given the absence of scoring.
My point is that I want to avoid Appendix D and 10.2, which are generally unsatisfactory. I see no problem with a 3 second interval from the start - if the schedule is really that tight, deduct 5 minutes from each player at move 1. Any problem will be less serious than having the caretaker standing over the player sealing his move for an adjournment.

In club games, it is a waste of time to consider solutions to the 50 move claim problem, because there isn't one. Three move repetition claims are usually settled amicably using witnesses, otherwise there is again no solution. One day all games will be played on boards which remember the moves ( requiring a new approach in the Laws ), but first the UK needs to go digital!

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18102
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Digital Clocks - issues arising from introduction

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:40 am

NickFaulks wrote: In club games, it is a waste of time to consider solutions to the 50 move claim problem, because there isn't one.
It's not just club games, there's weekend Congresses. But for the intervention of the clock, playing without increment, I could have had the "Arkell" ending of Rook and Bishop against Rook twice within the last year, so I don't accept the "never". Sooner or later Keith is going to get this ending in a game with increments of less than 30 seconds. He may even be able to win inside fifty moves, but how is the defender to know the move count?

Post Reply