Appendix G Clock substitutions

[Brian Towers]

Stewart, in the phrase "a  time  delay  or  cumulative  time of  an  extra  five  seconds" can you explain what you meant by "time delay" and "cumulative time". If you actually meant "5 second increment" then why didn't you use that phrase instead?

I thought I understood a 5 second "time delay". As I understand it some clocks allow you to set a delay. In this case time wouldn't start counting down after your opponent presses the clock until 5 seconds had elapsed. You don't get an extra 5 seconds every time you press the clock instead if you move within 5 seconds then your remaining time doesn't change. Why this harking back to an old fashioned form of blitz? Or was it a limit of the technology at the time the rule was written?

Don't worry, I do my arbitering in a first world country (chessically speaking) where analogue clocks exist only in museums and gathering dust in the attics of elderly chess players. They are only taken out when it is felt that juniors need to learn respect for the geriatric (i.e. how to smile and nod convincingly whilst edging towards the door).

[Roger de Coverly]

Why this harking back to an old fashioned form of blitz? Or was it a limit of the technology at the time the rule was written?

It's a very popular form of timing in the USA. A cynic would say that was because the USCF, which sells equipment, had a monopoly for a limited period in suitable clocks. Essentially they just took a traditional move rate, like 40 moves in 120 minutes, followed by 30 minutes to finish and superimposed a 5 second delay so that 10.2/ Appendix G claims could be ruled out.

https://millionairechess.com/tournament-schedule

Rather than stop for five seconds, the DGT clocks will add the five seconds to the time remaining. Presumably they cancel the additional time if pressed again within five seconds.

[Brian Towers]

Consequently neither G4 nor G5 can be used with no arbiter present.

While we have the benefit of Stewart's critical eye on this thread, my understanding is that a G5 claim can be made with just a telephone arbiter although it is a bit of an Armageddon option. The conversation is likely to go like this:

Player: "I'd like to claim a draw under G5."
Arbiter: "No worries. Send me a complete scoresheet up to the current position and I'll have a look. My decision will be one of:
1) It's a draw.
2) You lose.
Understand that if you can't send me a complete scoresheet then the range of positions in which I can decide it is a draw will be rather limited."

The chessplayer in me hopes that the arbiter doesn't also ask for the grades of the two players or look them up online to add some bias to his decision.

The one time I tried this many years ago the arbiter was also our club secretary and he actually gave a third answer - "No, you can't. Play on" - which, I suppose, is the risk-free approach for an arbiter which cuts straight to answer 2) with only minimal delay - the 2 or 3 minutes it takes you to lose on time.

[Roger de Coverly]

While we have the benefit of Stewart's critical eye on this thread, my understanding is that a G5 claim can be made with just a telephone arbiter although it is a bit of an Armageddon option.

Personally if playing in a match I would want to know before the game started whether an arbiter was deemed present or not. I would prefer that the rules for no arbiter present took precedence over telephone arbiters. Some British arbiters claim that it simultaneously possible to FIDE rate league and county chess (requiring presence of an arbiter) and also not having the arbiter present, thereby allowing Appendix G claims if playing without increment.

I think clock substitution is plausible for matches where no arbiter is present, but you need to write a specific League rule which makes it an absolute right. Such a rule might say that you can require a clock substitution but the opponent can decline by accepting your implied draw offer. It needs the presence of a digital timer which can be ensured if you start the game using one. However if digital timers are available, you can avoid Appendix G issues by using an increment from the start of the game or from an intermediate time control.

[Alex McFarlane]

Can I add one more factor in the decision of the arbiter as to whether the request for increments should be allowed?
I would have some concerns in allowing 5 second increments if the opponent had a handicap. I simply don't think it would be fair to insist that a blind player for example either accepted the draw or was forced to play with such a short increment.

As regards FIDE rating of leagues, FIDE has stated that an arbiter on the end of a phone is acceptable. Indeed Scotland was originally given the opposite opinion when it enquired of the FIDE office. It was not a decision taken by a British arbiter. My personal opinion is that it is a weird decision as I cannot see how it can be properly carried out without someone at the match actually carrying out some of the duties of an arbiter which is not allowed unless they are licenced.

[Ian Thompson]

Rather than stop for five seconds, the DGT clocks will add the five seconds to the time remaining. Presumably they cancel the additional time if pressed again within five seconds.

They don't work like that.

Suppose the time limit is 90 minutes + 5 seconds delay. At the start of the game the clock will show your remaining time as 90 minutes and 5 seconds.

If you make your first move after 2 seconds, the clock will stop at 90 minutes and 3 seconds, and then add on 2 seconds to leave your remaining time at 90 minutes and 5 seconds.

If you make your first move after 2 minutes, the clock will stop at 88 minutes and 5 seconds, and then add on 5 seconds to leave your remaining time at 88 minutes and 10 seconds.

This is exactly the same behaviour as with an increment, except that the time you have left after moving can never be more than the time you had left when your clock was started.

[Brian Towers]

Some British arbiters claim that it simultaneously possible to FIDE rate league and county chess (requiring presence of an arbiter) and also not having the arbiter present

That is my understanding also and is what happens where I live. Having said that, all the big clubs will have somebody "on duty" who is also a FIDE registered arbiter although, looking at the FIDE records, the federation picks 3 or 4 names to put down as the formal arbiters of the competition.

Looking through the records of players strong enough to play in regional leagues (~2100) but not national league this (FIDE rating of regional leagues) dates back to at least 2010. Looking through my records this has only extended down to my level (~1800) over the last couple of years although it appears I have been rated since 2007 via club competitions.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Does it make any difference? Unless the arbiter gives an immediate judgement, they are tied to the board where the Appendix G claim has arisen. At least with a clock reset, they can leave the players to their own devices."

Except it might take you five minutes to set the clock...

[Brian Towers]

Except it might take you five minutes to set the clock...

From the clocks section (section 7) of FIDE Tournament Rules

(9)  In  case of  time penalties  it must be possible  that  time and move  counter corrections are executed by an arbiter within 60 seconds.

 
The arbiter should either familiarize himself and practice with the clock used for the tournament beforehand or make sure a competent junior player (they're nearly all much better with modern technology than the adults) is always on hand to delegate clock manipulation duties to .

[Kevin Thurlow]

"From the clocks section (section 7) of FIDE Tournament Rules


(9) In case of time penalties it must be possible that time and move counter corrections are executed by an arbiter within 60 seconds.

The arbiter should either familiarize himself and practice with the clock used for the tournament beforehand or make sure a competent junior player (they're nearly all much better with modern technology than the adults) is always on hand to delegate clock manipulation duties to ."

Fair enough - I was including the time needed to find one!

[NickFaulks]

As regards FIDE rating of leagues, FIDE has stated that an arbiter on the end of a phone is acceptable.

I have never heard the idea of an arbiter on the end of a phone even being discussed within FIDE. Where did it originate?

[Roger de Coverly]

I have never heard the idea of an arbiter on the end of a phone even being discussed within FIDE. Where did it originate?

I am sure you are familiar with English county matches on Saturday afternoons. These have never been FIDE rated despite the session time being four hours or more. So the question to FIDE or the ECF is, what would need to change to allow these to be rated?

http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/match1.htm

[Brian Towers]

I am sure you are familiar with English county matches on Saturday afternoons. These have never been FIDE rated despite the session time being four hours or more. So the question to FIDE or the ECF is, what would need to change to allow these to be rated?

I would guess that the ECF needs to follow the guidelines in the FIDE Rating Regulations.
Specifically they would need to:
1) Pre-register the tournament with FIDE at least one week in advance
2) Make sure rating fees are paid
3) Submit the results within the time limit
4) Appoint a registered arbiter

In practice I suspect that an ECF council member doesn't have to do all this stuff himself. Maybe whoever organizes the event could do the paperwork and get the ECF to rubberstamp it. You should nudge somebody who actually does this stuff, like Adam Raoof, and ask them what exactly do they do for their events. I see he is a FIDE registered International Organizer. Does that mean that he can do all this stuff himself (or delegate it) and bypass the ECF? Is the IO title necessary? Or can anyone just organize a tournament, do the paperwork and send in the results? Or anybody to whom the ECF has delegated responsibility for organizing?

[Roger de Coverly]

Specifically they would need to:

I think I'm familiar with the Regulations. These matches take place without an arbiter present and without requiring players to be registered with National federations. Both would be sufficient cultural changes that if imposed as external requirements could be enough to prevent the matches taking place at all.

There are those who argue that a Licensed Arbiter can be present without being on the premises.

[NickFaulks]

I have never heard the idea of an arbiter on the end of a phone even being discussed within FIDE. Where did it originate?

I am sure you are familiar with English county matches on Saturday afternoons. These have never been FIDE rated despite the session time being four hours or more. So the question to FIDE or the ECF is, what would need to change to allow these to be rated?

http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/match1.htm

Is that intended to be an answer to my question? I really would like one. We are at present dealing with a rumour circulating in the US that organisers are required to ask players for their birth certificate, and I don't know how that one got started either. It seems to have taken in some people who should have known better.

In answer to your question, the main roadblock is the requirement that the first intermediate time control, if there is one, should be at move 40. I can understand why the players dislike this, and may find it too high a price to pay for getting their games FIDE rated.