Losing on time when there is an increment

[Phil Neatherway]

NickFaulks wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:53 am

Tim Harding wrote: ↑
Sat Aug 04, 2018 11:40 pm
FM Stephen Jessel just failed to punch his clock in time after making move 40 on the board.

I always find that a bit strange when there is a 30 second increment.

This happened to me at a tournament in France last Friday. I had (as I thought) an advantageous position against a player rated 160 higher than me. I had about a minute for the last move, had two ways to capture a pawn and just couldn't decide and forgot about the clock. So different from Jessel's game in that i didn't even make a move on the board, but nonetheless highly frustrating. Has this happened to anyone else?

No wonder I can't improve my ELO rating much!

[Roger de Coverly]

[ I had about a minute for the last move, had two ways to capture a pawn and just couldn't decide and forgot about the clock.

A lot of 30 second increment chess these days is played at either a rate of 40 moves in 90 minutes with an extra 30 or just all in 90. I suppose it's more likely that you lose on time in the former as the time bonus at move 40 can encourage longer thinking beforehand. I think if I approached move 40 with about two minutes in hand but no extra time to come, I would already have switched into rapid mode. In other words play as quickly as possible so as not to have to rely solely on the increment.

[Phil Neatherway]

In fact, I would have got an extra 30 minutes, had I reached move 40. It's interesting that the extra time was added as soon as you reach move 40, unlike English tournaments.

[Tim Harding]

In fact, I would have got an extra 30 minutes, had I reached move 40. It's interesting that the extra time was added as soon as you reach move 40, unlike English tournaments.

Another reason why the move counter normally is not used is that it gives an indication to the players that they have made the time control.
But you have to be careful when the counter is used, because if the levers were pressed an extra time each for some reason (it happens sometimes) the move counter could be wrong.
Depending on the clock design, it may show Period 2.

When the counter is being used (as it is in the Irish Championships this week), the arbiter should check, when (s)he sees the extra time added or Period 2 showing, that 40 moves have actually been played.

If the counter is not used, then the flag shows when one player has exhausted the original time allowance (including increments) and the arbiter, seeing a flag, checks the number of moves made (showing on the scoresheets unless they don't agree).

All stuff I'm having to learn as I qualify for an arbiter licence.

[Roger de Coverly]

Another reason why the move counter normally is not used is that it gives an indication to the players that they have made the time control.

That's correct but not relevant as with 30 second increments, the players should know anyway as they are required to keep score.

What's used can be a function of the clock's default settings as before the introduction of the DGT 2010, it was the normal practice to add time at the move count. That applied particularly in British tournaments that used 60 second increments which needed customised settings on the earlier generations of clocks.

[Gavin Hughes]

As the king of losing on time for every reason going.
Last 12 months
A) analogue clock couldnt see the dial. (Won position lost the county team the match)
B) Thought the extra time had not been added when it had. (Actually have done this twice). (Another county game in a won position)
C) Thought my section at the British got an extra 30 mins like other sections. (Drawn position).

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The temptation is to use all the 30 seconds to avoid blundering. The risk is getting to 10 seconds, seeing something unexpected, and panicking and either blundering or freezing and losing on time. Usually you will have tricked yourself into panicking in some way. Or just forgetting about the clock. Those people who express surprise and say it is 'impossible' to lose on time with an increment may well have this happen to them one day.

[Peter Shaw]

As the king of losing on time for every reason going.
Last 12 months
A) analogue clock couldnt see the dial. (Won position lost the county team the match)
B) Thought the extra time had not been added when it had. (Actually have done this twice). (Another county game in a won position)
C) Thought my section at the British got an extra 30 mins like other sections. (Drawn position).

I'm probably setting myself up for a fall here but I simply cannot understand how anyone can fall victim to (B), yet I've seen it happen so many times. Perhaps it's because I typically reach the time control with very little time left so I'm in no doubt whether the extra time has been added. Of course it also happens the other way around where players are blitzing when they don't realise they have more time to come.

I've certainly had a painful experience of (A) and of course (C) has claimed a notable victim in Magnus Carlsen.

[Tim Harding]

Another reason why the move counter normally is not used is that it gives an indication to the players that they have made the time control.

That's correct but not relevant as with 30 second increments, the players should know anyway as they are required to keep score.

In theory yes. At the World Senior Teams 65+ a Scottish player lost on time quite unnecessarily, moreover in a winning position. He thought he had made 40 moves but had made a mistake with his score around move 25 and written a move twice.

An arbiter went carefully through the game with the players and both scoresheets to verify that the opponent's claim was correct.

[Phil Neatherway]

On the subject of move counters, in a 4NCL match last season, the opposing team's player on the next board pressed the clock on my board my mistake, thereby giving me 30 exra seconds. He did this again a short while later, and apologised. I just replied that it was no problem and thanked him for the extra time. What would the arbiters have done if had sdrawn this to their attention?

[Brian Towers]

On the subject of move counters, in a 4NCL match last season, the opposing team's player on the next board pressed the clock on my board my mistake, thereby giving me 30 exra seconds. He did this again a short while later, and apologised. I just replied that it was no problem and thanked him for the extra time. What would the arbiters have done if had sdrawn this to their attention?

Presumably your opponent wasn't in time trouble? Else you might not have appreciated your opponent getting an extra minute on the clock. It wasn't just you who gained extra time.

Whether and when to adjust the clocks is a very tricky decision which depends on the circumstances at the time. For instance if you are in severe time trouble, in a very complicated position, make an illegal move, your opponent has lots of time left and the arbiter is watching your game it is a perfectly reasonable decision for the arbiter to just tell you to play on with the intention of applying the correction later if you survive rather than give you unwarranted extra thinking time while the clocks are adjusted.

[Roger de Coverly]

For instance if you are in severe time trouble, in a very complicated position, make an illegal move, your opponent has lots of time left and the arbiter is watching your game it is a perfectly reasonable decision for the arbiter to just tell you to play on with the intention of applying the correction later if you survive rather than give you unwarranted extra thinking time while the clocks are adjusted.

It's alleged, probably correctly, that in the early years of digital clocks, particularly without increments, that a defensive technique of a less than scrupulous player was to play an illegal move and exploit the arbiter's lack of ability to make a rapid clock correction.

Against that, claiming the extra time when in a final session without increments can be a winning plan.

[Stewart Reuben]

Of course the digital clocks rarely have move counters. They have push counters. They are so much better where the number of pushes is shown where there are 2 or more time controls. This applies to only two clocks - as far as I know. The Excalibur Game Time used by the USCF and Chronos. The latter is excellent, but expensive and keeps being changed. I don't know how well Excalibur stands up to the hurly-burly of a chess event.

When using a clock with a rate of play such as 40 moves in 90 minutes + 30 minutes for the remaining moves + 30 seconds from the start, it is usually unwise to let the clock add on the 30 minutes after 40 pushes. ADVICE: if this is done then:
The arbiter MUST start all the clocks.
During the game he MUST check each game every 30 minutes to observe whether the clocks and scoresheets for all the games add up correctly. - But he should do that every hour even if the clock doesn't add the time.
Thus usually in Britain, the extra 30 minutes is only added AFTER one flag has fallen In the European Senior Team Championship this year, the players started the clocks and there were numerous errors.

[Roger de Coverly]

They are so much better where the number of pushes is shown where there are 2 or more time controls. This applies to only two clocks - as far as I know.

DGT 2000 will display the push count, but only if you press the button marked #. I don't think I've ever seen an arbiter do this.

Prior to the introduction of that model, it was standard practice in UK events when using increments to add the time at the count.

[Stewart Reuben]

It has to be displayed throughout the game. Not when the arbiter occasionally tinkers with the clock, thus disturbing both players. I don't know whether it would be possible to tape down the # button.