Clock Rules for SCCU County Matches

[Roger de Coverly]

The SCCU have adopted rules for playing increment chess in county matches that on the face of it are strange and do not, I think, work.

Here are the rules

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

from which

35 moves in 1 hour 40 minutes followed by all moves in 20 minutes; with an increment of 10 seconds for every move played from the start

and

The move counter is not in operation, as errors by players can lead to confusion.

The 20-minute add-on will occur automatically, on both clocks, as soon as the initial time period of 1hr 40min has expired on one of the clocks. A static black flag will appear on that clock when this has happened. Players should then check that the required 35 moves have been made.

I don't think you should do an add-on in increment mode without counting clock presses.

Lets take an example. The time available for 30 moves is 100 minutes plus 300 seconds, so 105 minutes. The above rule seems to imply that the extra 20 minutes would be added on once a player got to 5 minutes remaining ( since the initial 100 minutes has expired ). This is totally useless since there's still 5 moves to go.

Perhaps what they really mean is that the extra 20 minutes will be added on once a clock hits zero. This is really quite dangerous to players since they could easily believe themselves to be seriously short of time with 20 minutes still in the bank, or could run themselves out of time in the belief that they still had another 20 minutes to add. (I've seen this happen in non-increment mode).

[Richard Thursby]

Having played in a match last weekend where there were increments, I can confirm that the twenty minutes are added once one clock reaches zero. Regarding the second quote above, the page now says "...initial time period of 1hr 40min (plus increments) has expired...".

While I expect there may be some confusion and probably some controversy, that is not a reason to avoid using digital clocks or incremental time controls. There was an announcement made before the start of play and also a notice posted on the wall of the playing room.

There must be some onus on the player to know what the time control is and whether the additional time has been added or not. There is the static black flag that appears to indicate this but, if I remember rightly, that disappeared after a while. Unless you are so engrossed in your game as to not look at the clock for a long time, I expect someone would notice suddenly having a lot more time than before.

[Roger de Coverly]

Unless you are so engrossed in your game as to not look at the clock for a long time, I expect someone would notice suddenly having a lot more time than before.

With a relatively small addition of 15 or 20 minutes being added on at a random moment, this is an every present danger particularly for the player ahead on the clock. Personally I always note the time at the first time control and every so often after that so that I know from the scoresheet whether extra time has been added.

The move rate formerly used in the Major Open, Gibraltar, Hastings and Liverpool ( 40 moves in 80 minutes with an extra 40 or 20 added at move 40 and a one minute increment ) is logically equivalent to the SCCU rate. So for that matter is the FIDE rate of 40 moves in 90 minutes plus an extra 30 with 30 second increment. I don't know why the SCCU adopted the random time addition approach as both the 40/80 and 40/90 rates add the extra time at move 40. Resetting the move counter has not seemed to have been an issue at the events I mention.

[Richard Bates]

Unless you are so engrossed in your game as to not look at the clock for a long time, I expect someone would notice suddenly having a lot more time than before.

With a relatively small addition of 15 or 20 minutes being added on at a random moment, this is an every present danger particularly for the player ahead on the clock. Personally I always note the time at the first time control and every so often after that so that I know from the scoresheet whether extra time has been added.

The move rate formerly used in the Major Open, Gibraltar, Hastings and Liverpool ( 40 moves in 80 minutes with an extra 40 or 20 added at move 40 and a one minute increment ) is logically equivalent to the SCCU rate. So for that matter is the FIDE rate of 40 moves in 90 minutes plus an extra 30 with 30 second increment. I don't know why the SCCU adopted the random time addition approach as both the 40/80 and 40/90 rates add the extra time at move 40. Resetting the move counter has not seemed to have been an issue at the events I mention.

Move counters should be outlawed IMO. Too much potential for things to go wrong.

eg.

1) If a clock has to be changed for some reason (eg. mechanical failure)
2) An illegal move is made
3) With players not ever present at the board i have seen occasions where players press the clock under the misapprehension that it is their opponent's move (thinking they have forgotten to press the clock)
4) When an incomplete/ambiguous move is made or a player knocks a load of pieces over, their opponent will often press the clock for them to make good in their own time.
5) The game being started with the black clock in the "upright" position.
6) Confusion over how to stop the clocks will lead to some people increasing the move counter in error.

As long as players are aware time is being added at flag-fall I see it as their own fault if they don't pay enough attention to their clock to know whether it has been added or not.

[Roger de Coverly]

Move counters should be outlawed IMO. Too much potential for things to go wrong.

Personally I hate not being able to see at a glance how much time is available to the next time control (or even the next move), particularly if I'm only watching. With non-increments you can just about figure it out from the wall clock and the displays on other boards. With increments you've got to the check the move number as well and figure out how much time would have been added from the increment. It would be easier "not to go wrong" if players knew what move number the clock thought it was. Arbiters are to my mind stuck with the prejudices of the mechanical era in trying to outlaw move count displays and clocks programmed to count clock presses.

Hastings is 40/100 , 20/50 plus 15 with 30 seconds addition. I was expecting the extra time to be added at the appropriate move number, if not it's necessary to carefully record the clock times to pick up whether the extra time is still in the bank or not.

[Richard Bates]

Move counters should be outlawed IMO. Too much potential for things to go wrong.

Personally I hate not being able to see at a glance how much time is available to the next time control (or even the next move), particularly if I'm only watching. With non-increments you can just about figure it out from the wall clock and the displays on other boards. With increments you've got to the check the move number as well and figure out how much time would have been added from the increment. It would be easier "not to go wrong" if players knew what move number the clock thought it was. Arbiters are to my mind stuck with the prejudices of the mechanical era in trying to outlaw move count displays and clocks programmed to count clock presses.

Hastings is 40/100 , 20/50 plus 15 with 30 seconds addition. I was expecting the extra time to be added at the appropriate move number, if not it's necessary to carefully record the clock times to pick up whether the extra time is still in the bank or not.

You are simply ignoring the consequences of the move counter being wrong, for any of the reasons stated (and that's excluding potential cheating - there are obviously advantages to be had for a player who alters the number of clock recorded moves outside the knowledge of their opponent).

I take the view that this outweighs any inconvenience related to monitoring the clock. Incidentally i struggle to see the distinction between increment and non-increment time limits that you are trying to make.

[Roger de Coverly]

You are simply ignoring the consequences of the move counter being wrong,

Yes I am - if it is wrong you just correct it - but in top events at least I don't think it happens. My experience of the 40/80 + 20 + 60 seconds move rate was that it wasn't an issue. I did once have one reason to complain though. In the Major Open at move 40 in one game, the clock incorrectly added 20 minutes rather than 40. It's easier to spot if the increment takes place at move 40.

Incidentally i struggle to see the distinction between increment and non-increment time limits that you are trying to make.

I dislike it also at non-incremental rates as well because of the need to monitor clock times. I accept that programming the clocks to add time at a clock press count is tricky at non-incremental time rates and most arbiters and match captains prefer the time A plus time B default setting despite it being against the letter of some league rules and congress conditions. It would have been better if the digital clocks had been first designed fifteen years ago with an "add time" button, thus directly emulating the clock ceremony typical of league and congress chess.

[Roger de Coverly]

I dislike it also at non-incremental rates as well because of the need to monitor clock times

In fact to put it bluntly, from a player and spectator point of view I would like the clock to show me how much time is available for the next move when increments are being used and to the next time control or for the rest of the game if non-incremental rates are in use. Why are arbiters and organisers reluctant to frame the rules so as to facilitate this and consider this an unreasonable request?

[Mike Gunn]

The thinking behind the rule change was to get the benefit of increments (i.e. avoid 10.2 claims) while keeping close to the present arrangements (to avoid upsetting players by changing too much). Once you decide to go down that route you are then constrained by the capabilities of the currently available digital clocks. I agree that with a better designed clock things could be done differently.

I can see the problem if players do not keep track of whether the 20 minutes has been added. In multi-period games not adding the time until the clock reaches zero is not what most players expect and causes most trouble in evening league matches for players who haven't used digital clocks before (but they get used to it).

[Tim Spanton]

Perhaps slightly off-topic, but if using increments, why have a "wind-back" anyway?

[Roger de Coverly]

Once you decide to go down that route you are then constrained by the capabilities of the currently available digital clocks

The current clocks are quite capable of counting clock presses and adding time after 35 or 40 presses. This has been the mode used in the Major Open, at Liverpool in the EU and presumably at Gibraltar. So I don't think you can blame the clock.

SCCU county matches are a maximum of four and half hours' play. The FIDE 90 30 move rate would be quite suitable as long as there are no venues with a fixed chuck out time.

[Mike Gunn]

There are still lots of DGT 2000s around. It makes more sense (arguably) to frame the rules so that they work for all the clocks in current use.

[E Michael White]

The thinking behind the rule change was to get the benefit of increments (i.e. avoid 10.2 claims)

When using increments how do you deal with the situation when a player moves on the board (thats his move is made in current rulespeak) and then knocks over some pieces and then presses his clock (thats completed his move in current rulespeak) before re-establishing the pieces, when the current rules say:-

FIDE 7.3 : If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position on his own time.

[Mike Gunn]

If an arbiter were present s/he would reset the clock and tell the offending player off.

If it's an SCCU match then (as nobody present can remember or has in their possession a set of rules) after a bit of arguing both sides would claim a win and sent different results to the county match controller in the traditional fashion.

The point of the rule change is to (mainly) cover the situation where one player claims the position is dead drawn but is short of time. If he can't draw at 10 seconds a move then it's not so simple.

PS The 2nd sentence above is a joke. One hopes that players would know the rules and do the right thing.

[E Michael White]

If an arbiter were present s/he would reset the clock and tell the offending player off.

The arbiter, if there is on, should also warn the player as it counts as clock abuse; a repeat should be loss of the game. Resetting the clock doesnt help the non-offending player enough, who has been distracted by the incident and needs to then spend some of his own time checking the pieces are replaced to the correct squares.

The point of the rule change is to (mainly) cover the situation where one player claims the position is dead drawn but is short of time. If he can't draw at 10 seconds a move then it's not so simple.

Arbiters have definitely changed their take on 10.2s. It used to be up the player who claims the win to prove he is making progress, rather than the way you state, and the benefit of doubt given to the defender.