Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In a recent tournament, where it explicitly stipulated that Digital
Clocks must be set for Time Delay, there arose a couple of disputes involving clocks that did not have Time Delay correctly set. The cases involved clocks that were lent to them by 3rd parties, so it was impossible to assign culpability for incorrectly setting the clock to either of the players who were contesting the games. In the first case, the clock was mis-set, and neither player noticed it until one of the players (Player A) had just a few seconds left, whereupon he summoned the TD. The game was played under the Time Control of Game/25 minutes, where the Standard Delay was supposed to be set to 3 seconds. What should be the remedy for the situation? Some options a 1) Deem the game as having been played with an analog clock, and consider the player's complaint about the lack of Time Delay to be a request for a Time Delay Clock. In other words, treat the situation as one would treat an Insufficient Chances To Lose (ICTL) claim. This would entail that Player A's opponent (Player B) be given the option of accepting a Draw. If Player B does not wish to settle for a Draw, then set the Digital Clock to (finally) have the 3 Second Delay, and have the players continue the game with no other adjustments to the times. Variation 1a) Same as above, but make an adjustment to the amount of time left on each player's clock, based on an estimate of the amount of time that the player(s) lost because Delay was not set. For instance, if the clock has a move counter, one could simply multiply the number of moves played in the game, by the 3 second delay increment, and restore that amount of time to each clock. Failing that, if one of the players kept score, one could make a determination based on the number of moves that were recorded, although it is frequently the case that game scores become incomplete as time pressure looms. 2) Change the setting of the clock to have the correct Time Delay, but not consider the situation to fall under the rubric of ICTL rules. That is, the claimant protesting the erroneously set clock can receive the Time Delay, without the opponent being able to claim a draw. The larger question is how much responsibility a player has for spotting an incorrectly set Digital clock. Often, the clocks do not overtly show seconds until the time has counted down beneath a certain threshold--usually, 20, 10, or even 5 just minutes remaining in the Time Control. By then, the players may be so engrossed in their games, that they may not have the presence of mind to check the clock to see if Delay is working. I favor solution #2, since although the failure to have the Time Delay set was not the fault of Player B, the tournament rules clearly stated that Time Dely would be used, and Player A did, however belatedly, make the claim that the clock was incorrectly set--before his time had elapsed. I am leaning towards restoring some time on the clock of Player A (and Player B, too, if his clock also lacked Time Delay), although doing so seems a bit arbitrary. Restoring time to Player A's clock does hurt Player B's chances, who--in good faith--believed that Player A was on the verge of losing on time. Were Time Bonus, rather than Time Delay, involved, there would be a much more compelling case for restoring time based on the # of moves that had been played. In the 2nd incident, the situation was fairly similar, excempt that the claimaint, Player C, made his claim that the Digital Clock was programmed incorrectly, when he was left with only 8 seconds! The players were also playing with a 3rd party clock. However, in this case, Player C was completely winning, being a Queen up. Player D protested the restoration of Time Delay on the clocks at this late juncture, since he had decided to make some very speculative sacrifices on the basis that his opponent, player C, was in grave Zeitnot, and did not have his clock set for a 3 second Time Delay. Indeed, Player D admitted that he was aware, at a relatively early stage in the game, that Time Delay was not set on either of the clocks, but did nothing about it. Presumeably, he viewed such knowledge as a competitive advantage, whereby he could exploit the fact that his opponent, Player C, might be assuming that Time Delay was correctly set, but was seemingly unaware that it wasn't set. Player D tried to exploit his opponent's ignorance by playing quickly, and for a complicated attack that would force Player C to expend time in order to find a refutation. Player D protested that he would have played differently if his opponent had Delay, which was correctly set on his clock. I would argue that Player D took a calculated risk, in more ways that one. He was aware that the TD had mandated that Time Delay be used with Digital Clocks. He was aware that the clock with which his game was being played was not set for Time Delay. He based his subsequent play on that fact. In my opinion, Player D's calculated risk was largely centered on the hope that Player C would not notice that Time Delay was not working on the clock, and that Player C would suffer a loss by Time Forfeit as a result. It is hard to feel sorry for a player when his attempts at guile blows up in his face. I believe that even though Player D did not supply the clock, he had some responsibility to point out to the TD that the Time Delay feature was not properly set, when he first noticed the situation. While D should not be sanctioned for his failure to do so, I think that it is appropriate not only for Time Delay to be activated for the remainder of the game, but for Player C to receive some compensatory time restored to his clock. Even in the event that Player C was completely aware that Time Delay was not set, it would seem that he always has the the absolute right to make a claim that the (3rd party) clock was incorrectly set, and demand remediation, in the form of the restoration of the announced increment of Time Delay. However, I would definitely be more reluctant to make a time adjustment, since the claimant could be deemed to have voluntarily ceded the benefits of Time Delay for most of the game. In such a circumstance, a strong argument could be made that Player C was even more devious thatn Player D, and was successfully able to induce/bluff his opponent into unsound play. Thus, Player C fully merits his victory, especially as Player D failed to adhere to the old adage: "Play the Board, not the Clock". |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote:
.... The cases involved clocks that were lent to them by 3rd parties ..... In most cases, I have little sympathy with players who need to use 3rd party clocks. Each player should furnish his own delay-capable clock and know how to set it. I have even less sympathy for the player who tries to take advantage of the lack of a delay, especially if he thinks his opponent believes the delay is on. I guess it's time once again to trot out my Dirty Pool rule sheet which I post (and sometimes hand out) at tournaments: ____________________________________________ DIRTY POOL It is DIRTY POOL to use a digital clock without setting the delay. Such a setting can confuse the opponent into believing there is a delay when there is none. This confusion can result in questionable time forfeit claims and unnecessary disputes. If you furnish and use a digital clock without the delay set, any or all of the following may happen to you: 1. The TD reserves the right, at any time during the game, to point out to your opponent that the delay is not set. 2. The TD may allow your opponent, at any time during the game, to substitute ANY other clock, digital or analog, furnished by him. 3. If you claim a draw by insufficient losing chances, the TD may summarily disallow your claim and subtract time from your clock. Your opponent, however, will receive the usual kind, gentle treatment should he make such a claim. 4. If you claim a win on time, the TD may dismiss your claim and give your opponent up to 5 minutes, plus delay time, to finish the game or reach the time control. No such consideration, however, will be given to you, if the shoe is on the other foot and your opponent claims a win on time. ____________________________________________ This is usually enough to keep the players in line. Fortunately, I've never had to invoke clause 3 or 4. I'm not even sure I'd really dare, despite the advance notice. I don't think I've ever invoked clause 2, either. I have used clause 1. There is a regular player in these parts who never sets Bronstein mode on his Saitek. I make it a point to warn each of his opponents, near the beginning of the game, that the delay is not set and that he (the opponent) therefore has a right to furnish his own clock or to make a later claim of insufficient losing chances. I think it's helpful if a TD, near the beginning of each round, goes around the room to make sure each clock's delay feature is set. That's not always an easy matter, however. Bill Smythe |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
5 second delay setting in Chess Assistant and Shredder 6 | rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) | |||
Would anyone with chessbase analyse this game? | rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) | |||
Would anyone with chessbase analyse this game? | rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) | |||
Rules Question: What to do about Digital Clocks set without Time Delay? | rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) | |||
Digital without delay | rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) |