There's a New Clock A'comin

Sort:
Eyechess

Yes, me too.

I use a small chess bag with the sleeve on the bottom.  I keep the pieces and DGT folding clock, the 960.  I keep the board in a mailing tube in the sleeve.

And I do have 2 of these setups.  One I keep in the car and the other with my other chess sets for when a friend picks me up to go eat, drink and play.

ChessFan1010
LuftWaffles wrote:
ChessFan1010 wrote:

I think overall the new Zmart clock looks good minus the HUGE display. I have owned several DGT and Chronos clocks and they have the display sizes just right. With a display any bigger it just becomes a distraction to what I think is the most important part- the game. This is why I think Chronos and DGT have designed their clocks to be non-flashy, they want the focus on the players and the game - not the clock.

 

This is why I'd prefer an OLED display. That way you could please everyone, and users could even choose a bright setting with large numbers for blitz, and something more discrete for tournament games. OLED displays are bright if need be, and very versatile. We don't need a lot of resolution like on a modern phone, keeping costs for display, processing and battery power down.

It bears repeating: These clocks seem to be stuck in the 80s, technology wise. It's time someone made a modern clock. I suspect the companies who manufacture the current clocks simply aren't "in the loop" (is that what the americans would say?) and don't have access to the tech. If samsung were to produce a chess clock, they could easily pull this off.

I think the companies who manufacture the current clocks are in the loop, but choose not to go the OLED route. The reason why I believe this is because most chess games are played in environments that vary from dimly lit to super bright. The LCD's perform great under all these conditions and there would just be no need unless of course you are playing in pitch black conditions.

ChessFan1010
Markle wrote:

I own a couple of different clocks and i really loved playing with my Chronos, the only problem i have had with it is the damn thing quit working after about 4 months clock was handled with care the whole time.Sending it back for repairs has become a nightmare.

Markle I had the same issue as you with a Chronos GX clock I purchased awhile back and out of warranty. I decided to send the clock back to the address listed in the back the Chronos User's Guide - DCI P.O. Box 390741 Mountain View, CA 94039. It has been repaired and operating beautifully for roughly the last year.

DCI also included a note with my repaired clock asking me to let others know that they can send in their dead chronos clocks for repair at no cost. No paper work is required and there must be no user damage. Try sending your clock directly to them.

loubalch
Warbringer33 wrote:
...I'm considering picking up a Marshall Library Set, too. They're sized perfect and they look really classy. What size board goes best with them? I have a few boards and they're all the 2.25" standard USCF regulation size.

Warbringer, if you're hurting for space, the Marshall Library set, with a king diameter  = 1.3", will also fit nicely on a 1.75" vinyl board.

House of Staunton is selling these boards off, on closeout, for only 99 cents each! That's so cheap, you could buy a few.

http://www.houseofstaunton.com/random-hos-regulation-vinyl-chessboard-1-75-squares.html

For what it's worth:

1.3"/1.875" = 69.3% scaling factor (outside of USCF guidelines)

1.3" / 1.75" = 74.3% scaling factor (within USCF guidelines)

BTW, here's a nice 3" wooden set that I'm using with my 1.75" vinyl board.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fierce-Knight-Staunton-Golden-Rosewood-Chess-Set-Pieces-3-2-Extra-Queens-/351029943261?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item51bb03dbdd

PossibleOatmeal

Even though 69.3% is "outside of USCF guidelines," techinically, 66.7% is the ratio most people are familiar with from tournaments since the standard cheap club/tournament set and board are 1.5" king base and 2.25" squares.  Those sets dominate almost every USCF tournament so even that small of a ratio is completely fine.

loubalch
pawpatrol wrote:

Even though 69.3% is "outside of USCF guidelines," techinically, 66.7% is the ratio most people are familiar with from tournaments since the standard cheap club/tournament set and board are 1.5" king base and 2.25" squares.  Those sets dominate almost every USCF tournament so even that small of a ratio is completely fine.

Paw,

You're right, the typical plastic set that you see at all the tournaments has a king base of 1.5" on a standard 2.25" vinyl board. But here's the irony, if you check the USCF guidelines and work out the math you get the following base dimensions, which for a 2.25" board is between 1.66" and 1.76".

So, according to USCF's own guidelines, the king's base should be between 73% and 78% the size of the square. And a king with a 1.5" diameter belongs on a 2" chess board, which, BTW, is the size of the board for the FIDE championship chess set, the one with the weird looking knight. The ubiquitous DGT eboard has 5.5 cm squares, which is actually closer to 2-1/8" than it is to 2-1/4".

Theoretically, does this mean a player can refuse to play with the "typical" set because it doesn't meet USCF guidelines?

If the rules can be interpreted so loosely, then why can't I castle by moving the rook first? So long as I announce "castle" before I touch the rook, there would be no confusion at to my intention. If you tell me I can't because the rules forbid it, then you've just supported my argument.

PossibleOatmeal

Yeah, I get that.  I acknowledged that in my post.  I think their guidelines are terrible and most people are used to smaller than their guidelines because of the typical tournament set, either way.  My comfort sone is 67-74%, personally.  Any bigger than 74% and I feel very crowded.

kenardi
loubalch wrote:
pawpatrol wrote:

Even though 69.3% is "outside of USCF guidelines," techinically, 66.7% is the ratio most people are familiar with from tournaments since the standard cheap club/tournament set and board are 1.5" king base and 2.25" squares.  Those sets dominate almost every USCF tournament so even that small of a ratio is completely fine.

Paw,

You're right, the typical plastic set that you see at all the tournaments has a king base of 1.5" on a standard 2.25" vinyl board. But here's the irony, if you check the USCF guidelines and work out the math you get the following base dimensions, which for a 2.25" board is between 1.66" and 1.76".

 

So, according to USCF's own guidelines, the king's base should be between 73% and 78% the size of the square. And a king with a 1.5" diameter belongs on a 2" chess board, which, BTW, is the size of the board for the FIDE championship chess set, the one with the weird looking knight. The ubiquitous DGT eboard has 5.5 cm squares, which is actually closer to 2-1/8" than it is to 2-1/4".

Theoretically, does this mean a player can refuse to play with the "typical" set because it doesn't meet USCF guidelines?

If the rules can be interpreted so loosely, then why can't I castle by moving the rook first? So long as I announce "castle" before I touch the rook, there would be no confusion at to my intention. If you tell me I can't because the rules forbid it, then you've just supported my argument.

When Castling, you can:

A. Touch and move the King first.

B. Touch both the King and Rook at the same time and move them.

C. Touch and move the Rook first.

or any combination you can think of... (in front of smart comments)

10I2. (USCF Rule book 6th edition, page 27)
If the player intending to castle touches the rook first, there is no penalty except if castling is illegal, the player must move the rook if legal.

This subject came up at a chess meeting once... before looking this up to confirm what I thought, that you had to move or touch the king first, I discovered I was completely wrong.

this peice size thing is a new one... i will have to look that up later... i think these are only "guidelines".

kenardi
pawpatrol wrote:

Yeah, I get that.  I acknowledged that in my post.  I think their guidelines are terrible and most people are used to smaller than their guidelines because of the typical tournament set, either way.  My comfort sone is 67-74%, personally.  Any bigger than 74% and I feel very crowded.

i like the extra space... as long as the pieces don't look like they are swimming in the ocean.  Hmm, might need a smaller board Laughing

Eyechess

Lou, I paid attention when you told the guy that the 1.75" board was better sized for the Marshall Library set.

I remember when I was putting my setup together, I did also have a 1.75" board.  And I thought it looked too cramped and crowded.

So, I stuck with the 1.875" board and did so when I had the chance to duplicate the setup on the cheap.

I did start another topic with pictures of my setup:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/hos-marshall-library-set-and-board

I think the Marshall Library looks nice and balanced on that board.

PossibleOatmeal
kenardi wrote:
pawpatrol wrote:

Yeah, I get that.  I acknowledged that in my post.  I think their guidelines are terrible and most people are used to smaller than their guidelines because of the typical tournament set, either way.  My comfort sone is 67-74%, personally.  Any bigger than 74% and I feel very crowded.

i like the extra space... as long as the pieces don't look like they are swimming in the ocean.  Hmm, might need a smaller board

 

67%, not 6.7%!  :)

loubalch
kenardi wrote:

When Castling, you can:

A. Touch and move the King first.

B. Touch both the King and Rook at the same time and move them.

C. Touch and move the Rook first.

or any combination you can think of... (in front of smart comments)

10I2. (USCF Rule book 6th edition, page 27)
If the player intending to castle touches the rook first, there is no penalty except if castling is illegal, the player must move the rook if legal.

Ken, I thought so too until I read this USCF Rulebook Changes Since the 6th edition (dated 2-25-15). Here again, the USCF has left me utterly confused.

Check it out:  http://www.uschess.org/docs/gov/reports/RulebookChanges.pdf

"10I2.
When castling, the King must be touched first.

10I2 (Variation I).
Castling is allowed if the Rook is touched first."
 
Am I the only one who finds these two statements incongruous?
loubalch
Eyechess wrote:

I think the Marshall Library looks nice and balanced on that board.

Eye, I do too. It looks great!

loubalch
pawpatrol wrote:

Yeah, I get that.  I acknowledged that in my post.  I think their guidelines are terrible and most people are used to smaller than their guidelines because of the typical tournament set, either way.  My comfort sone is 67-74%, personally.  Any bigger than 74% and I feel very crowded.

Paw, I think the biggest problem is that we (U.S. chess players using portable sets) have no choice. Even if we wanted to use a 2" board with our 1-1/2" diameter kings, or a 2-1/8" board with our 1-5/16" diameter kings, we can't  -- because there are no 2" or 2-1/8" vinyl boards available here in the U.S. I've been looking for months!

You can find vinyl boards with 1.5", 1.75", 1.875", 2.25", 2.375" and 2.5" squares, but not 2" and 2-1/8"!

So we're left with the options of using a 1.875" or 2.25" vinyl board with our 1-1/2" and 1-5/16" diameter kings. We've been doing this for so long, we've been conditioned to accept those proportions as "standard," because the right size boards are simply not available!

I find it baffling, 1.5" and 1.625" diameter kings are (at 75% and 76.5%) well within the USCF guidelines for sizing chess pieces and boards, at yet, these boards are NOT AVAILABLE HERE. They ARE available in Europe, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, but not here. Somebody's missing a big marketing opportunity.

Come on, vendors, wake up and smell the vinyl!

kenardi
loubalch wrote:
kenardi wrote:

When Castling, you can:

A. Touch and move the King first.

B. Touch both the King and Rook at the same time and move them.

C. Touch and move the Rook first.

or any combination you can think of... (in front of smart comments)

10I2. (USCF Rule book 6th edition, page 27)
If the player intending to castle touches the rook first, there is no penalty except if castling is illegal, the player must move the rook if legal.

Ken, I thought so to until I read this USCF Rulebook changes since the 6th edition. Here again, the USCF has left me utterly confused.

Check it out:  http://www.uschess.org/docs/gov/reports/RulebookChanges.pdf

"10I2.
When castling, the King must be touched first.
 
10I2 (Variation I).
Castling is allowed if the Rook is touched first."
 
Am I the only one who finds these two statements incongruous?

Castling is a king move, not a rook move, right... So it makes sense to touch and move the king first.  Since there is no "real" penalty for touching or moving the rook first... a rules stating the king must be moved first seems silly; null. 

Not sure when this changed, or if it did, but I thought if you touched the rook first you had to make a rook move if legal.  I could be completely wrong.  I think it says the same thing in the 5th edition... no penalty.

That update makes no sense.

What does (Variation I) even mean?  This "I" is for impossible to interpret,  eye.... here is the other variation of the same rule as the name implies... not to be confused with the previous rule of the same name which is now null.  Thus, (Variation I) will clarify any confusion that might remain.  See sections (8A2, 8A3, 8A4, 8C1, 9C), and possibly 10J.  Laughing

TD: okay then... just move the rook how ever you want and get on with the game Laughing

loubalch
[COMMENT DELETED]
kenardi
loubalch wrote:

Ken, the updates were dated February 25, 2015. I just updated my post to include the date. Thanks!

I guess this means the exception "penilty" has been removed now too?

From:
10I2. If the player intending to castle touches the rook first, there is no penalty except if castling is illegal, the player must move the rook if legal.

To:
10I2. When castling, the King must be touched first.

10I2 (Variation I). Castling is allowed if the Rook is touched first.

Yes, I am confused Laughing

loubalch

Ken, the updates were dated February 25, 2015. I just updated my post to include the date. Thanks!

The whole idea of castling protocol is a that player's intentions should not be ambiguous. If he grabs his king and moves it two squares over, it's pretty clear his intention is to castle. If he touches his rook first, it's not so clear what his intention is.

However, if a player is allowed to announce "castle" before touching his rook, his intention is now perfectly clear, and, IMHO, it should be allowed.

A player is allowed to announce, "check," "checkmate," and "adjust," so why not "castle."

kenardi
loubalch wrote:

Ken, the updates were dated February 25, 2015. I just updated my post to include the date. Thanks!

The whole idea of castling protocol is a that player's intentions should not be ambiguous. If he grabs his king and moves it two squares over, it's pretty clear his intention is to castle. If he touches his rook first, it's not so clear what his intention is.

However, if a player is allowed to announce "castle" before touching his rook, his intention is now perfectly clear, and, IMHO, it should be allowed.

A player is allowed to announce, "check," "checkmate," and "adjust," so why not "castle."

sounds good to me.

loubalch
[COMMENT DELETED]