What's better to get, a digital or an analog Chess Clock?

Answer 1

Analog clocks tend to be sturdier and cheaper. They also have the advantage of not needing replacement batteries (but be careful not to overwind the spring). Digital has the advantage of being more accurate and more flexible when it comes to setting overtime rules. For digital my preferences lean towards the Dual Timer and the Excalibur. I met the maker of the Dual Timer at the NY Oza/Denso Go Tournament about three years back. Aside from the fancy walnut finished, he emphasized the sturdiness of the components he sought to make it. I cannot testify from personal experience, but I liked his spiel. I also haven't put an Excalibur through any rigorous slamming, but I like the feel of the buttons and they do seem to be fairly solidly made. I also like the Excalibur because it's cheap and can be set for Fischer time. Though oddly, you can get it for about 10-20 bucks less by not buying it direct.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I play go and so have a bit of a bias. For me a digital clock MUST be able to play japanese byo-yomi. For you this obviously isn't an issue.

I know a lot of people (go players included) who swear by Chronos clocks, but I just personally don't like them. They're ugly and programming them I find to be a pain. Just my personal view.

Answer 2

Digital clocks have issues. I have three of them and they are problems. I have one analog clock I bought in 1968 that still works fine.

Answer 3

Depends on your preferences.

Analog chess clocks generally look nicer and are cheaper.

Digital clocks are more accurate and easy to set.

For speed games in particular, where time is very important, I prefer a digital clock.

Answer 4

Well I think a digital clock is good because I can read the time but you chose whatever you fell like choosing

Answer 5

digital is always more accurate but analog looks nicer.

Answer 6

Analog, has a look and it's easier and cheaper to repair.

Answer 7

digital is the best