This rule will never make any sense as long as it discusses both “losing chances” and “delay time” in the same rule. This combination inherently leads to ambiguity, inconsistency, and self-contradiction.
True, “insufficient losing chances” was the original idea, and the best that could be done before delay clocks became widely available. Adding delay as a possible solution was a great step forward, but the idea has never been allowed to mature fully. In the meantime, the landscape has morphed to the point where delay time, rather than losing chances, is now the main point.
Here is my solution:
Change the name of the rule from “Claim of insufficient losing chances in sudden death” to “Request for relief from insufficient delay time in sudden death”.
Keep the mechanics of the rule the same as at present, in that such a request would be in order only if (a) the game is in sudden death, (b) the requesting player’s time has not yet expired, (c) the requesting player has less than 2 minutes remaining, and (d) the delay is not already in effect (or is less than 5 seconds regular or 3 seconds quick).
Keep the rule that considers such a request to also be a draw offer.
The TD would have two options:
4a. Deny the claim, OR
4b. Put a delay clock on the game (cutting the requesting player’s time in half, as at present).
A TD may:
5a. Automatically deny all such requests, OR
5b. Automatically grant all such requests via clock substitution, OR
5c. Use judgment, case by case, as to whether to deny or grant such a request.
NONE of these options (5a, 5b, 5c) would be considered a variation. Any could be used without advance notice in pre-tournament publicity.
5a is a reasonable option, because it is the responsibility of players to furnish proper equipment to begin with. Any player who does not, has no legitimate complaint if his request is denied.
5b is also a reasonable option, because many TDs do not like to sit idly by and watch a ridiculous time scramble in a played-out position.
5c is a reasonable option, because both 5a and 5b are reasonable options.
Tim Just’s proposal last year came close (although it was unclear for a while that 4a was an option), but it kept “insufficient losing chances” in the name of the rule, and thus didn’t quite go all the way.
For example, you could have a policy of putting on a delay clock only if the requesting player is able to furnish one within a minute or two.
Or, you could put on a delay clock in those positions where it is most likely to make a difference. For example, if the position is complicated and both players are in time trouble, there is a considerable possibility that the delay clock could make a difference in the outcome. If, however, the requesting player is down a rook and short of time, he’ll probably lose anyway, so forget it.
The subject of what types of TD discretion would be permitted in deciding between “yes” cases and “no” cases could be the subject of a completely rewritten version of 14I, “Advice on claims of insufficient delay time under 14H”.
I like your rule 4, since if the TD errs, it should be in the direction of continuing the game. None of this tinkering really solves the underlying problem, though – sudden death introduces a distortion of the “normal” course of the game (continuing the game through repeated time controls). You need a way to get past this without allowing the TD’s judgment/playing strength to influence the outcome. The 14H revision last year was an attempt at this, but then we got complaints from people like Steve Immitt that this might make the games last too long. I think we should consider the possibility that there is no good solution, and we’ll just have to muddle until everyone uses a delay clock. shouldn’t take more than another 30 or 40 years.
Your 5a. surprises me. Are you saying a TD could simply tell a player (with White) whose K is on h1 and whose opponent has only a K and an h-pawn: “Sorry, I deny all claims; period. Play on.”?
If so I could not support this rule. At bare minimum it would need to be announced in all publicity and posted. That’s pretty much what Harold S. did at his events years ago, before delay-digital clocks became widely available.
14H and ILC is really a fringe issue now. I discussed this recently with a TD/organizer who runs G/30 or G/40 events almost every weekend. He said he has not had to handle an ILC claim in the past year. It seems that players who care enough about their rated games to not see them turn into 'blitz trash" have finally gotten the memo.
Players who don’t care enough to go through the hassle of a claim, or players who think their blitz skills give them an edge and will accept the potential consequences, are the only ones who use analog clocks in SD games. So he said; that matches my observations as a player and TD. (I started to direct again last year after a long hiatus. One of my concerns about getting back into the TD world was ILC claims in SD, which our club had just implemented. I am happy to report we have had no ILC claims or problems. Then again, we play 40/90, SD/60 as opposed to G/30.)
However…like you, like John Hillery, like the masochists who chimed in on this issue last year…there’s always the one-in-a-thousand case that proves the merits of the rule. That will be true as long as analog clocks are deemed standard equipment for SD games—which won’t change as long as USCF sells such clocks, I reckon.
So, we need some form of ILC rule, as long as SD—especially G/30—is Regular-rated, analog clocks are standard equipment and a player who arrives a few seconds late might be forced to play with an analog. I do not support giving TDs the option to simply deny all ILC claims, whatever the merits, on principle…and without prior notice or announcement.
Your 5a. requires players not only to “furnish proper equipment” but also to show up on the dot for the start of every game. I know I have been a few minutes late on rare occasions, for whatever reason. It happens.
Again, it would be an extremely rare case where a player could get hosed by a TD using your 5a.—but it could happen. I would prefer the rules change I and others proposed last year: Decree that analog clocks are non-standard for SD rated games as of date XX/YY/ZZZZ.
Note that ‘retro’ players COULD still use analog clocks for rated SD games even then—as long as both agree to do so. Same as they can now use non-standard chess sets, if both agree.
That idea got laughed down then and likely will again this time. For what it’s worth, I am a sentimentalist about chess. I loved my old Jerger analog clock; I know other players just like me in that regard…but as long as there is no support for either eliminating SD in serious rated games or for declaring analog clocks non-standard…then we need some form of ILC rule that does not allow TDs to simply punt.
I believe that “reject all claims” in this context was intended to mean “reject al 14H claims.” A player can always claim a draw by threefold repetition, 50-move rule, or insufficient material.
The persistence of analog clocks has little to do with the USCF selling them, since the USCF doesn’t sell anything any more. They’re still around because players have them, don’t want to change, and don’t like being told to do so by some pushy chess bureaucrat who “knows what’s best” for them. Why should the players be inconvenienced to solve a problem the organizers created for themselves?
I’m inclined to agree that 14H is a minor issue these days, and doesn’t deserve the attention it’s getting. I haven’t had a legitimate 14H claim in more than a year. (That’s aside from idiots who say “I want a time delay clock now because I’m low on time.”)
So if a player with White trades off his opponent’s last pawn except for an h-pawn, puts his King on h1, leaving him with K (on h1) vs. K+h-pawn, but with his flag about to fall…do you say it’s OK for a TD to reject an ILC claim “on principle”? i.e. tell the player “I deny all ILC claims. Period.” That’s how I read Bill’s 5a.
At bare minimum that needs to be announced and posted.
Probably. Bear in mind that this was always an option under 14H as it existed before last August (though the TD would have had to do it one case at a time). That was one of the arguments for reducing TD discretion. The “solution” is to get rid of sudden-death, but that’s not going to happen, so we’ll just have to muddle through.
Why does a TD need to make a determination if someone has “insufficiant losing chances” if there isn’t a delay clock available? I mean, games using traditional clocks are suppose to start with more time, Usually 2 to 5 min more than clocks with time delay.
It isn’t the TD’s fault a person doesn’t know how to use thier time wisely.
Since the default nowadays is not to deduct any time from a delay clock then all clocks should be starting at the same time.
Irrespective of that, I’ve personally never come across a position that I’ve not been able to make a determination about insufficient losing chances. Either there are insufficient losing chances in the position (e.g. heavy material advantage or obvious endings such as king and rook pawn against opposing king blocking the rook pawn in the corner) in which case you can uphold the claim for a draw, or you deny the claim.
To me, the purpose of the rule is to ensure that a player does not lose on time if it would be extremely difficult, or practically impossible, for them to lose the current position over the board. This would be a gross injustice in chess terms. However, as a compromise for their good chess play but bad time management, they are able to fall back on this rule and claim a draw.
Yes, I believe a TD should be allowed to do this (although I would not personally do so). At the very least, it would serve white right for furnishing a sub-standard clock, and might motivate him to join the other 99% of tournament players who furnish standard (delay-capable) clocks.
And I would prefer not to clutter up pre-event publicity by forcing organizers to pre-announce a policy that would potentially affect only 1 player in 100, and in practice would likely affect 1 in 5000.
I agree with your proposal to strip analog clocks of their anointed “standard” status. A clock should be defined as standard only if it can be set to the time control for the tournament. Thus, in a tournament with delay (whether the delay is by explicit announcement or by default), a clock would be standard only if it is delay-capable. Similarly, in a tournament with increment, a clock would be standard only if it is increment-capable.
Other clocks should be called “sub-standard”, “marginal”, “second tier”, or some such. Changes to accomplish this should be made in rule 42 rather than in 14H.
Also, a late-arriving player should be allowed to substitute his standard clock for his opponent’s sub-standard one, provided he does so before making his first move, and provided he subtracts the elapsed time from his side of the new clock before starting. (This change should be made somewhere in rule 16, not 14H.)
We’ve been around the barn on this several times before, and there’s no point in doing so again. My position was (and is) that a policy like this, which would disadvantage players who have an analog clock and don’t want change, would be permissible only with near-unanimous consent of the players. “We know better than those rubes” won’t cut it.