14H Insufficient Losing Chances Judgment Call

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Greetings from Asheboro!

I recently was asked to make a difficult call in a quick tournament. The time control was Game/10.

There was no complete consensus as to how this occurred, but I was watching the game, and a competent bystander agreed with my assessment of the events.

Player A had 2 seconds left on his clock, and tried to pause it by leveling the buttons. On this clock model, there is a pause button, so the button leveling did not work and instead started his opponent’s clock. Player B responded by starting to make a move with his king, as player A said frantically, “Insufficient Losing Chances!”

Both players seemed okay with allowing the claim to proceed, since player A obviously intended to pause the clock. So far, no problem.

The position was a rook and pawn endgame with player B holding an extra pawn. However, during his move as the claim was announced by player A, he had moved his king to a bad square, not releasing it until after player A’s claim was announced.

This is how I saw it, and an independent witness as well.

I ruled on the position with player B having the extra pawn, since in order to make the claim, the clock should have been properly paused. I could not give player A the benefit of both making the claim, and the subsequent blunder by his opponent. At the time, there was agreement among the players that I would rule based on this.

The endgame was most likely a draw even with the extra pawn, and certainly a draw with best play after the blunder move.

However, I did not feel the position met the high standard for ILC of a Class C holding 90% of the time against a Master. So I ruled the claim clearly incorrect, but did not penalize the player. I did add 5 seconds to player B’s clock to compensate for his lost time after the claim.

After player A lost on time, he was upset. He thought they I should have ruled on the position that occurred after the claim, but also that the position was a draw either way. While I would have to agree that it was a draw either way with best play, I certainly don’t think it met ILC guidelines and was clearly an incorrect claim.

Questions: Was it a bad idea on my part to allow the ILC claim, which was technically made at the wrong time? Given the circumstances, and both players agreeing to it, it seemed like a fair thing to do. By the way, player B did refuse the draw offer…

Question 2: Should drawish looking endgames qualify for ILC claims? In my opinion, they don’t quite pass muster under most circumstances. It is quite common to see a 1500 player lose a drawish looking rook and pawn endgame, and especially to a Master.

The easy thing to do in such a situation is to add a delay, and let the players play it out. I have seen TDs take this easy way out, regardless of the correctness of the claim. However, I knew with 100% certainty that a Master would tend to beat a class C in such a position. Therefore, adding a delay clock would be unfair.

So I see the procedure as first a draw offer, second is the claim correct, and third how to settle the claim based on that. I think a lot of TDs default to settling any drawish looking ending with a delay clock, without correctly looking at it from the Class C vs. Master angle. The rule then becomes more of a “get out of time trouble free” card for the player.

I appreciate your comments.

Sincerely,

W.T. Hales

2

W.T.
You posed a wonderful scenario and question for the application of 14H.

Before I comment on your ruling, there is another comment to make.

This is curious.
Obviously, they are using a digital clock (I don’t know any analog clocks with a pause button).
(digital without delay capablility, see below)
Why was not delay set to begin with?
Who’s clock was it? and why was it set incorrectly?
Why did not the opponent catch that fact?
Did both player agree to start the game without delay, and why? You could penalize both player for doing that.
If so, then they must live with their (and subsequently your) decision, and in fact, you should NOT put a delay clock on the game.

Depending on the answer, I might penalize the owner of the clock for not setting the clock correctly, as the opponent might assume it is set right. (Though both players should verify correct setting), or make some other ruling on that issue.

However, when the player objected after he lost the game, I find it most effective to point out that if that player had wanted to play the game with a delay clock,
“You should have done so from the outset, and used delay from the start of the game”
retort: “But I don’t have a delay clock.”
response: “Now that is your problem, BUY ONE.”
(or some similar conversation, placing the blame on the player himself, but being nice about it.)

If the EVENT did not allow delay, then SHAME ON YOU (or the organizer). You created the problem, now you have to live with it. Obviously, your advertising said so, and so the players chose to attend this non-standard event. Now the entire event does not use delay, even for ILC claims. You MUST not add a delay. I may have ruled as you did, or perhaps watched for a few moves to see if the player with the pawn was trying to make progress, then made a ruling.

come to think of it…
Actually I would have NOT ruled as you did, as I will NEVER run a quick chess event without delay!

If the clock was digital, but did not have delay capability. Or neither of the players knew how to set it (easy to assess, ask “Who owns the clock?”, “me”, “can you set the delay?” If he starts to do so, then you know the answer, stop him, before you make the ruling), then it is treated as an analog, and you may proceed with your ruling.

That being said…

Technically, according to the rules, you did the correct thing, and were well within your rights to rule as you did. Unfortunately, not all of us have the proper knowledge, the experience, nor the guts to rule that way.
You also could have ruled the way most directors do, and put the delay clock on the board (I probably would have done so). I do not trust my judgement that far, as I am not a Master, and therefore could not rule on wheter a master could win the game against a C player or not. Perhaps you can.
You could have also upheld the claim (but the claimant was down in material, so I definately would not have done that), or watch to see if there is an attempt at progress.

As you stated, both players agreed to that before you made the ruling. You witnessed the obvious attempt to pause the clock and the claim was immediate. Discression to allow the claim is appropriate.

I think you did the right thing (you discression not to penalize) as the claim was probably valid (a drawish position) not obviously frivilous (just to get the delay clock, with a complex position on the board), but not clearly correct either (rule against the claimant and allow the game to continue.) If appealed, I would uphold your decision.

a little history:
The ILC claim rule was developed prior to the establishment of the delay. there was this controversial thing called “sudden death time controls” that prior to 1988 were not ratable. with the development of such time controls it was recognized that the clock now became a weapon. That was not the intent of such controls.
ILC was an attempt to mitigate that problem. Since that time the delay clock was invented and rules for the use and application for the delay clock was put in place.

Recently, as you state, the placing of a delay clock on a game instead of making a ruling, has become common practice. In the case that you described, I would have chosen that option myself. I refuse to adjudicate an other than obvious position. At the least I would have used the option to watch the game for a few moves to see if the opponent of the claimant was attempting to win the game or making progress toward that win, or if he was just “making moves” in an attempt to win on time. Then I would have make my judgment based on that. (THEN I may have put the delay in place if the intent was still unclear, which is almost always.)
I will rule in favor of the claimant only if it is clear that he has a substantial material or positional advantage. Or if the position is blatantly obvious (R vs R for example).
In my opinion, adding the 3 second delay (standard for G/10) will not normally change the outcome of a “master vs C player” decision, and in fact, if the claim is valid, most players will immediately agree to the draw.

3

So each side had a rook and at least one pawn, and one side had an additional pawn, and the side with one less pawn was the one making the ILC claim.

I’m a C player, and this doesn’t sound like the kind of position I could consistently hold against a master, so I don’t know that ‘insufficient losing chances’ even applied here.

4

Can you penalize players for not using a delay? I didn’t think time delay was mandatory.

  • Enrique
5

If the rules for the competition call for the use of delay (and unless stated otherwise, Quick Chess does), then you could (technically) penalize both players for not setting the clock properly, if capable.

Similar to having G/10 time control and both players decide to play G/15, or some other such alteration of the TC.

The “penalty” is at the discression of the TD, but in my opinion, playing the game without the delay is its own penalty and is enough. In addition, make sure you do not give away any advantages later, such as allowing a TLC claim or inserting a delay clock at a later time.

Note the “if capable” above. If neither of the the players have a delay capable clock, or if they do not know how to set it (that would be unusual, these days), then the rules do allow the use of the non-delay clock as an alternative. That is when you may use the ILC and replace the clock if that is what you decide.
Yes, they could claim not to own such a clock or claim not knowing how to set it, then you have to use your best judgement.

6

Here is where we differ. I, on the other hand, refuse to grant an ILC claim unless it is obvious. No need to “adjudicate” - just deny the ILC claim and let the game continue.

The foolish practice of slapping a delay clock on the game, or the (even worse) “watch for awhile” option should be deprecated in favor of a very strict application of the “C vs. Master” criterion. If it’s not a clear case of a C player being able to hold the draw against a Master, then let the flag fall.

This is not “adjudication” - it is a backwards way of telling the opponent that he showed a certain lack of class in accepting the draw.

Changing clocks, or watching, has created a sense of entitlement by chess rules lawyers. These players cannot play chess, they cannot even play “clock”, so instead they play “rules”. A pox on the lot of them.

7

It is in every tournament where I am the chief TD.

Players who supply time-delay-capable clocks and do not turn on the time-delay are angle-shooting scum who should be horsewhipped.

8

Ding…Ding…Ding…we have a winner!

9

Please tell us how you really feel about this! :smiley:

10

Considering the entire reason for having a digital clock is so you can do stuff that analog clocks can do. (time increment or time delay), I can’t imagine ANY digital clock not having the option to program a delay into it.

And from reading the thead, it looks like that NOT using a delay in a tournament with sudden death time controls would be considered a non-standard tournament.

Is this assumption correct?

I haven’t played in an OTB tournament since my college days, and almost everybody played with the quartz master clock. If you did have a digital clock (toward the end of my college days), it was the rare Chronos clock. Think USCF might have had a digital clock in stock in my senior year, but analog still ruled the tournaments.

I know, I should get a new official tournament rules book. I threw away my old one from the early 90’s, since it was so out of date.

11

42C. Standard clocks in games without sudden death.
Conventional analog clocks and digital clocks with time delay (or Bronstein add back) capability are equally standard equipment. Both of these are more standard than digital clocks without time delay capability, and may be used even if Black supplies and prefers a digital clock without time delay capability.

42D. Delay clock preferable in sudden death.A properly set clock with time delay capability is preferable to any other clock in a game with any sudden death time control. Therefore, if White has such a clock available and Black does not, White’s clock should be used. The only occasions where Black retains the right to use his/her analog clock are in games with no sudden death time control, in cases where both players have the same type of clock, or if White is late and Black has already set up standard equipment. Black would also have a choice of equipment if the delay mode were not being used in a sudden death time control game. In any particular game, if the delay clock cannot be properly set, then the opponent of the player providing the delay clock may choose which legal clock is to be used (5F).

12

Interesting. I’ve certainly read this before, but it just sank in. Why would a conventional analog clock take precedence (be “more standard”) over a digital clock without time delay capability? Was there a compromise to ease the way for introducing digital clocks back in the fourth edition days?

13

Because one particular early digital clock was SO BAD that there was a popular uprising among players to ban it.

14

In the 4th edition rule 42E (pg. 171) makes, I beleive for the first time, the analog clock more standard than a digital clock. Rule 42F in that same edition gives the nod to the “allegro” clock in sudden death “…once this clock is commercially available.” I can’t say for sure if that is a comprimise or not. I doubt it. It was just the 4th edition’s way of dealing with analog and allegro clocks. I suspect with the number of events with sudden death plus the number of delay clocks now being used, rules like this one will get reviewed for future editions (perhaps sooner by the Delegates or the Rules Committee).

15

  1. Some early digitals lacked delay capability. The Kaissa comes to mind.

  2. Some more recent bargain-basement clocks also lack delay capability. The Precision (blue version) comes to mind.

  3. Some clocks have delay capability only in single-control (G/nnn) events. With two controls (40/120, SD/60) you’re out of luck. Earlier Saiteks come to mind.

  4. Apparently some clocks can do a 5-second delay, but not a 3-second delay. This causes problems in quick-rated events.

  5. Some clocks manufactured overseas seem to view delay as a poor step-child of increment. They do increment (cumulative) nicely, but the delay (non-cumulative) options are limited.

Bill Smythe