ADM: New 14H?

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Below is my vision of a new 14H. Nope, I have not yet sent it in. Yes, I did pass a copy along to the Rules chair (pretty easy since I am on the committee). I included the current 14H at the end in red.

BTW, the method I am using here to get feedback is the same one I used when I was working on the 4th edition of the rules.

ADM by Tim Just, Delegate from Illinois: 14H. Claim of insufficient losing chances in sudden death.

The current 14H allows the TD to intervene in the game. The USCF philosophy is for TD non-intervention in games. The proposed change limits the TD intervention currently allowed in 14H. The default when the draw offer is not immediately accepted would be for a TD to place a properly set delay clock on the game if it is available. The procedures for dealing with no clock availability would default to the current version of 14H. Some TD Tips were revised or eliminated to reflect the replacement version of 14H.

Some language regarding increment clocks as it relates to either version of 14H was also cleaned up.

The wording: “The draw shall be awarded if the director believes that a Class C player would have little chance to lose the position against a Master with both players having ample time” was replaced with: “The exact drawing and non-losing chances of any position cannot be calculated, but a director wishing a more precise standard may consider the likely game outcome if a delay clock were placed on the game.” This replacement wording can be found in the New 14H section regarding how a TD may proceed if no delay clock is available (14H2b, step 1).

New 14H:

As of January 1, 2010 replace the current wording of 14H (Claim of insufficient losing chances in sudden death) with the following:

14H. Claim of insufficient losing chances in sudden death.

14H1. Explanation.
This procedure is not available for games in which a clock is being used with either the time delay or the increment properly set, whether the game begins with such a clock or one is added during the game (14H2a). If such a clock is not being used, or such a clock is being used without the time delay or increment feature in operation, the following procedure is available.

In a sudden death time control, a player on the move with two minutes or less of remaining time may stop the clock and may make a claim of insufficient losing chances.

14H2. Resolution of 14H claim.
The TD will inform the opponent of the player making the claim that a draw has been offered by the claimant. If the draw offer is accepted then the claim is resolved and the game is a draw (14B).

14H2a. The Draw offer is not immediately accepted and a properly set delay clock is immediately available for the game.
The claimant gets half of the claimant’s remaining time (rounded to the nearest second); the opponent’s time is unadjusted; the time delay is set for the standard delay announced at the start of the tournament. After the claimant’s clock is started, the 14H draw request by the claimant becomes a draw offer under 14B3, Draw offer before moving. Penalties for rule infractions remain standard. The claimant may win, lose, or draw the game.

14H2b. A properly set delay clock is not available for the game.

  1. A director who believes the claim is clearly correct should declare the game drawn. When ruling, the director should not consider the ratings of those playing. A low-rated player who claims a draw vs. a Master should obtain the same ruling as a Master with the same position who claims a draw vs. a low-rated player. The director should also not consider the times on the clocks. The exact drawing and non-losing chances of any position cannot be calculated, but a director wishing a more precise standard may consider the likely game outcome if a delay clock were placed on the game. See also 14I, Advice on claims of insufficient losing chances in sudden death under rule 14H and 14H3, Conferring with players.

  2. A director who believes the claim is clearly incorrect should deny the claim and may subtract up to one minute from the claimant’s remaining time. After the claimant’s clock is started, the 14H draw request by the claimant also becomes a draw offer under 14B3, Draw offer before moving. Penalties for rule infractions remain standard. The claimant may win, lose, or draw the game. See also 14I, Advice on claims of insufficient losing chances in sudden death under rule 14H.

  3. Deny the claim while inviting a later re-claim. There is no adjustment of either player’s time. After the claimant’s clock is started, the 14H draw request by the claimant becomes a draw offer under 14B3, Draw offer before moving. Penalties for rule infractions remain standard. The claimant may win, lose, or draw the game.

  4. Watch the game while reserving judgment on the claim. The director should make every effort to resolve the claim before the flag of either player falls (5G). There is no adjustment of either player’s time. After the claimant’s clock is started, the 14H draw request by the claimant also becomes a draw offer under 14B3, Draw offer before moving. Penalties for rule infractions remain standard. The claimant may win, lose, or draw the game.

TD TIP: There is no rule allowing players, after the game has started, to ask for a properly set delay clock to be placed on their game, which would replace an analog clock or an improperly set delay or increment clock. Only the TD can initiate placing a clock with time delay capabilities on a game after a 14H claim has been made and the steps of 14H2 have been applied. As a result, the player wishing to place a time delay clock on the game must first make a 14H claim.

TD TIP: The director should inform the claimant and opponent that when the claimant’s clock is started that rule 14B3, Draw offer before moving, is in effect. The opponent has the right to ask the claimant to make a move before the draw offer is rejected or accepted by the opponent; however, if the claimant makes a checkmating (13A) or stalemating (14A) move, the game is over.

14H3. Conferring with players.
A director who is unsure how to rule may confer privately with either player or with both players separately regarding the player’s plans. The director should be careful not to say anything that might assist the player if the game is resumed.

14H4. Player with fallen flag may not claim.
A player whose flag is down (5G) may not claim insufficient losing chances.

14H5. Delay Clock, a clock with time delay capabilities, or Increment clock, a clock with increment capabilities.

If either a properly set Delay Clock (5F) or a properly set Increment Clock is used, 14H and 14I are not in effect; i.e., no claim of insufficient losing chances may be made. The reaction time provided for by the delay or the added increment time for each move is likely to be sufficient for a player with insufficient losing chances to hold the position.

Current 14H:

14H. Claim of insufficient losing chances in sudden death.

14H1. Explanation.
This procedure is not available for games in which a clock is being used with time delay or increment, whether the game begins with such a clock or one is added during the game (14H2a). If such a clock is not being used, or such a clock is being used without the time delay or increment feature in operation, the following procedure is available.

In a sudden death time control, a player on the move with two minutes or less of remaining time may stop the clock and ask the director to declare the game a draw on the grounds that the player has insufficient losing chances. See also 15H, Reporting of results.

14H2. Resolution of 14H claim.
When ruling, the director should not consider the ratings of those playing. A low-rated player who claims a draw vs. a Master should obtain the same ruling as a Master with the same position who claims a draw vs. a low-rated player. The director should also not consider the times on the clocks. See also 14H3, Conferring with players.

The director has four possible ways to resolve the claim.

TD TIP: Remember a 14H draw claim is first a draw offer (Rule 14, The Drawn Game).

14H2a. The claim is unclear and a delay clock is available for the game.
A director who believes the claim is neither clearly correct (14H2c) nor clearly incorrect (14H2d), but is instead uncertain as to the correctness of the claim, may place a delay clock on the game, setting it as follows: The claimant gets half of the claimant’s remaining time (rounded to the nearest second); the opponent’s time is unadjusted; the time delay is set for the standard delay announced at the start of the tournament. After the claimant’s clock is started, the 14H draw request by the claimant becomes a draw offer under 14B3, Draw offer before moving. Penalties for rule infractions remain standard. The claimant may win, lose, or draw the game.

14H2b. The claim is unclear and a delay clock is not available for the game.
A director who believes the claim is neither clearly correct (14H2c) nor clearly incorrect (14H2d), but is uncertain as to the correctness of the claim, and does not have a delay clock available, may:

  1. Deny the claim while inviting a later re-claim. There is no adjustment of either player’s time. After the claimant’s clock is started, the 14H draw request by the claimant becomes a draw offer under 14B3, Draw offer before moving. Penalties for rule infractions remain standard. The claimant may win, lose, or draw the game.

  2. Watch the game while reserving judgment on the claim. The director should make every effort to resolve the claim before the flag of either player falls (5G). There is no adjustment of either player’s time. After the claimant’s clock is started, the 14H draw request by the claimant also becomes a draw offer under 14B3, Draw offer before moving. Penalties for rule infractions remain standard. The claimant may win, lose, or draw the game.
    14H2c. The claim is clearly correct.
    A director who believes the claim is clearly correct should declare the game drawn. The draw shall be awarded if the director believes that a Class C player would have little chance to lose the position against a Master with both players having ample time. The exact losing chances of any position cannot be calculated, but a director wishing a more precise standard may consider little to mean less than 10 percent. A director unsure whether a position meets the above standard should use option 14H2a or 14H2b. See also 14I, Advice on claims of insufficient losing chances in sudden death under rule 14H.

14H2d. The claim is clearly incorrect.
A director who believes the claim is clearly incorrect should deny the claim and may subtract up to one minute from the claimant’s remaining time. After the claimant’s clock is started, the 14H draw request by the claimant also becomes a draw offer under 14B3, Draw offer before moving. Penalties for rule infractions remain standard. The claimant may win, lose, or draw the game. See also 14I, Advice on claims of insufficient losing chances in sudden death under rule 14H.

TD TIP: There is no rule allowing players, after the game has started, to ask for a properly set delay clock to be placed on their game, which would replace an analog clock or delay clock not set properly. Only the TD can initiate placing a clock with time delay capabilities on a game after a 14H claim has been made and the steps of 14H2 have been applied. As a result, the player wishing to place a time delay clock on the game must first make a 14H claim. The player then faces the possibility that the game may be drawn or may continue without a time delay clock when the TD applies the procedures outlined in 14H2.

TD TIP: If a director chooses to resolve the claim by enforcing 14H2a, The claim is unclear, a delay clock is available for the game, or 14H2b, The claim is unclear, a delay clock is not available for the game, then the director should inform the claimant and opponent that when the claimant’s clock is started that rule 14B3, Draw offer before moving, is in effect. The opponent has the right to ask the claimant to make a move before the draw offer is rejected or accepted by the opponent; however, if the claimant makes a checkmating (13A) or stalemating (14A) move, the game is over.

TD TIP: Applying rule 14H2a, The claim is unclear, a delay clock is available for the game, is the preferred method of resolving a 14H claim for directors who wish to ensure the result of the game is determined by the players, rather than any outside influence.

14H3. Conferring with players.
A director who is unsure how to rule may confer privately with either player or with both players separately regarding the player’s plans. The director should be careful not to say anything that might assist the player if the game is resumed.
14H4. Player with fallen flag may not claim.

A player whose flag is down (5G) may not claim insufficient losing chances.
14H5. Delay Clock, a clock with time delay capabilities.
If a Delay Clock (5F) is used and set for the required time delay on each move, 14H and 14I are not in effect; i.e., no claim of insufficient losing chances may be made. The reaction time provided for each move is likely to be sufficient for a player with insufficient losing chances to hold the position.

2

Tim,

Probably you need to include a little of the original language here.

3

In 14H2b. 1. …

How can the TD determine the likely result if a delay clock is placed on the board without also considering the strengths of the two players.

In your effort to remove the “C player vs. Master” test, I think you’ve created a contradictory rule.

4

Any suggestions?

5

I thought time controls with increment adjustments were considered non-Sudden Death and therefore do not fall under Rule 14H.

  • Enrique
6

That is correct. The Rules Committee did mention increment in 14H. I suspect to make sure TDs understood this.

7

Thanks! I’ve always wondered how a 14H ruling could ever apply to a game between sub-600 rated players, i.e. low enough that they can hang a piece on any move.

Just because a kid is up a rook or a queen in an endgame doesn’t mean it is a trivial win, especially at 5 seconds a move (but a C player would definitely at least draw 90% against a master). Some kids have enough trouble simply mating with Q+K against lone king (imagine if the guy with the king had one pawn). And don’t ask me about Q+K vs Q+K, which is supposed to be an automatic draw–as long as you mastered the concept of a skewer.

Michael Aigner

8

I guess the question is if someone is playing in a 30/90 +30 sec tournament, but is not using an increment clock (or a properly set increment clock), can they claim insufficient losing chances? If the answer is no, I think the above entries might be confusing the issue.

Increment is not sudden death and shouldn’t be mentioned… at all. (Unless I’m mistaken about the scenario above.)

  • Enrique
9

30 moves in 90 minutes (30/90) isn’t SD either, and 14H is, therefore, not in effect.

10

In order, my preferences are:

a) strike 14H in it’s entirety
b) keep it as is

a distant third is to try to improve it.

If it comes to that, I’ll be happy to contribute to the Rules Committee deliberations.

It just struck me that in an otherwise very carefully constructed rule, you had inadvertantly created a contradiction. I wanted to know if this was intentional, or if I somehow misinterpreted what you had written.

the key question is: should the TD adjudicate the game, considering the players involved and the hypothetical insertion of a delay clock - or, should the TD make a ruling on the position without considering the identities of the players. That is, if you presented the case to a third party (say, on appeal) - would the appeal committee care who the players were.

I maintain that under the current rule, you can submit an ILC appeal without mentioning who the players were, or what their ratings are. Under your proposed rule, if I declare that the likely outcome would be a draw (if the TD puts a delay clock on the board), then the appeal committee cannot decide if I made the right decision without asking about the players’ ratings.

That seems like a very fundamental change in the rule - and one that you did not highlight, so I’m not sure if this change was your point…or was unintentional.

In my opinion, if you put back the “C player vs. Master” standard, your proposed re-wording does not change things enough to warrant the change in language. And, if you don’t put that test back in, your proposed change makes the rule much, much worse than it is now. It requires the TD to adjudicate the game and not the position.

11

The answer is simple. 14H rulings are not adjudications (where the usual test is “perfect play by both sides”). They are not even based on the probable outcome of the game. They are based on the position on the board, and nothing else.

Suppose I were to ask you about Kkqrr (lone King for White - King, Queen and 2 Rooks for Black), with no special features to the position on the board.

a) what is your evaluation of this position?

b) what is the likely outcome of this game?

I trust that your answer to a) will be “Black wins”.

You can’t answer b) without knowing who is playing. If they are both 0600 players, my answer is “it will probably be a draw (by stalemate)”. If they are both C players, my answer is “Black will likely win”. If they are both Masters, my answer is “Black will probably punch White in the face for not resigning a long time ago”.

14H (as written) specifically bars the TD from considering the identities of the players. The 0600 players get the same ruling as a pair of GMs.

If a 14H ruling is appealed to me, I ask to look at the position, and if someone starts to tell me about the players involved I tell them to shut up and show me the position. Period. Players do not matter; times on the clock do not matter. Only the position matters. Just like the rest of rule 14.

It DOES NOT MATTER if either player knows how to handle the position, from either side. The ruling is not something that only a strong player “deserves”. It’s a judgement about the raw position.

12

My preference is that 14H NOT be removed, but that the language be cleaned up a bit to make it clear that the default IS NOT to insert a delay clock, but rather that the TD is obliged to either deny or uphold the claim in positions that the TD can understand. The Class C vs. Master test should remain, as well.

In my opinion, a player deserves a favorable ruling if the TD believes that a Class C player would hold a master to a draw in the given position. If the TD is not of sufficient strength to make that determination, then a clock could be placed on the game. But, the TD should make every effort, as is currently within the rules, to make that determination.

My opinion is based strongly on the notion that a player should not lose on time when he/she is not likely to do so OTB, and the removal of 14H, or the default being changed to placing a delay clock (and subtracting time from the claimant) only places the clock in a more primary function than the object of the game prescribes.

The rating of the player making the claim should be considered, and the player should receive a favorable ruling IF he/she is at least a Class C player.

13

the last point would not be “cleaning up the language” - that would be reversal of one of the fundamental underpinnings of the rule.

14

Absolutely! I favor this change, because it seems to me that the fundamental principle of 14H, when Sudden-Death became popular, was to relegate the clock to its proper place, which is to assist in getting a tournament finsihed within the amount of time the organizer has for the event. In an effort to have one day events, Sudden-Death time controls simply became speed games with the clock, and this is not the purpose of the game:

“The objective of each of the two players is to win the game by checkmating the opponent’s king. …” Rule 4A.

The game’s primary purpose is to win over-the-board. The clock is simply secondary to that goal.

15

Unintentional wording. I just wanted to eliminate, or at least limit, the TD from the equation when a delay clock was available. I thought that if I kept the old procedures (with that wording change) when a clock was not available then it might be easier to sell the new 14H rule. I could just as easily keep that “if a C player…” wording. Ideally I did not want to even include any procedures when a delay clock was not available; i.e., the game just continues with the analog clock. But I suspect that had very little chance of passing.

The Forum readers should know that the Rules Committee has started a discussion on this topic.

16

I think Terry Winchester’s arguments pretty much make the case that the rule needs to be clarified.

17

Back in the olden days, before delay clocks were common, a TD facing an ILC claim had two basic choices: (A) deny the claim, or (C) grant the claim.

When these were the two choices, a standard like C-vs-Master made some sense.

But in the intervening years, conditions have morphed. Now the primary choices are: (A) deny the claim, or (B) put on a delay clock.

Few TDs want to use the old option (C) any more (except, perhaps, in extreme cases). And this is good – the game should be decided by the players.

Remember how this thread (or its predecessor) started. A player, in the hopes of getting a delay clock, claimed ILC when down material in a borderline drawable position. The player would have had good drawing chances with the delay clock, yet the TD felt he could not slap a delay clock on the game because the position did not meet the C-vs-Master standard.

Because the TD’s hands were tied by a bad rule, the player was denied a reasonable chance to prove he could draw the position.

So, my litmus test for an improved 14H is: Does it give full blessing to a TD who wishes to place a delay clock on a game in response to a (properly constructed) ILC claim? For the current 14H, the answer is a resounding no. For Tim Just’s suggested version, the answer is yes.

So the Just version is already a huge improvement.

But I still see some problems. The rule should also give full blessing to the opposite kind of TD, who wishes to deny all 14H claims. It is, after all, the player’s right to furnish a delay clock to begin with, and he has nobody but himself to blame if his failure to do so gets him into a pickle later in the game.

Here are my suggestions:

A. Start with the Tim Just suggestions, but make the following changes:

B. Change the name of the rule from “Claim of insufficient losing chances” to “Claim of insufficient delay time”. Or, in the full-length version, change “Claim of insufficient losing chances in sudden death” to “Claim of insufficient delay time in sudden death”. Either way, the new title expresses the point better, and has the same number of words (and 4 fewer letters) than the old title.

C. Make “put on a delay clock” and “deny the claim” the only options.

D. Give full blessing to any TD who wants to respond to virtually every ILC claim with a delay clock.

E. Also give full blessing to any TD who wants to respond to virtually every ILC claim by denying the claim.

F. Also give full blessing to a wide range of options between the extremes of D. and E. (Also see H. below.)

G. Forget all the stuff about “if a delay clock is not available”. Simply stick with the same options mentioned in C. above, which in that case would become only one option, “deny the claim”.

H. Don’t forget that changes in 14H also require changes in the companion rule, 14I – the rule presently entitled “Advice on claims of insufficient losing chances”. In fact, 14I needs to be scrapped entirely. The main topic of a new 14I should be a full discussion of the various possibilities mentioned in F. above.

Gotta go to work now, but maybe this evening I’ll try my own hand at new wording for a revised 14H. See ya later.

Bill Smythe

18

I think they should just throw out Rule 14H. If a person can’t manage his or her time wisely, they deserve to lose.

If a delay clock is available, then it would be suitable to change to a delay clock (and reduce the claiments time by 1 to 2 minutes). Otherwise, the players will have to just play it out.

The USCF needs to stop coddling everybody.

19

I lean the other way. I think the default should be for a delay clock to be inserted. If it really is an insufficient losing chances, then the player should have no trouble holding the position. Why should the result be decided by the analysis of the TD? You suggest that the TD should make a ruling in “situations he understands.” However, what if he just thinks he understands the position and misses something? Let the game be decided by the players, not the TD.

I also don’t think you should consider the strength of the player. Suppose that class D player just studied how to draw a certain endgame. Give him the chance to prove it instead of the TD arbitrarily ruling that he’s not strong enough to hold the position.

My opinion is based strongly on the notion that the players should decide the results of the game…not the TD.

20

This is a faulty notion. Not every player who is strong enough to draw in this position with ample time is necessarily good in time trouble. And even though a 5-second delay is inserted, the player can still make a mistake, in time trouble, and either lose on time or lose OTB. In my opinion, making a mistake in time trouble when the player wouldn’t do so with ample time, and thereby upholding the loss by having inserted a delay is wrong.

Consider K+R vs. K+R+P. Can a C-player hold this against a Master OTB? If so, then why should we allow the defender to lose on time? Again, the object of the game is NOT to be faster on the draw in hitting the clock.

This is fine. Confer with the player to see his/her plans. If you’re convinced that (s)he understands the drawing concepts, then award the draw.

Again, the primary goal is to win OTB. The clock is merely an ancilliary device. No where in the rules does it say that one of the objectives is to manage one’s time better than the opponent.