You didn’t address the possibility that the TD might misanalyze the position. If you want to talk about something being wrong, how about the result of a game resting on the playing strength of the TD? That is wrong.
I disagree. Whether it’s sudden death or simply reaching the minimum number of moves for the time control, part of winning OTB is managing one’s time better than the opponent. The rulebook also doesn’t say one of the objectives is to win material, but it’s still part of the game.
The bottom line, in my opinion, is the game should be decided by the players, not the TD. If I lose because I blundered in time pressure, I guess that I shouldn’t have gotten in time pressure. That’s much better than having a TD impose his judgement on the game.
Kkqrr is an exception because the stronger side cannot lose on time.
Instead, consider a position around move 10. It is a normal looking chess game, except that black lost a queen. White is clearly winning by any reasonable standard, and I think most C players could draw (or beat) a master given time. Can a little kid sit until his clock is under 2 minutes and then claim a 14H draw? How would you react? Assume we are either using the current set of rules or that no delay clock is available under the proposed new rules. You aren’t supposed to know this, but the kid’s rating is well under 300.
I pray that no coach has taught his beginner kids to sit and claim 14H after winning a queen (or merely a rook/piece).
A player requesting a 14H draw is simply asking the TD if the position is one in which a C player could hold against a Master. If the TD agrees, then so be it.
This is absolute nuts. Why don’t we, then, just sit down and punch the clock repeatedly and see who loses on time first? The game is CHESS, not CLOCK.
I doubt very much that this would be your reaction while trying to hold K vs. K+P when you have seconds left.
I guess we simply disagree. But that’s okay; wouldn’t this be a boring world if everyone thought alike?
I don’t know any TD who would grant an ILC claim in this sort of position - one key is that there are a lot of pawns left on the board. Lots of pawns (not firmly locked up with ZERO chance of a breakthrough) is one of the first things I check. There are just so many ways to snooker a class C player with lots of pawns on the board. I also have doubts that the average C player could hold the draw against a Master. I agree that the kid’s rating is irrelevant - why did you mention it?
Sorry about my typo - I meant KRkqrr…I think…I’m so confused…
ILC claims are still valid, in my opinion, for positions that class C players can draw, but are somewhat complicated, and difficult in time pressure.
In my opinion, if a player is able to demonstrate to the TD that he can draw a position, if only he had enough time, he should be awarded the draw if the probable outcome OTB will be a loss on time.
As to the TD making an error in analysis, the current rules allow for him to consult stronger players.
And what about claims involving masters? You have a master, who you know can draw a certain position, but doesn’t have enough time to do so; perhaps the master panics in such a situation. Do you reduce his time to 1 minute, add a delay of 5 seconds, and tell him “good luck” in a complicated, yet theoretically drawn position, and reduce the game to who is able to analyze quicker? Well, yeah, some, if not most of you would. I would hate to do so.
Once again, it hinges on whether or not you think the players’ strengths should be taken into account. The current rule says no.
It does not matter what the player can “demonstrate”. ILC is a ruling on the position - not the players.
As for the two masters - no, I probably do not reduce his time and put a delay clock on the board. I deny the claim and tell them to play on. There is NO rule in the USCF book that says that a “theoretical draw” ends the game. And, yes - if you are playing in a sudden death game, there is an aspect of “who is able to analyze quicker”.
“knowing how” is never the question. If the position is “complicated”, the ILC rule requires the player to simplify it before he can make an ILC claim.
What do you do when you have two masters involved in a complicated game - satisfy yourself that the game can be drawn, and tell them to pack up their pieces and mark it up? That does not sound like “letting the players decide the game”, to me.
This is a silly rule that only protects the higher rated player from losing points. If you can not control the game in the time allowed then stand up and shout “Why must I lose to this idiot?”
I know you’ve been reading this thread. My remarks refer to the changes needed to bring it in line with those remarks. I fully understand the current rules.
As far as “not letting the players decide the game themselves”, apparently, at one time, not too far in the distant past, the rules committee thought that some cases justified allowing a player to ask the TD to “save them from losing on time in a ridiculously drawn position”, hence rule 14H.
OK, perhaps I’m not able to convince you. Tell me, then, what has changed since 14H was adopted to make it no longer desirable? Time delay? Five seconds isn’t that great in some drawn positions.
There’s a difference between a theoretically drawn position and a “ridiculously drawn” one, or I suppose a ridiculously drawable position (K + Q vs. K + Kt. is not ridiculously drawn, but anyone could draw the K + Q side of it).
The plethora of affordable, standard time-delay-capable clocks. When the Allegro rules were first written, there were NO time-delay-capable clocks. When the first such clocks became available, it was unreasonable to require everyone to run out and buy one. By now, I think the attitude is that no serious tournament player should be without such a clock.
For me, if 5 seconds per move is not enough to hold the draw, then it’s not simple enough to justify adjudicating it as a draw.
This problem first arose when we started playing G/30, or similar time controls. This tended to make the clock more important, leading to the Blitz mentality (as opposed to the 45/1 15/30 mentality). Many people felt that there needed to be some way for these fast games to not be decided in blitz-like clock pounding finishes.
One solution was the ILC rule - another was the Allegro clock.
The position then, as now, is that only one of these mechanisms is required. THEN there was more use of 14H…NOW there is more use of a time-delay. In my opinion (and several other folk), it’s NOW (not not!) time to deprecate 14H and depend ONLY on time delay.
Hmm, you think a C player cannot hold queen + draw odds against a master given enough time? Remember, the scenario I proposed was a self-defense claim of 14H to avoid losing on time in a clearly winning position up an entire queen with most of the other pieces still on the board.
I mentioned the rating only because my scenario is only realistic in a low rated scholastic tournament where winning a queen is evaluated as a small advantage, but certainly not decisive. No sane adult would win a queen in 10 moves and then not try to win the game.
Having seen misguided coaches who instruct their young and low rated rated kids to claim 14H in any inferior endgame just in the hope of getting a stray lucky ruling, I can safely say my scenario is not out of the realm of possibilities.
Michael Aigner
P.S. How many 1st graders can even say the word ‘insufficient’ let alone know what it means?
The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that you’re right:
Delay clocks are quickly becoming the norm, and when a delay clock is used, 14H doesn’t apply.
Every player should bring both a chess set and a clock to every tournament, and every player who does so can choose to bring a delay clock. And every player who brings a delay clock has the right to demand that a delay clock be used. (The rule about late arrivals might need to be amended to make this completely true.)
Because of the above, in every case in which a game is played without a delay clock, it is because both players chose for this to be so.
The question, then, is why we need a special provision for players who choose not to use a delay clock and then find themselves under time pressure.
