The forum seems overwhelmed with political infighting over the last few weeks. Anyone have any good, “Hey, this interesting problem came up in one of my tournaments” issues for us developing directors to digest? I miss those types of posts. 
Well, here’s one that happened to me several years ago at the National Open. I was helping direct the WBCA 5-minute tournament before the main event, when a player asked me to add 2 minutes to his clock because his opponent had played an illegal move.
Unfortunately, WBCA rules did not specify a 2-minute penalty for an illegal move. Instead, they specified immediate loss of the game.
Nevertheless, I did not want to impose a forfeit if his opponent didn’t know the rules well enough to ask for it (or, for that matter, if he was simply being kind enough not to ask for it).
So I said, “Um, sure”, and made the 2-minute adjustment, though not without some misgivings. What would happen if, for example, later in the game, the shoe moved to the other foot, and the player who had asked for the 2 minutes now made an illegal move of his own, and his opponent demanded an immediate win?
I agree with you, I miss these kinds of posts. They’re WAY more interesting than politics.
Bill Smythe
Well, I would think the reason for the forfeit rule is so that the game doesn’t evolve into a time control longer than 10 minutes. Adding time could possibly do that.
Is this a situation where we should rule based only on the player’s knowledge of the rules? In some 14H situations, a player’s oral claim is taken into account by many, if not most, TDs, and I agree that TDs must be absolutely impartial and not say anything that could favor one player over the other, but I’m hesitant to make a player’s knowledge, or lack therof, of the rules of primary importance when ruling.
I guess I would have called the game lost, with the non-written idea that “an illegal move immediately ends the game”.
To answer the problem question, I’d still rule the forfeit win and duck for cover.
Terry W
Far more likely, the reason for the forfeit rule is that GM Walter Browne wanted it that way.
A little tweaking of the 2-minute rule is all that would be necessary to address the problem of a 10-minute “5-minute” game. For example, if the 2 minutes would push the total remaining time over 5 minutes, just make it 5 minutes instead. And/or, have a limit of one 2-minute penalty per player per game. For subsequent illegal moves, remove 1 minute from the offender’s clock.
Bill Smythe
And what would you have done if the player simply pointed out the illegal move and not specified the punishment? You would probably have said the penalty for that is loss of the game. So break this down into two parts.
First of all the player has pointed out the illegal move by demanding the two minute penalty. He isn’t wrong about the illegal move. It is up to the TD to access the correct penalty, not the player.
Imagine it was the other way and the player demanded a win when the actual penalty should have been two minutes added. Wouldn’t you have gone with the correct penalty in that case?
OK, but isn’t this a bit subjective? And wouldn’t we then be liable for explaining away our rationale for a non-written, probably inconsistent and very subjective ruling?
I think the initial ruling was simply an error of heart, and should be realized as such. As much as possible, let’s be consistent with the rules and their variations.
terry w
Actually, I was changing the subject a bit, from what the TD should have done, given the WBCA rule, to what I was suggesting as an improvement in the rule.
When you come right down to it, my ruling might have been in line with the WBCA rule anyway. I don’t have my old WBCA rule sheet in front of me, but as I recall, an immediate win is not automatic when the opponent makes an illegal move – you have to claim it.
Can somebody look this up?
Bill Smythe
Here is a question:
What do you do if a game is K & Q vs. K & Q, time delay clock NOT in use, player A has 15 seconds left, and player B has 20 minutes. Player A asks you, “is this is a draw?” You turn to player B and tell him that before you say anything else, player A is offering you a draw. He says that he does not want a draw. (anticipating a win on time.)
If player A claims a draw on insufficient losing chances, K-Q vs. K-Q is considered an automatic draw per the rulebook unless some extenuating circumstance of forced moves is present. Do you award the draw to player A even though he didn’t ask for “insufficient losing chances”, or do you tell him to continue playing since he didn’t know the rule to claim the draw under?
Rob
The first thing you should do is ask player A, "Are you attempting to claim a draw under rule 14H? If he says “Yes,” and the scenario plays out as you describe, you should explain that you are going put in a delay clock and take 7 seconds off player A’s time. (This will often result in player B agreeing to the draw when he realizes that A will not necessarily run out of time.) I advise against declaring the game a draw, since a) it would amount to evaluating the position, and b) It is quite possible for a weak player to lose it.
If you accept that he is making an insufficient losing chance claim, then you can automatically award the draw. There is a list of material vs material in the rule that says a draw should automatically be awarded with that material (and K-Q vs K-Q is one of them) unless there is a forced win on the board.
I was just curious if people thought that you should put the notion of making the insufficient losing chance claim out to a player, or make him/her know the rule to make the claim.
Rob
-
You can, but I don’t believe you should. Those recommendations in 14I were written before delay clocks were generally available. By upholding the claim, you are telling the players that the position is not “one of the rare positions in which there is a quick forced win,” i.e. evaluating the position. Put in a delay clock and let them play it out.
-
Requiring the player to know chapter and verse of the rules is much too harsh, but he should have to make an explicit statement (possibly after prompting) that he is attempting to claim a draw, rather than making an (illegal) request for information.
I can readily agree with #2.
As far as #1 goes, putting a delay clock on a K+Q vs. K+Q seems incorrect based on the current rule. I’m definitely in favor of changing the rule so that putting a delay clock on is the second or third course of action (definitely after the opponent declines the automatic draw offer and possibly after explicit cases are covered), but until that change is made, an explicit case like K+Q vs K+Q should be awarded (assuming there is no forced win).
If you do not generally feel comfortable with your analytical abilities to determine a claim then putting the delay clock on is an option, but one that many players and TDs might consider questionable when the position is extremely clear cut. I know that I am more willing than many to put a clock on than to simply deny a claim and I’ve been questioned on occasion for that.
I’m guessing that you make some type of announcement at the start of the tournament and also post that you will not be analyzing such claims but will simply be putting a delay clock on in the event of such a claim.
I think you’re missing the point here. The result of a game should never depend on the playing strength of the TD. I’m a master, and I am fairly confident of my ability to evaluate such a position – but the players are not entitled to benefit from my ability.
I would be interested to hear to hear Tim Just’s view, but my interpretation is that most of those recommendations in 14I – which are just that, recommendations for dealing with practical problems – have been made obsolete by the general availability of delay clocks. The TD should uphold such a claim only in the egregious cases.
I thought an addendum was sent out that stated in all “insufficient losing chances claims” you were to put a delay clock on it unless one was not available. That that was to be the preferred procedure and the uscf didn’t want TD’s to be deciding games, they wanted the players to decide them. I’ll have to look and see if i can find where I saw that printed.
They sure didn’t send one to me, and I have seen no such addendum in the Ratings Supplements or in Chess Life.
Well, there is a TD Tip which sort of goes in that direction (but not far enough, in my opinion):
Bill Smythe
Yeah, I double checked and the TD tip is what I was referring to. I took it to mean since i’m a lowly director <rated 1209> i shouldn’t be deciding master games and should always put on a time delay unless the claim was clearly incorrect.
One question was raised at the National Junior High though. does the game have to be in ‘endgame’ for Insufficient to be claimed?
Someone claimed it in a position where he was up a knight and pawn but all other pieces were still on the board. I was watching as a learning experience and the TD said his claim was invalid because there was plenty of counterplay. The TD then proceded to take half the players time and put the Time Delay on the clock anyway because it was the 4th time the TD had been called to the board. <this was after opponent said he didn’t want a draw>
This player had only 1 min left at this point and went on to win 40 moves later with the time delay set.
You can analyze this and tell me what you think.
So if i was at GM event and one GM called me over and happened to not have Time delay on and said it was a book draw but the other GM didn’t want it, could i put a Time Delay on or must it be in the endgame?
I don’t think our opinions are that far apart. We both would prefer that the rule be rewritten to make putting a delay clock on preferable to virtually ANY analysis of the position. I do think I am more willing than you are to simply grant or deny a claim in obvious cases, but I would have no problem switching to the placement of a delay clock after a rule re-write. I do think that K+Q vs K+Q in the absence of an immediate win is an egregious case that can simply be awarded, but if a rule re-write no longer automatically grants that draw then I can live with that.
I think our primary difference is that, until that rule change is made, I plan to continue to follow the rule as written and analyze positions to determine whether or not the claim is obviously correct, obviously incorrect, or questionable and should have a clock put on. When I am not a chief TD I have been over-ruled by some of the other NTDs that have said that my definition of questionable is much too broad and that I should simply grant or deny some claims rather than following my preference of placing clocks on them, but when I am the chief TD of a tournament I can simply follow my preferences in stating whether or not a position is questionable. As a floor chief I’ve overruled an NTD section chief who was disinclined to place a delay clock on a game when the claiming player actually had a (difficult) forced draw because the NTD felt that a C-player would not be able to draw that position a significant percentage of the time against a master (if my memory is correct, the claimant did play the correct moves and secure the draw).
Having the rule re-written to make placing the clock preferable would avoid situations where a player is significantly down in material and/or apparently in position but actually has a forced win (or draw) that is difficult to see. By mandating the placement of a delay clock on games, that removes the suspicion that the mere placement of the delay clock indicates any chances one way or the other for the players. As currently written, a TD has to decide whether or not a C-player might see the win (or draw) and thus makes a decision that either grants the draw in an easily losable position, denies the draw in a won position, or places a delay clock in an apparently lost position and clues the players in to the idea that there might be something previously unnoticed (potential super-rook positions come to mind where the rook can keep checking right next to the king and the rook’s capture is a stalemate). The converse is also true for positions where the person making the claim is ahead in material and/or apparently in position and that opting to place a delay clock may clue the opponent in to the existence of saving or winning tactics.
One problem with simply placing a delay clock on all games is that some games are so obviously drawn that it is just an annoying waste of time to continue them, especially if the play so far indicates that the requesting player knows how to secure the draw. Think of black with Bb2, Kd7 making a claim versus white with Kg8, Ph7. Or think of black with Kd7 making a claim versus white with Kd5, Pd6 (having seen B-players play this incorrectly, I would prefer to first see that the player of black knows the correct moves). In such cases the player of white could gracefully accept the draw once a delay clock is placed and the chance of flagging is removed, but I’ve seen opposing players continue on either because of spite (fairly rare) or because they don’t realize the position is drawn. The rule as currently written helps avoid that waste of time, but such time-wasting may simply be the price to pay for a re-write.
Agreed. That’s why I used the term “egregious.” As a rule of thumb, any position that could have been played out without SD should be decided over the board. 14H and its corollaries were written to protect players from an unfortunate side effect of sudden-death. They should not be used to give a player seeking a draw any more rights than he would have had with 40/2, 20/1.
No. The only absolute requirement is the time. One of the reasons for 14H was to deal with situations in which one player was way ahead in material but literally did not have enough time to mate. From your account, I’d say the TDs decision was correct.
The FIDE rules on this are a bit different, but if you are talking about something like the World Open, the TD would probably put in a time-delay clock.