It reminds me of a game I had a number of years ago. I was up a piece versus a master. (I was 1700 at the time.) We both had rooks on the board, and pawns. I offered a draw which he turned down, so I stopped the clock and got the director.
He was a new director and he wasn’t familiar with the rule. The time delay option had only been on the books for a short time. So before we went back into the playing room I had to explain to him the rules, and tell him what his choices were. I wanted make sure he understood the rules and his choices before he looked at the position. It was an awkward situation to be in, having to explain the rules to the TD so he could make a ruling on the position of a more experienced TD. (The TD was rated 2100+)
Since there were a number of pieces on the board he went the cautious route and put the time delay clock on. Several moves later I proceeded to hang the extra piece, and was down a pawn. Then a few moves later he hung one of the rooks. Eventually I ended out winning the game. The master muttered something about not understanding why I was able to get the time delay clock, and complained.
It just goes to show you that anything can happen in a time scramble, and putting the delay clock on is probably the safest choice in a position with a number of pieces on the board.
Joshua’s first question seemed to indicate that he was interpreting the TD Tip as though a time delay clock was required; that the TD had no other choice. This is not true. The TD can uphold or deny the claim based on the position. Ex: K+RP vs K. A TD could uphold the claim if (s)he thinks the position is such that a Class C player could hold the draw vs. a master.
My point is that placing a time delay on the game is allowed, but not required.
By the way, I do agree that even a “book draw” can be messed up easily. The player who asked me to award a draw with the K-Q vs. K-Q dropped his queen 3 moves after I started watching the game.
It would be a lot easier to just put the delay clock on.
John, I understand and support your desire not to let the TDs playing strength influence the decision. Yet the rule explicitly states K+Q vs K+Q is an ILC draw unless extenuating circumstances are present. The rule writers implicitly call upon the TD to make that judgment, so it’s hard for me to agree with your conclusion. Any forced win of the Q should be obvious to anyone; there aren’t that many such situations. The ILC claim should be upheld.
That’s not what 14I says. It is headed “Advice on claims of insufficient losing chances in sudden death under rule 14H.” Now, in the first place, 14H gives four options for dealing with claims, one of which (14H2b) is to put in a delay clock. The “advice” in 14I should only apply if you do not do this, and choose one of the other three. In the second place, 14I repeatedly uses words like “unless,” “ordinarily,” and “may be appropriate.” These are recommendations, not mandates.
TD adjudication is a perversion of the game. It was needed for a time to solve worse problems. It isn’t any more.