My dear DayWalker: Since this is the second time you made this mistake, let me make it very clear to you what an “Analog” clock is. It’s a clock that has hands, and almost certainly does not have delay capability.
You almost certainly meant “Digital” clock – a clock with digits, which probably has delay capability. Please make this change in your terminology if you want to ask this question yet a third time.
In any case, what you are really asking (I think) is, if the clock in use does not have delay capability, or is not set for the delay, can the player request that it be replaced with a clock with delay capability and have it properly set for the delay? (At least, that’s the only similar question it would make any sense to ask.)
The answer:
If the substitution request is made at the start of the game, before the requestor has played his first move, then the TD can allow the substitution, but would probably require the requestor to furnish and set the clock. If the requestor doesn’t have such a clock or doesn’t know how to set it for the delay, tough bananas.
The only other way to hope for a clock substitution is to claim insufficient losing chances (14H). In this case it becomes a TD option, not a player option, to make the substitution:
[list][*]If the clock in use already has delay capability and is set for the delay, the TD will deny the request (of course).
A claim of insufficient losing chances is also an automatic draw offer. Any opponent in his right mind, in the situation you describe, would immediately accept the draw offer.
If the opponent inexplicably declines the offer, and since the insufficient losing chances claim is obviously correct (in fact, in this case the claimant has absolutely no losing chances), the TD will almost certainly grant the claim and declare the draw. No need for a clock substitution.
If both the opponent and the TD are out of their minds (neither accepting nor declaring a draw), then I suppose the TD could grant the request and make the clock substitution.
If the clock substituion is made, the opponent still has the right to accept the implicit draw offer, any time up until the moment he (the opponent) touches a piece to begin his next move. If (as is probably the case) it is still the first player’s move, then the opponent even has the right to wait and see the first player’s move before deciding whether to accept the draw. If all of this happens, the inescapable conclusion is that all three individuals (TD and both players) are absolutely wacko and shouldn’t be playing or directing chess.
[/*:m][/list:u]
So, if your question is, can a player request a clock substitution (other than at the start of the game) without also incurring an automatic draw offer, the answer isNO. (Well, I suppose the player could make the request, but the TD would have no option other than either refusing the request, or interpreting the request as a 14H claim and a draw offer.)
It seems to me that the decision to disallow the use of insufficient
loosing chances was not a very good decision on the part of USCF.
First, if both players so elect, they should have the right to play with
an analog clock. It seems to me that if they CHOOSE to ignore the
increment time control, or the delay factor, should this not be their
right as they are the ones personally affected??
Thus, in cases of such time control pressure, then should be able
to elect for “insufficient loosing chances” to be invoked. Truly, what
business is it of anyone else besides these two players?? It is their
game.
Truly, I do say this-- MANY old-timers DO PREFER ANALOG CLOCKS. The late Robert Smeltzer referred to time increments and
delay as “cheater chess” using “cheater clocks” He is not alone in
that assessment. I for one side with others who will publicize and
state in tournament announcements, that this rule is still alive and
well, at least for events I organize.
One should never make bad decisions based on such emotional reactions. Of course labeling it as “cheater chess” is silly and shows an utter lack of understanding of either delay or increment.
I suppose hybrids are cheater cars, jets are cheater planes, modern NFL helmets are cheater helmets as compared to the old leather ones too.
So, what if the announcements say G/45, but they agree in advance to play at G/35 instead, because it’s the round before lunch and they both want more time for lunch?
It seems to me that the organizer picks the time control, and players can’t override it. If the organizer says that time delay must be used, then time delay must be used at that tournament. If the organizer gives an option, then there is an option.
I don’t think the organizer can any longer give an option of two different time controls for a single round in a single section. However, currently the players can opt to go without the delay if NEITHER provides a delay capable clock AND the organizer is not providing clocks.
I don’t understand this. Steve Immit frequently advertises tournaments with a time control of GAME/25, d/5 or GAME/30 d/0. Are you suggesting that his tournaments are illegal?
I thought that now that, after the latest rule, G/25d5 is dual ratable, that is the only way they are advertised, and an analog clock is stuck at G/25.
I think that is the case if nothing is advertised. However, I don’t think that there is anything forbidding different time controls for analog and digital clocks. For example, for my two day tournaments I advertise 40/90, SD/30 + 30 seconds, analog clocks play 40/90, SD/60. I don’t particularly like it, but at least it avoids resetting analog clocks manually after the first time control. 40/110, SD/30 would be ideal, but cause headaches.
In Maine several tournaments are advertised (not in TLAs) as GAME/60, GAME/45 if both players agree.
What part of the world is this where there are still enough analog clocks in use to even make this discussion worthwhile? In Chicago area tournaments, rarely does one see even one analog clock in use anymore – even in tournaments where the organizer does not furnish clocks.
“What part of the world”? How about apparently every part except the greater Chicago area? I see you make remarks like the above fairly frequently when the topic of analog clock use comes up. Does it really surprise you that some people might not want to switch from their analog clocks, since they are still perfectly usable?
I certainly agree that digital clocks are preferable, and I use them exclusively in rated games, but I see no reason to throw out either of my analogs - which occasionally get borrowed to play rated games. The Pittsburgh Chess League (which meets once a month) routinely has about 20% of its games played with analogs. This is despite the fact that the match director provides delay-capable digital clocks as loaners. And I’ve seen CCA events all over the country with analog clocks in use. However, the players using them aren’t hurting anyone except potentially themselves, so I just don’t care.
Yes, analogs are inferior to digitals. But they’re far superior to nothing at all. Why gripe about them?
I have a personal dislike for the idea of the time control being G/25d5 OR G/30d0. Now that the rule has been set so that a standard of G/25d5 can be dual rated, and a non-delay clock that is G/25d0 for that time control can still be dual rated as long as G/25d5 is the official control, the reason for having G/30d0 and the five minute deduction to G/25d5 goes away.
With one base time control (preferably with delay but the same base without delay) you won’t have the people who seem to set their digital at the optional G/30d0 (instead of G/25d5) and actually set it at G/30d5 (either intentionally to get the extra time or accidentally). You also don’t have the otherwise invalid time control issue with people who seem to set it at G/25d5 (instead of G/30d0) and actually set it for G/25d0 (very common for new excalibur owners that set the delay but don’t realize they also have to actually turn the delay on).
Also, you can view all of the clock times at the beginning of the round without having to figure out whether or not a delay is active.
“Director was not asked to rule.”
“What is the ruling on holding a player to his claim?”
Kind of like the question (which seems to be if a malformed claim should get a draw even though there is a rule that supports the same end result recorded???) the situation itself is a little malformed. How can Player A be expected to get a draw - or record any result - if players do not agree and a director does not rule? How can there be a ‘ruling’ which ‘holds a player to a claim’ if a director does not rule?
Unless you’re asking if a director should intervene to declare a result when not asked to? Or if a malformed request (wrong section of rulebook or an imprecise question) should be corrected by a director either with or without being asked to? Or if an agreed to result stands even if the rules would support a different result? But that’s not the situation presented or question(s) asked.
18G2 does allow a director to declare the result of a game that is over. Please don’t suggest removing that option from the director when the players don’t realize the game really is over.
Interesting and somewhat pointless argument, in that as the flag is
down, the game is a draw, due to insufficient mating material.
While granting the claim of A would be incorrect, the outcome the same.
Ooops! You’re right and I’m wrong. It doesn’t mention 14E, I’d guess only because it takes one of the players to call the flag and not the director (which was stipulated.) If the director declare the result for insufficient material for both sides, he or she certainly should be able to declare this example.