Well,
I concede that the language about the checkmating or stalemating move in that TD tip supports your interpretation. I don’t see why a TD would deny an ILC claim to a player who had a checkmate or stalemate ON THE MOVE, but I concede that this bears on point A4.
I also recognize that Tim Just’s interpretation of the rules has a lot of weight.
p>
As the years go by, this suggestion becomes more and more reasonable. With 60-90% of tournament games now being played with delay clocks, a player has only himself to blame if he gets into a non-losing position without a 5-second (or 3-second) delay.
As a TD, however, I’d hate to have my hands tied, and be forced to stand idly by as two players blitz out a dead drawn position, in a test of mere hand-eye coordination.
If I had my druthers, the rule would be greatly simplified, with reduced importance attached to the nature of the position. My suggestions:
Change the name of the rule from “claim of insufficient losing chances” to “claim of insufficient delay time”, or possibly “request for relief from insufficient delay time”. Insufficient delay time would be defined as no delay (or a delay less than 5 seconds) when under 2 minutes in sudden death.
The mechanics would remain the same. Such a claim (or “request”) would still be regarded as a draw offer, and would still be a valid claim only in sudden death, and only under 2 minutes, and only if the claimant’s time has not expired when he makes the claim, and only if the delay is not already in use.
The TD would have the following options:
3A. Declare the game immediately drawn.
3B. Deny the claim and resume the game.
3C. Put a delay clock on the game (same details as at present).
Option 3A should be rarely used, but might occasionally be appropriate if the TD feels the claimant would be extremely unlikely to lose if the delay were turned on.
If the TD chooses 3B, the player would sitll have the right to claim again later, and the TD would have the right to remind the player (at the time of the claim) that a later reclaim might be in order.
The rule should give full blessing to any TD who wishes to use 3C universally (or almost universally).
Conversely, the rule should also give full blessing to any TD who wishes to use 3B universally (or almost univesally). After all, it is the players’ responsibility to furnish delay-capable equipment to begin with.
Bill Smythe
We still have a TD locally who deducts time for players who use a time delay clock. I tend to bring an analog along to his tournaments in order to not lose the initial time.
But as a TD myself, I have seen fewer and fewer ILC’s over the years. Considering the current discussion, making the rule simplier might be in order.
I prefer to have a consistent rule. Either 3B or 3C should be listed as the preferred method. My choice would be 3C, let the skill of the players determine the outcome and not the clock.
I also think that a lot more games would start with time delay clocks if both players knew that they weren’t going to win on time in a dead drawn position. I have seen a few players who will leave the delay feature turned off for just the possibility that they can win in such a scenario.
I tend to agree, though it means a bit more work for the TD. In practice, many (perhaps most) such claims are resolved as soon as the TD begins setting the clock. In the past, one of my objections was that this would require a significant capital outlay by TDs, but these days the simpler digital clocks are dirt cheap.
That’s one reason I dislike deducting time from games using a delay clock.
But even if you do lose time, it’s worth it. You’ll get it back if the game goes to 60 moves. You’ll get it back, AND MORE, if it goes beyond 60 moves – which is precisely when you’ll most need it.
True. At the National Open (800-plus players) a few years ago, one of the TDs told me there were NO such claims. More and more games are starting with the delay, and apparently players who do not use the delay feel too guilty to make a claim.
Personally, I agree, but one should have some sympathy for the TD staff at monster tournaments with fast time controls (such as national scholastic events). There may be neither enough manpower nor enough clocks to make 3C a viable option.
Tournament-to-tournament uniformity would be nice for the players, but let’s face it – differing conditions, and differing attitudes among TDs, make such uniformity an unrealistic goal. A player can always ensure his own uniformity by owning and furnishing a delay clock, and being on time for each round.
I’ve seen this too, and even in tournaments where they KNOW the TD would respond to a 14H claim with a delay clock. They’re just hoping to get away with something.
Bill Smythe
I didn’t say I was being logical in my approach.
I have seen fewer ILC as well as touch move violation claims the past few years. Perhaps both are the result of the use of time delay clocks. The later as a result of not being in as much of a hurry to make a move.
On page 66 of the March 2006 Chess Life it asks “No tournaments in your area? Why not organize one?”
Why not they ask?: How about the absurd complexity of all these rules. To the rule makers - K.I.S.S. (keep it simple, Silly).
Perhaps some offshoot of Pocket Fritz could be cobbled together to automatically render its opinion about claims of insufficient winning chances claims, thus aiding the TD (who would retain final say).
Maybe another easy simplification could be “If you can demonstrate to the TD that your opponent’s latest ply was illegal, and you have not yet re-plied, then you win.” The only drawback I see would be that Geurt Gijssen would have fewer complex answers to write-up in his ChessCafe column.
I’m not sure what your post has to do with this particular thread, unless you’re saying we shouldn’t try to figure out what the rules say about these situations because the rules are too complicated. Sounds like it belongs in a separate thread, but I’ll commit the minor transgression of answering anyway.
I don’t think the rules are so complicated that they discourage ORGANIZERS. Maybe some TDs could be discouraged, but organizing is a separate (and more difficult & time-consuming, IMO) activity than simply directing. From what I’ve seen, chess players and directors don’t seem to mind the complications too much (maybe they even enjoy them, sometimes).
If you really want to simplify:
Simpler than using a pocket fritz, just put them on a delay clock. A lot of directors already have one. A cheap delay clock is less expensive than the software (much less the HW to run it on).
Better yet, let’s simplify the rules by REQUIRING a delay (and, of course, a delay capable clock). If chess players weren’t such a reactionary bunch, we’d probably have already done this.
You are free to require delay in any events you organize.
If you choose to require players to supply their own delay-capable clocks, your turnout is likely to be affected.
I agree. As I said above, chess players are a reactionary bunch. Not to mention that most won’t want to replace a functioning clock. Until I had used one for a while, I didn’t want to use a delay-capable clock either.
The USCF needs to do more to encourage the use of delay-capable clocks and discourage analog clocks. Delay-capable digital clocks are the future equipment of choice and the sooner we all adopt them, the better. At the very least, the USCF should stop selling analog clocks (yeah, I know that’s farmed out, but the USCF should have SOME influence there). EVENTUALLY, delay-capable digital clocks should be all that we use. At the current rate, that might take another 50 years.
The only way to get some chess players to embrace something new is to force them. I get the feeling that some players would prefer it if we all had to use descriptive notation, if it took two moves for a pawn to advance from e2 to e4, etc.
Not every tournament I play in has sudden death time controls. If there isn’t sudden death why would I need a time delay clock?
Do you play in some tournaments with sudden death? Might you want to in the future? Why have a clock that doesn’t have a valuable feature that would be used in SOME tournaments?
Well, actually, I can think of a few reasons. But that would be the subject of a different thread – what I don’t like about digital clocks and how they could be improved!
My point is that without some pressure, inertia will keep us from fully switching over in our LIFETIME. At the very least, stop endorsing (by selling them in the USCF “shop”) analog clocks that are less capable than the inexpensive digital clocks. I’m not crazy about sudden death time controls, but they seem to be a fact of life in most chess tournaments – so let’s make the best of the situation.
I have at my disposal about every digital clock that has ever been made, with and without time delay features. This includes the Garde analog with time delay features. As a player I much prefer the ease of use and feel of an analog clock. Even the Garde is a bit cumbersome to use. So if I am in a tournament that has at least a second time control I am content to use an analog.
Many scholastic players don’t own clocks. As a TD I find it easier to set an analog clock and place it on a game in progress than to set a digital. The analogs are a lot easier to adjust for penalties as well. When you have 600+ kids to direct a minute or two here or there can add up.
There will be analog clocks sold and in tournaments even after they trow dirt onto our graves. The first clock for the majority of the scholastic players. Scholastic players, the analog clock will be the only clock they will ever have.
With all the rules the scholastic players should understand … the ILC claim is not on the top of the list. With the coaches and the parents … teaching the scholastics ILC claims is not on the top of the list.
Oh, sure – the rulebook is discouraging organizers and TDs.
This is an example of what I would call K.I.S.S.-extremism – the desire to keep things so simple, at any cost, that it would defy common sense at all levels. You would immediately end an otherwise beautiful game just because one of the players inadvertently made an illegal move??
Bill Smythe
Technically, you wouldn’t. The delay was concocted to ameliorate the worst effects of sudden death.
But, since most tournaments DO have sudden death, it makes sense to use the delay even in those which do not. It makes the “look and feel” of the game more similar to that in the majority of tournaments. Plus, some opponents may believe the delay is on when it is not, causing all kinds of arguments.
There’s no rule that says delay can’t be used even when there is no sudden death. It would be interesting to find out, in events without sudden death, how many organizers still specify that delay can (or should) be used when a delay clock is available.
Bill Smythe
That’s a common misapprehension. The idea (though not the technology) of time-delay predated the sudden-death craze by quite a few years. Fischer certainly did not have sudden-death in mind when he proposed time-delay as a cure for time trouble. When the, ah, drawbacks of SD became obvious, proponents latched on to time-delay as a silver bullet.
Well, okay, but certainly the primary purpose of the delay, at the present time, is to counter the worst effects of sudden death.
Bill Smythe
Agreed. Also, the SD connection probably had something to do with bringing them on the market. But it should be remembered that time-delay has a use independent of sudden-death.
There are still tournaments with a second and third control of x moves in x time?? Even weekend tournaments with slow time controls tend to be 40/2 followed by g/60. I’ve always been glad to have the time delay when I get to that 2nd time control.
I used to think that giving up the 5 minutes to have time delay on wasn’t worth it. The more I play sudden death time controls like g/30 and game/60 the happier I am having the delay. I can live without the 5 minutes. Besides where I play most often if you don’t put the delay on your digital clock you lose the right to claim. This made quite clear from the get go.
Also as a playing TD in a small club I’d much rather start and have everyone else start with time delay. It eliminates a lot of problems. If I get into a position where insufficient losing chances would be a possibility I no longer have to depend on someone else making the decision for me.
In the past there have been times where I’ve had to explain the rule to a less experienced TD, and then expect him to make a decision on my game. (I had this happen in a large club with a new manager who was the TD for a tournament I was playing in.) As a player and TD I don’t want to be in this type of situation.