Found this while browsing info on the MonRoi incident in St. Louis. Do class C players regularly hold a knight versus knight and 2 pawns against a Master?? And don’t even get me started on placing a delay clock in this game! OMG!
Agreeed, Chris. Barring a highly unusual position on the board, the only correct ruling here was to deny the claim outright.
How about the claim that “to reserve the right to claim rule 14H, must put the delay on their clock at the beginning of the game”?
On a fourth reading, I think I know what the announcement actually was - but the first impression made me laugh out loud.
[point being…if you turn on delay at the beginning of the game, 14H does not apply].
both posters about are correct - the ONLY correct ruling in this game is:
a) make sure the weaker side is asserting a 14H claim
b) make sure the stronger side has the opportunity to accept a draw
c) DENY the claim (although - it’s close enough that I would not penalize the claim - just deny it)
Puttin a delay clock on this game is…not correct.
I agree in general, though it is possible to imagine a few positions in which inserting a time-delay clock would be correct. (E.g., the two extra pawns are doubled on the h-file with the defender’s King and Knight directly in front of them.) Barring some aberration like that, however, the TD’s ruling was simply wrong.
Well…in that case you GRANT the claim, and the TD’s actual ruling is still “simply wrong”.
Poor ruling. It’s possible for a weak enough player to lose such a position. (E.g., he might get bored and move his pieces away from the h-file.) Games should not be decided by adjudication if there is any possible alternative. When that option was put in to 14H, there was no alternative.
The player who wanted to exchange half his remaining time for a 5-second delay should have been told (in the presence of the opponent) that he can’t do that, he must claim insufficient losing chances instead. Then (1) the draw claim is also a draw offer, so the opponent may accept the draw anytime before he (the opponent) touches a piece to play his next move, and (2) the claimant will be subjected to a wide variety of possible rulings from TDs who run the gamut from (almost) never allowing such a claim to (almost) always putting a delay clock on the game.
The best policy, for both players, is just to use a delay clock to begin with. That way, arbitrary differences among TDs don’t come into play.
Bill Smythe
I question whether it would be appropriate for a TD to steer a player towards making an ILC claim. Certainly not in so many words. It might be acceptable to say “the only time a TD could consider such a thing would be in an ILC situation”, but I think even that is too much TD interference.
Fantasychess,
I was the player that requested the time delay clock. I informed my opponent that I was offering a draw by requesting rule 14 h. I was an A player at the time. I dont remember the exact placement of the pawns but he had on on the b file and the other on the h file. My king was blockading his pawn on the h file and my knight was holding the one on the b file back. For anyone who had put in lots of effort with Dvoretsky’s endgame manual, they would agree that the position was an easy draw.
Now for a C player to hold it against a Grandmaster? I am not too sure if that is probable. Maybe if the C-player had spent the same amount of time learning Knight endgames as me, maybe. Rule 14h. is a tough subject for TD’s. Seems easier to get everyone to use a time delay clock in the first place.
a) the time to “request a time delay clock” is at move 1. Supply one, and your “request” cannot be denied.
b) after that, there is no such claim as “request a time delay clock”
c) You can offer a draw, or you can make an Insufficient Losing Chances claim. It’s up to the
opponent to accept the draw or not. It’s up to the TD to decide how to rule on the ILC claim. While there are some (in my opinion mis-informed) TDs who automatically place a time delay clock on the game, let’s just say that this is not the ONLY possible ruling.
d) C player against GM is not the test. “C player who has spent a lot of time with Dvoretsky’s manual” against a Master is not the test. The guideline is “C player against a Master, with both having sufficient time”. Note that “objectively a draw” is also not the test. It needs to be obvious to the average C player how to proceed to hold the draw.
Yes, rule 14H is tough for some TD’s. Some players, too. But, the players have an option - simply purchase a time-delay clock and use it. If you start the game without a time-delay, don’t do silly things like offering to trade some time on your clock for a time-delay later on. There’s no such option, under 14H, or anywhere else.
So…why DIDN’T you play with a time-delay clock, from move 1?
Personal Mode: ON
This certainly appears to be the undercut of the problem. In this day and age, why would any player not intentionally use a delay feature in the time control of a rated chess game? To not do so is quickly approaching insufferable in our rated chess environment as it exists. A time delay clock can be purchased for well under $50. Compared to entry fees and other costs of playing chess, this is not a cost prohibitive situation.
As Ken has pointed out here in numerous ways, the delay clock and use of it from the onset of the game makes all of these things needless.
There certainly is no need for anyone to guess or make a decision that a C player could hold the draw against a Master. This puts the control of the game in someone other than the 2 players of that game, philosophically.
I know that when I direct tournaments, I most strongly suggest a delay clock be used with the delay function running as well. In another post quite awhile ago, someone pointed out that if the person does knowingly begin a game without a time delay and has not tried and exhausted all ways of using one, then there is little sympathy for him when a problem like ILC comes up.
I do disagree with Ken though about the TD simply putting all such games on a delay clock if the opponent does not accept the draw offer that is implicit in the request of the ILC situation. Putting a time delay on the game allows it to play out as a chess game. If the person seeking the ILC is right, then a draw will happen. If the one saying that it is not a draw and he can win is right, then he will win. If one of them blunders either on the board or with the time management, even with the delay, then they do that as part of playing chess and not “not winning” their argument because of someone else making a decision.
Ron, I think this is the crux of the 14H rule. Shouldn’t the person that really has insufficient losing chances, e.g. maybe a queen up, be the one making the claim, not the one playing that is trying to hold a draw? The idea in this case is that since it is a draw offer then clearly the player that is so far behind on material would take the draw otherwise the TD will rule it a draw anyway. Making such a claim in a position that is 2 pawns down with absolutely no chance to win is not “insufficient” losing chances. I would say you have a lot of losing chances.
If it’s a clearly incorrect “Insufficient Losing Chances” claim, you’re risking the TD deducting up to a minute on your clock.
If it’s a clearly incorrect draw offer, you might only be risking your opponent punching you.
While putting a delay clock on the game does let the game be decided on the board, it is still changing conditions in mid-stream and best avoided, in my opinion. People may have made decisions based in part on the game not being on delay. If people choose to begin a game without delay, that choice should stand.
Admittedly I haven’t read Dvoretsky’s endgame manual and I’m just an Expert rated player but I visited the Shredder endgame database at shredderchess.com/online-che … abase.html and punched in a few positions with b and h pawns with the king blockading the h pawn and the knight holding the b pawn. Unfortunately the endgame database didn’t quite like your drawing chances in every position I tried where one of the pawns couldn’t be obviously captured.
However, my initial amazement, and really the point of the post, wasn’t really at you making the insufficient losing chances claim in such a position, it was the audacity in the TD preaching to a parent about how he didn’t know the rules and yet the TD was clearly wrong in how he handled the 14H claim. The post was meant to be an example to other TDs out there of what not to do.
This isn’t always true, Ron. A player with less than one minute on the clock, even with a delay, can still lose on time, or blunder in time pressure when s/he wouldn’t have done so with ample time. Note that 14H2c specifies “both players having ample time.” So, even though a player blunders in time pressure and loses doesn’t necessarily dictate that the player would have done so had s/he not been in time trouble.
Not necessarily. A player defending K+R vs. K+R+P has a very valid claim.
Actually, I think too many TDs are too afraid to make rulings, and especially in 14H claims, TDs have several options other than denying the claim and inserting a delay clock. In claims that are clearly correct, the TD should, according to the rules, uphold the claim.
Well Terry, that is my point. If the player would have chosen and insisted on using a delay clock at the beginning of the game, there would be no issue to discuss.
In today’s state of tournament chess, the delay clocks are ubiquitous. To not use one is tournament foolish at best, especially if the time controls are such that the person might have a good opportunity to have time problems.
Yes, the rule does say that the position should be assessed as if both had ample time. However, I do believe the delay clock being used from the beginning does undercut that rule completely and make it unnecessary at a minimum. If they would have been using a delay clock throughout, the ILC claim could never have occurred.
There is no reason why the TD should have to use his chess knowledge or anyone else’s to ascertain if the position is a true ILC one or not. This is a variable that will affect the outcome of the game. Let the play decide the game outcome.
I don’t see this as a regular/adult tournament problem. I also don’t see it as any type of problem for me as a player or TD. I have enough time delay clocks that I could use in either situation to assure the game will be using time delay throughout.
If the person has used their time to under one minute and they lose because of the time pressure, then that is part of that game. The time delay would give them a few extra seconds for each move and make it so that the person could keep the flag from ending the game. But the standard 5 seconds is still not a lot of time.
So, as a TD, I first strongly encourage the players to use a time delay clock with the delay feature in use. If they both refuse, then they certainly get what they deserve if either runs short of time. I also feel no problem in putting a delay clock on the game if one of them claims the ILC situation. If the opponent feels it is alright he can certainly accept the implicit draw offer. If the game continues, the claimer will indeed have a short time period to prove their drawing claim as valid or not. If he loses on time, then that is what he deserves by not initially insisting on a time delay clock (I have 6 clocks myself that I would offer to them at the beginning of the game so they cannot claim no opportunity to use one) and for squandering his time to such a low level.
The placing of the delay clock on the game makes it so that no decision need be made if the position on the board is a true ILC situation or not. This directly makes the outcome of the game totally reliant on the players and their chess play in that game. No other factors would affect the outcome of the game.
Now, if one of the opponents says he wants to use a time delay clock at the beginning, then this is not an issue as the rules claim and prefer the time delay clock be used. Therefore they would certainly have the use of one, even if they did not own one or could borrow one as I stated above.