There are certain NYC players that try to demand the right to play with an analog clock because they’re good at blitzing, and hope to run people out of time. I was late for the first round of a tournament and got paired against one of these guys. I was screwed because he started the game with an analog clock. I never had a position where I could reasonably claim ILC. I know better then to try to claim ILC with lots of pieces on the board and even material.
I did play this same player in another game where we were using my time delay clock. He would not take a draw in a position of his K & R versus my K, R & a pawn. I only had 2 seconds but I knew to keep the king and rook positioned in such a way not to allow a skewer. I had to have the TD count 50 moves to get my draw.
Your points are well taken, and you are correct. Players should use these clocks from move one. I agree.
However, situations arise where this clock was not used, for whatever reason, and the players, according to the rules, has a right to issue a claim, and the TD, according to the rules needs to make a ruling, or at least watch the game for progress.
To deny a player a favorable ruling in a clearly drawn position (one in which the TD believes that a Class C player could hold the draw vs. a master) based on the TDs personal feelings about whether or not the players are negligent in their duty to start with is clock, is wrong.
In summary, if you, as a TD, believe the claim to be valid (that is you believe a class C player …), you have the duty to uphold the claim, according to the rules.
The real problem here is that it permits the result of the game to be affected by the playing strength and chess knowledge of the TD, which is highly undesirable. This is why I prefer prefer to insert a time-delay clock in all except the most egregious cases.
A point to bear in mind is that the reason for this rule was to shield players from the draconian consequences of sudden-death. With a “real” time control, it is at least possible to get more time by reaching move 40, 60, 80 or whatever. In sudden death, you can easily find yourself in a situation in which it will be physically impossible to make make enough moves to draw, if your opponent is stubborn about it. When SD came on the scene, it was felt that this was unfair and unsuited to “serious” chess. (Though there was a minority opinion that a blitz-type rule should be adopted. I hope it’s still a minority opinion.) The “Insufficient losing chances” rule is a makeshift, but it was the best they could come up with. It still is. If anyone has a better idea, I’d like to hear it, but bear in mind that it must 1) solve the problem and 2) be realistic. E.g., requiring eveyone to buy and use a time-delay clock is not realistic. Nor, I fear, is getting rid of sudden death.
Personally, I like the setting on the Chronos clock where it gives a minimum of 10 seconds per move at the end of the time control.
To better explain it: Say you have 30 minute game. If a players gets under 10 seconds on the clock (but doesn’t run out of time), the clock resets to 10 seconds. So in essence a player can play indefinatly as long as he doesn’t run out of time completely.
I have to double check, but pretty sure the mode is set at exactly 10 seconds. Although its double the time of the standard 5 second delay, since it only kicks in at the bottom of the time control, the average time of the game in that mode should still be less than a game with the standard 5 second delay.
This might sometimes be the case, but not always, perhaps not even most of the time.
When a player calls me to the board and claims ILC, my first assumption is that that player knows how to draw it, or he wouldn’t be asking, but to prove that, it is my practice to determine if the player indeed knows how (and this, of course, assumes that I, too, know how to do so), by asking him how he intends to proceed. Based on the answers, my ruling is not so difficult.
I understand the desire of the TD to want the game decided over the board by the players. That’s everyone’s desire. But sometimes, the TD needs to step in (when requested). Note too, that the clock is an ancillary part of the game, and so allowing a clock to decide the outcome is also undesirable as a primary function. In this case, the TD may decide to overrule the clock when he is absolutely sure that the draw would be held if the player had enough time.
A player should never lose on time in a position he would never lose OTB, if he had enough time.
That statement is a little too broad as the phrase “enough time” is undefined. For that matter there have been times when my opponent is in time pressure and I opt to complicate the heck out of the position rather than try to blitz my opponent (getting the win over the board rather than on time - in one game we reached a position with seven pieces simultaneously either hanging or attacked by less valuable pieces). I’ve also been on the receiving end of such complications and, in some of those cases, I may have held if the time control had been doubled - but that wouldn’t have been feasible for the organizer (a seven hour US open game is long enough without doubling it to fourteen).
This sounds like a good idea - the problem is that it’s not supported by the rules.
There is no ruling of “this is a draw and I can prove it”.
The rules specifically state that the ability of the players involved is irrelevant to an ILC claim.
What matters is whether or not the average C player would be expected to hold the draw against an average Master.
That means that a Class F player actually playing against a GM gets the same ruling as a GM playing against a Class F player. It does not matter if the player making the claim “knows how”.
An ILC claim is a claim about the nature of the position on the board. The identities, and skill levels, and knowledge levels, of the two players are all explicitly irrelevant - by black-letter-law.
Of course, the rules contradict themselves, in that there is a provision to “watch for progress”. In my opinion, this rule is sloppily written, and the “watch for progress” option is not well motivated. What, exactly, is supposed to happen as the TD watches? Here are some options:
a) the TD might have been unsure if a C player could hold the draw against a Master, but after watching for a few moves he learns how to do it and becomes convinced that the position (again - ignoring the players) is an ILC draw.
b) the TD decides to declare the game a draw because of the lack of progress. The problem here is that USCF rules do not contain any provision for “draw due to lack of progress”. There is the 50-move rule and the “threefold occurrence” rule - but no “lack of progress” rule. Except that some people interpret the “watch for lack of progress” as providing that rule.
c) the TD decides to declare the game a draw because the stronger side can’t seem to demonstrate a win. Here, we’re back at “the players are irrelevant” again.
c) the TD decides that it’s NOT a draw, because the weaker side blunders. Some might applaud this as “the game was decided on the board”; I disagree. If the position on the board was an ILC draw WHEN THE PLAYER MADE THE CLAIM, then the game should have ended there.
It all boils down to how wide a window a given TD has where he is “unsure” about the ILC claim. Obviously, TDs who are weak players will have a very wide window. Perhaps it is correct for a TD who is a Class D player to always put a time delay clock on the board (but the rules also suggest consultation with a higher rated player - not a consultation on what the rule means, but a consultation on whether the position is a “C player vs Master” draw. Even a Class C TD might be unsure of what positions he could hold against a Master. But, if the TD is a Class B player or above, he should be competent to decide if a C player could hold the draw.
So, I’ll suggest that the higher-rated the TD is, the fewer ILC claims should fall into the “unsure” window. And again - if the TD knows whether or not the position on the board is a valid ILC position (without ANY knowledge of the players involved), then he has a duty to make the call.
So…I’ll suggest that it’s not such a good idea to start by asking the player “how he intends to proceed”. The answer to that question does not help, in my opinion.
Here’s what I (try) to do when called to an ILC claim:
a) STOP BOTH CLOCKS (I’m chagrined at how long it took me to learn this lesson)
b) make sure that the player wants to make an ILC claim. If the player says “I want a time delay clock”, then we have a discussion about that.
c) turn to the opponent and tell him that there’s a draw offer on the table.
d) look at the position on the board. First, there are obvious positions. If it’s not obvious, a key point is the number of pawns left. Usually, several pawns on the stronger side is an immediate “no” - but before saying “no”, I’ve learned to look more closely to see if the position is locked. “almost locked” positions are the toughest - some are easy to defend and some are tricky. I don’t think you can assume that C players are particularly strong on corresponding squares, or even the power of a sacrificial breakthrough. On the other hand, I’m not that strong, either. So…I try to start from the assumption that (if there are many pawns) there is a way to breakthrough, but double check to see if BOTH a) I can see a defense, and b) I think a C player will see the defense.
e) All of the above might take 2 minutes. Almost always, I can get to a yes/no decision without resorting to an “I’m not sure”.
My one spectacular failure was a game between two players much stronger than me where I missed a forced combination by the (apparently) weaker side that would have given him a crushing WIN (with sufficient time). In that game, it would have been useful to me for the player to explain his plan - not so that I would be convinced that he knew how to draw, but rather to educate me enough so that I could see that it was a draw. In retrospect, the combination was obvious to anyone who had watched (or played) the last 5 moves in the game, but was less-than-obvious to someone (me) looking at the position cold. This is a good argument for getting TDs out on the floor watching games as time grows short - it’s always easier to make these decisions if you have lived with the game for a few moves.
so…my last step is now
f) ask the player making the claim to explain why this position is an easy draw. Some TD’s worry about privacy here, but I don’t. I’m trying to find out why this is an OBVIOUS draw - that can’t involve any “secret plan”. I don’t recall any instance where it would be useful to ask the other player how he intends to win, because that is not the question. He is not required to demonstrate a win; neither is the claimant required to demonstrate a draw. But, when the TD needs a little help, the claimant can provide helpful hints. Only in extreme cases might I ask the opponent to explain how he intends to win - and here privacy is probably justified. If available, I would prefer to ask a dis-interested strong player (preferably a Master). But, once again, it’s wrong to make this a debate between the players. You don’t have to decide which player would actually win the game from this position - you have to decide if a C player could hold the draw against a Master. The actual strengths of the players at the board is IRRELEVANT (by rule).
Doesn’t this completely go against 14H2 which states, in part, that “The director shall not consider the ratings of the players in making his ruling.”? After all, the ILC claim should be granted based on whether a hypothetical C player should be able to draw the position against a hypothetical master, not whether the players in the game know how to draw the position or not.
I don’t dispute that - my question was about whether that was the first thing to do.
Note that I have a “confer with players” step - but it’s near the END of the process, and only if absolutely if necessary. I also view the goal of conferring with the players to educate ME about the position, and not (as you say) to find out if the player “knows how”. A valid ILC position is a draw even if the player has no clue how to draw it.
Some might view this as a defect in the rule. I consider it a strength.
But, how does 14H3 square with 14H2? It seems to me the intent of banning the consideration of ratings was that the low rated player should be able to make the exact same claim against a stronger player as a master would against a lower rated player.
Still, though, you make a strong case. So, even if the players involved were both Class D, the claim would be valid.
14H2 says that the TD should not consider the players’ ratings, or the time on the clock.
14H3 says that “A director who is unsure how to rule may confer…”.
I think that the purpose of conferring with the players is to educate the TD - and not to place a requirement on the player.
A player who does not understand HOW to draw the game (say, a Class H player) gets the same ruling as a GM. The difference is that the GM might have a chance of demonstrating why it’s an ILC position to a TD who is not sure. If it’s really an ILC position, the Class H player might lose out when the TD is too weak to see it and the Class H player is too weak to explain it. But, the problem here is that the TD doesn’t understand the position, and not that the Class H player does not understand it.
Note that there’s a problem with conferring with GMs. GMs are (by definition) strong players, but many are not strong TDs. There are a LOT of positions that a GM can draw (even against another GM) that a Master will win against a C player. A “book draw” is only an ILC position if it’s a book that every C player understands.
I have doubts that a class B player would always be competent to decide if a class C player could hold the draw.
I remember one pre-SD game I was playing as an expert versus an IM. I was sure for about 20 moves that the position was a rock-solid and straight-forward draw. After the game was over (drawn) I found out that my IM opponent (tired - burning the candle at both ends with US Open delegates’ meetings and US Open rounds) had blown the critical tempo about 15 moves after I was absolutely certain the game was an easy draw (and only then letting his win slip away).
I’ve played against B players where I was winning all the way, even when they thought they had at least a solid draw and possibly an advantage (and I’ve been on the other side of that situation when playing some masters).
That makes me more likely than some TDs to be less than absolutely certain of my own analysis and to resolve an ILC claim by putting on a delay clock in what I’d consider non-trivial positions. Oftentimes I will be the highest rated player available (currently slightly under 2000) to resolve such positions, so there isn’t anybody available to consult.
I don’t remember my exact position against the IM but I do remember exact material equality in an almost deadlocked endgame (four or five pawns apiece, no passers or even candidates) and being absolutely certain at the time that it was a dead draw. I had plenty of time and took to pacing a little distance off as a way of relieving tension (over the excitement of having fought to a draw against an IM). It wasn’t until the post mortem that I found out that I had actually been dead lost, so if it had been a 14H claim (and assuming it was somebody else’s game so that I wasn’t ruling on my own game) there’s a very good chance that I would have granted it.
I’ve had other rulings I’ve had to make where I could clearly see the drawing method but was uncertain as to whether or not a C player would be able to. In such cases the uncertainty isn’t whether or not it is a draw (it is), but rather whether or not a C player would be able to find it. In that type of uncertainty I have to decide between finally placing a time delay clock on the game or making a summary ruling.
A position which a C player would be expected to hold against a master is one in which either the drawing method is so obvious that no one with a rudimentary knowledge of the game could lose it OR even a very strong player could find no method to win it against weak opposition.
In the stated general case of K+N+hP+bP vs K+N, where the defending K occupies the square in front of the bP and the Knight blocks the hP, any number of subtleties could occur, especially in time pressure. Black will retreat his K without giving up the opposition until stalemated on the 8th rank, when his N will be subject to zugwang. But with the K lacking moves, the N becomes a desperado since he no longer needs to actually capture the hP, usually ensuring a draw. However, positions could arise where White’s N rushes to the Q-side to give mate on d7 or c6, too, so the question of whether a C player could hold it against a master is not so clear.
Whenever feasible, the game should be decided on the board and not by the clock or TD discretion. The player who is short of time got there by voluntarily using his allotment, so the ILC rule should apply only in extreme cases - in essence, only “dead draws.”
I concur with the opinions on page one that substituting a time-delay clock, in N+2Ps v N, was probably not correct. However, having made some atrocious time-delay decisions in my TD days, and one somewhat suspect claim as a player, I tend to cut the TD some slack. I completely agree with jwiewel that judging ILC is very tricky, and a TD who wants to simply substitute a time-delay clock in a broad swath of positions will not get much argument from me.
As for one of the other points made, rfeditor was quite correct that it is unrealistic to expect every player to possess a time-delay clock. Some players have no equipment whatsoever! By the time an ILC claim is made, many games are bound to be finished – at which point it is likely that a time-delay clock will have become available that was not available at the start of the round. Asking the claimant why he didn’t start with time-delay at move one is begging the question.
