Exactly. Personally, I would eliminate the ILC concept entirely, since it is nothing more than an accommodation for those who choose not to use standard equipment.
I think what needs to be sunsetted is ILC. My understanding was the ILC was a stopgap when delay clocks were expensive/unreliable and uncommon. That’s no longer the case. Now, you will only get a game with an analog clock if neither player has a delay clock (probably one brings an analog clock and the other brings none at all). The latter definitely should see no sympathy from the TD (or the rules) if they lose a piece up game because the opponent plays clock. One can feel a bit worse for the former, who may not have expected to use the clock they brought, but again, two decades is plenty of time to get current equipment.
Yes. This would be an excellent simplifiction to our rules.
And, at the risk of repeating myself, a digital clock capable of delay and increment can be had for approximately the cost of one year’s USCF adult membership dues. It is also likely that the cost of the clock is less than the entry fee for one of the tournaments in which it would be used.
I’m perfectly fine with excising Rule 14H. (I already don’t accept claims under that rule anyway.)
One of the pre-requisites for doing such a sunsetting is to remove the incentive for using a non-delay clock so that you can avoid a five minute deduction to the base time for using delay. Oh wait, that was already done.
Prior to that there were players that would deliberately agree to play without a delay so that they would get the extra five minutes each (working under the assumption that their game was not likely to go much over 60 moves, in which case they would end up with more time without delay than with).
I knew one organizer (circa 2008) who would remove five minutes from each time control for those using delay, so time control would be (for example) 30/85 G/55 5-sec delay, or 30/90 G/60 no delay.
Currently if a clock is accidentally set with the delay turned off it falls under the 14H (ILC) rules. Eliminating the ILC rules might require allowing a TD to turn on the delay in games that accidentally did not start with delay (one common error is setting the number of delay seconds without turning on the delay option).
The ending of the “deduct five minutes” option reduced some very erroneous settings:
old style standard time control G/90;d0 or G/85;d5
good setting G/85;d5
bad setting G/85;d0 (thinking there is a delay - nowadays this is the correct setting for G/85;d5 if there is no delay)
good setting G/90;d0
bad setting G/90;d5 (thinking there is not a delay - nowadays this would be the normal setting for a G/90 tournament, though it should really be listed as G/90;d5).
This does make checking clock settings simpler because all of them should start with the G/90 part of the time control (or all of them would start with G/85 if the organizer opted to go that way).
Why can’t we just leave 14H alone, and allow TDs who don’t mind ruling on ILC to do so, and give the TDs who are afraid of it the ability to just say NO?
In my opinion, ILC is a good rule, for my way of thinking is that nobody should lose a game on time if they wouldn’t lose it OTB with sufficient time.
The game of Chess is about two players trying to outplay one another over-the-board, NOT by winning on time. The purpose of the clock is merely coincidental, needed only to guarantee that games are finished by a certain time - venue constraints, etc.
14H is fine; leave it alone. 
One year in the Illinois Class, I saw a game in the D section being played on a peg-in set about 6 inches square. The clock, however, was almost a grandfather clock – a Garde, or something similar.
The incongruity instantly made me laugh. The clock was wider than the board.
Bill Smythe
Yes.
A clock should be defined as standard only if it:
- Has increment capability, if the tournament time control includes increment.
- Has delay capability, if the tournament time control includes delay.
- Provides seconds-accurate timing, at least during the last 5 minutes of any control.
By seconds-accurate timing, I mean that the display shows the exact number of (minutes and) seconds remaining, within 1 second.
Clocks with a three-and-a-half-digit display (the leftmost digit can display only a “1” or a blank), such as the DGT North American, typically provide seconds-accurate timing during the final 20 minutes of the control. On the Chronos, seconds-accurate timing is provided during the final 10 minutes, the final 1 hour, or during the entire game, depending on the mode chosen.
Some specimens of the old USCF Master Quartz analog clock have a second hand, but they do not provide seconds-accurate timing, because it is not guaranteed that the flag will fall exactly when the second hand reaches the 12. If, somehow, the flag could be triggered by the second hand rather than the minute hand, then seconds-accurate timing might be possible on an analog clock. I suspect, however, that the only practical way to achieve this might be via an analog display on a computer-like screen, similar to what you see if you invoke the “Adjust Date/Time” option on your desktop computer (right-click on the time of day in the lower right corner of the screen).
Bill Smythe
I must respectfully aver from Mr. Winchester’s well-stated opinion regarding Rule 14H. What follows is my attempt to express my own opinion on the matter.
A game of chess should be, as much as possible, between two players only. A TD should only become involved when there is a clear rules issue (and, in USCF play, the added general prerequisite of a complaint from one of the players).
I’ve made 14H rulings before, of course. I never liked it, though. I always felt that, in some way, my judgment was being inserted in place of the players’ judgment. (This is rather dangerous when you’re dealing with two players, one or both of whom significantly out-rates you, on opposite sides of a 14H claim.)
With the advent of digital clocks with delay and increment capability, players now have all the resources they need to demonstrate ILC without asking a TD to rule. I think this is far superior to any situation where 14H would be employed.
Rule 14H was installed as a stop-gap measure. The advances in, and lower prices of, digital clocks since the rule’s adoption have plugged the gap, and consequently removed the primary reasons for its existence.
While analog clocks should still be allowed in tournament play, players who refuse to avail themselves of widely available, more preferred technology should not receive any adjustment or consideration for their antiquated technology’s limitations. The removal of Rule 14H would be another concrete step toward encouraging universal adoption of delay/increment clocks.
Mr/ Reed and Mr. Winchester have expressed the issues clearly and coherently. This debate is likely to play itself out in Phoenix, as I am inclined to propose an ADM to eliminate ILC. I would welcome Mr. Reed as as co-sponsor.
Sign me up!
I also wish to co-sponsor this ADM.
I thank Mr. Boyd for his well thought out comments on the subject, and they are well taken, with the following thoughts.
I would defend your right to insert a Delay-capable clock, and/or to announce that you would not under any circumstances uphold an ILC claim. But, does your unwillingness preclude me, and other TDs, from our attempt to maintain the true spirit of the game, that is, that Wins, Draws, and Losses be established, as much as possible, over-the-board by the two players?
Some players are simply slower in thought than others, and it sometimes takes more time to consider a position. Even the 5 second delay can be too slow to prevent an otherwise win, or draw, OTB, from occurring. Are we certain that we aren’t punishing those who are unable to think as quickly as others?
When we allow the clock to play the primary role in determining an over-the-board result, in my opinion, we have denigrated the game of Chess.
I’m interested in hearing others thoughts as to what harm they feel is done, to players, as a whole, in allowing ILC claims?
There is already a rule that prevents a clock from producing a result
that could not be produced over the board without a clock. That is rule 14E, which (essentially) says that if a player runs out of time when the opponent has insufficient material to checkmate the player, the game is drawn.
An “insufficient losing chances” claim says “if I didn’t have to deal with the clock, it is highly likely that I would not lose this position.” There is a difference between highly likely not to lose and impossible to lose. Time management is part of tournament chess. The player must not just obtain a winning position and then expect to be handed the point because he’s “close enough” and short of time. The player must obtain a winning position with sufficient time left on the clock to win.
Rule 14H is an anachronism. At this point, it is a sop to players who choose to play with non-standard equipment. There is no reason to reward players for making this choice.
Terry…in contrast to a pure OTB moves-based view, Time is a critical part of competitive chess of the last 100 years. Time is a component of every major and minor sport I’ve competed in (even school band competitions have a time limit). We have to win on our chosen playing field in the time allotted, and we have to do it while keeping score.
Delay/increment is an accommodation to the sudden death / single control tournaments of the last 20 years. It’s a balance for the think time we’ve lost in adjournments after time control (for many varied and valid reasons). Delay / increment functions are much more elegant and consistent than ILC which seeks to have a draw declared in favor of the claiming player. One could debate the relative merits of 5 second delay vs. 30 second increment…but the key is that both players have the same conditions without a rule bailing them out into a draw at the end of the game. I don’t see that as deciding a game “over the board.” That looks much more like engineering a result using the rules rather than proving it over the board in a consistent environment. I can’t think of any other sport that gives competitors the option to claim a draw b/c they are defending the goal well or on the attack as time is about to expire.
As you ask, ultimately I don’t care whether 14H stays or goes. It could stay and I ignore it, or it can go and I’d be happy with less confusion in the world. I wouldn’t allow 14H even if I ran a tournament that somehow accommodated analog clocks. For consistency and to reduce confusion for new Directors it would be excellent to remove the option altogether. Megabytes upon megabytes have been spilled on these forums over the appropriate course of action to take during a 14H claim. The resulting confusion, debate, and structural inconsistency (i.e. it’s culture, not rules, that encourage our top TDs to take similar positions on 14H) is enough indication to me that change is needed.
I suspect the question as to whether we should eliminate 14H or make it a variation that must be announced in advanced will be a topic for discussion in voting on any ADM on the subject. While I would be inclined to eliminate 14H entirely I can certainly imagine there may be enough people whose views mirror Mr. Winchester’s. We might not be able to pass a total abolition but might be able to pass a motion making it a variation.
I was directing at a national scholastic and one of the games using a delay clock did not have the delay on, although both players may have assumed it was turned on at the start. After both players had used up much of their time, the player who had the much better position (but who had less time) asked why his delay was not working. I assumed that the delay had not been turned on at the start, but it was also possible that the delay had been on at the start and had stopped working at some point due to some defect in the clock. The player with the better position who had only a few seconds left, because his delay was not working, was able to make an ILC claim which I upheld (I think his opponent just accepted the draw offer immediately); he most probably would have lost the game on time otherwise due to the delay not working.
Even with delay clocks in use there are situations which could arise (and have arisen) where they may need to be treated as though they were analog clocks, and 14H would be a necessary rule to have in those situations, just as when it was necessary to have when there were no delay clocks.