This clock allows games to be decided entirely by the players (14H5), with no need for the directors to consider insufficient losing chances (14H) or count for the 50-move rule (14F4).
Why would use of a delay clock avoid a director being asked to count for a 50-move rule possibility especially in sudden death (which is what 14F4 addresses)? Some local players would like to interpret this as there is no 50-move rule in Quick Chess (which I doubt is true, but nor can I make sense of the reference to 14F4 above).
I find comfort in seeing Bill Smythe post (under the “Why time delay” thread under Tournament Organization Forum) “Delay does not eliminate all draw claims. It just eliminates 14H claims” (referring to insufficient losing changes). Elsewhere he more explicitly states that the 50-move rule would be allowed. To be fair, in neither case was he citing chapter and verse. What does the last part of the above sentence (in 5F) mean?
The short answer is that you seem to be reading 5F as applying only to Quick Chess, as if it were a subsection of 5C. That is not correct. 5F is obviously intended to apply to all games with a sudden-death time control. So you can’t draw any conclusions from this about Quick Chess and the 50-move rule.
I agree, however, that the wording is a little strange, and could be interpreted to mean that the 50-move rule does not apply with time-delay in effect. Since this is certainly not the case, I can only assume that it is a rather clumsy way to say (redundantly) that the TD is not required to count for the 50-move rule.
The director can agree to count the 50-moves (rule 14F4), or reject counting the 50-moves (rule 14F4). The rule was designed for games under five minutes for one player. The rule was not designed for quick chess with more than five minutes on the clock. Since the quick chess games do not have a scoresheet, can understand why it could or should be used during the whole game. If it was a quick chess with more than five minutes on both clocks, would reject the claim: as the clocks have more than five minutes. If it was for any game, would use rule 14F4f, as the move counter clock will show the 50-moves.
When the rule was written it had in mind that those digital wonders have move counters. Instead of having a TD stand and count moves, the move counter could be a TD approved alternative.
Apologies for grabbing 5C label of “Quick chess” when I meant “Standard timer for sudden death” (5F) - but you seemed to figure that out.
“Move counters” bring back memories of special BHB’s (mechanical - circa 70’s) which left a lot to be desired - presumably the digital ones are far better. But should clearly help alleviate (simultaneous) demands on a TD (esp for a TD trying USCF blitz rules - G/5 td2). Will give it a go.
Ah yes, the bad old days. Those BHB move counters made it extremely difficult to press the clock, on the side that activated the counter. I can imagine someone squawking loudly if forced to use a BHB move counter in a blitz game!
The TD is not supposed to rely on the move counter alone to resolve a 50-move claim, because errors can occur (a player forgets to press his clock, or an illegal move is made and the clock is pressed, then the illegal move is retracted).
However, the move counter can be an aid to the TD. He can observe the move count when the last piece was captured or the last pawn pushed, then watch the game to make sure there are no further captures, pawn moves, illegal moves, or forgetful players. In that case the ruling of a draw after 50 move-pairs could be legitimate, even without score sheets.
If you place the move-counter clock on the board to take care of the 14F claim, the players can see the move-counter during the rest of the game. If the players are not willing to capture, as trading can lose the game, capturing is not going to happen unless the pawn can move. If they can see the move counter going up (30 … 35 … 40 moves), very sure they are going to have agreement on a draw before the players reach fifty moves.
That is not a realistic view of serious play. For example, I recall a game in which an IM tried for 135 moves to win with R+2 vs R+1. He was being a bit stubborn for the last 30 moves or so, but it was perfectly reasonable for him to make the defender prove he knew how to draw it.
International masters are few in numbers, the amount of tournaments supporting them is very few in numbers, the large prize money an international master can make with a win then a draw is not very realistic. Sure, if the prize money is so great with a win over a draw, could see someone being stubborn in not taking a draw.
Not all tournaments in the nation are going to have large prize money. The greater the prize money, the greater the amount of claims. Can only see someone making a 50-move draw (14F) claim during the last round in the hope to win a prize. Sure, the last board in the final round could have someone ask for a 14F claim. If someone wanted to make a bet with me to see if the 14F claim is made in the top ten boards or the bottom ten boards, would pick the top ten boards.
In all the years as a director in all the Category D events, with all the years as a player in the Category D events: never recall one time anyone making a 14F claim. The prize money is so low in the events, very few players are going to find a reason to make a claim. In the larger events, going up into the Category C or higher with a larger prize, the players are going to find any reason to make some claim.
The reason why 14F claims are so uncommon, as the position on the board has to be so drawish in the first place. If a player has to ask the director to count the fifty moves, with the director supporting the players claim. It begs the question why the other player does not understand the game is a draw. Why would anyone want to play a dead draw position, with the director in some form counting the moves? If it was for the prize money, can understand to a point for the reason. If the prize money was a larger tournament with a large prize, can see how stupid it is to play till 50-moves are made on the board.
If your opponent makes a 14F claim, and it was accepted by the director, with the director counting the 50-moves in some accepted standard. Would have to say you have rejected your opponents draw claim, but the director feels the position has some finding in fact – the position is a draw. If you now play with a move-counter, you can see with each and ever move no capture and no pawn move. With each and ever move, the position on the board will show the game is a dead draw. If there is no capture and no pawn moves after move 20, then move 30, why would the position become different after move 50.
You’re missing the point. The prize money in that particular tournament was minimal. The IM was trying to win because he was the higher rated player. Contrary to popular opinion, some people really do compete because they like to play chess.
While it is true that some 50-move claims are silly (weak players shuffling the pieces back and forth pointlessly), the majority of them involve cases where one side has a tiny-to-cosmetic advantage, and quite reasonably insists that his opponent prove that he can draw it.