"Rule 14. The Drawn Game All draw claims are also draw offers (14B). The player making any draw claim (for example, triple occurrence of position (14C), insufficient material to continue (14D), insufficient material to win on time (14E), the 50-move rule (14F), both flags down in sudden death (14G), insufficient losing chances (Variation 14H)…) is also making an implied offer of a draw to the opponent. If the opponent accepts the implied offer, the game is over.
The opponent may immediately accept the draw offer and end the game (14B), or instead
The opponent may ask the director to rule on the claim. If the director upholds the claim, the game is over.
If the director does not uphold the claim (does not declare the game a draw),the game continues. The implied offer of a draw is still in effect, and the opponent may accept or reject it (14B)."
Nowhere does it mention a claim going to the opponent. The offer goes to the opponent, the claim goes to the TD.
Show me somewhere, ANYWHERE, where it says claims are made to the TD. You posted something that doesn’t even mention the TD until step 2. (Similarly the FLC has one branch which explicitly requires the arbiter and another which doesn’t mention it).
Read Rule 14 again. “The opponent may accept the draw offer”, so the offer comes to the opponent. “The opponent may ask the director to rule on the claim”, so the claim comes to the director. Nowhere does it say or can you infer that the claim comes to the opponent.
This argument may be a semantic tempest in a teapot. If faced with a situation where we have a valid claim of draw we all, me included, say to the opponent, “I claim a draw based on (whatever applies.)” What we mean is “I have a valid claim of draw based on (whatever applies)” I am prepared to get a TD to rule on this claim. Why don’t you agree to draw the game and save us all the time and energy."
I don’t understand the whole reasoning for wanting to shorten some TD tips in the rulebook. At most you might save three or pages??? This seems more like an end run to try to convince people that the rules tips themselves need clarifying or something. Are we playing Chess or we playing rules?
Well, some people seem to think the TD Tips make it hard to find to find the rules. Shortening them where appropriate would help a little and wouldn’t hurt.
I made a comment about trying to find the rules amid a forest of TD Tips, but (a) this was not meant to be taken literally – it was hyperbole; and (b) I was not describing the current state of the rulebook, but what it might become if we indulged a certain person’s whims. Sometimes I come to this subforum and find what seems like dozens of new posts, all concerning the addition or modification of TD Tips (and most of them generated by one person). It just seems excessive. We don’t need to add or modify a TD Tip every time a thought pops into our heads. I am in favor of a relatively stable rulebook that doesn’t change on a daily basis (again, this is a bit of hyperbole) – indeed, that doesn’t change at all unless there is a real need (as opposed to someone’s obsessive urge to constantly tweak things that are basically OK as they are).
Yes, there are a few things that should be in there that aren’t (e.g., clear unambiguous statements of what constitutes sudden death and when scorekeeping is required), but not nearly as many as are being suggested. And changes like this that are really needed should be rules rather than TD Tips.
Why don’t we end all this silly talk about whether a claim or an offer comes from the claimant, from the opponent, or from the TD, and whether it goes to the claimant, to the opponent, or to the TD, and which or how many of these six possibilities are correct, etc.
If X claims a draw, and Y disagrees or is unsure, and X and Y start discussing it, perhaps even arguing loudly, then either X or Y, or maybe even somebody in an adjacent game who is being disturbed by the ruckus, might be the one who eventually summons the TD.
And if the TD informs the opponent that the claimant has made an implied draw offer, then it might be within the realm of reason to construe this as meaning that the TD has offered the opponent a draw.
Even the rules themselves waffle a bit:
[b]14. The drawn game. … 1. The opponent may immediately accept the draw offer … or instead … 2. The opponent may ask the director to rule on the claim.
14C. Triple occurrence of position. The game is drawn upon a correct claim by the player on the move …
[/b]
So here we have one case of the opponent making a claim (or at least a request for a ruling), and another case of the player making such a claim (or request), with both types of claims being endorsed by the rules.