Speaking of Time...

I once observed a rated scholastic game where time control was G/30, no delay, and an analog clock was being used (time delay wasn’t being used on digitals either). The players (each rated about 1130) got to an endgame in a clearly drawn position. In theory one could have won if the other made a blatant blunder, but they started blitzing moves that got neither of them anywhere (rightfully so). It was obvious nothing was going to change and neither was going to blunder.

One player had about 5 minutes left on the clock, the other about 10, and looked like he planned on winning on time. But I’ve heard that some analog clocks won’t run down any time at all if moves are made fast enough, and it was hard to tell in this case if the clocks were progressing or not.

Others who watched for some time finally told the TD what was going on. He came over and observed for a couple minutes, then asked the players to stop the clock. He explained the insufficient losing chances rule which neither had heard of before, and asked if either of them would like to make a claim. The player with the least time left did, and the TD ruled it a draw.

A draw certainly seemed like the right and fair result for the game (except to the player ahead on time), but the way it was handled was too intrusive, I thought. Even an adjudication (which the TD announced at the beginning he reserved the right to do) would have sounded better to me.

What would you have done?

Grant Neilley

The obvious answer: Use the 5-second delay.

As an organizer, I would not have run a tournament without the delay. (I hope the lack of a delay was announced in all pre-tournament publicity, otherwise the organizer was violating the rules.)

As a TD, I would not agree to direct a tournament run without the delay (or increment).

As a player, I would refuse to play in such a tournament. If, in addition, the lack of delay was not mentioned in pre-tournament publicity, I would raise a huge stink at the tournament and attempt to get the organizer’s TD certification revoked.

Bill Smythe

The default for SD games is to use the delay. Defaults are not typically advertised. Not using delays in SD would need to be advertised.

It is the organizer, not the TD, that is responsible for pre-event publicity, so getting a TD certificate revoked for the reasons you cite would be a tough row to hoe (even if the TD is the organizer).

Someone (the TD/Organizer) obviously created a bad situation. The intervention, especially if this were not a major scholastic championship, may not have been the worse case IF this was the last game of the round and the TD was legitimately concerned about getting all the rounds in on time. At least it’s a teachable moment to all concerned (including the TD), however letting one side lose probably gives even a greater lesson. There is at least one analog clock which doesn’t advance if time is made within a second. Without knowing all the facts, it’s harder to condemn the TD.

For my JTP tournaments when we’re on a tight schedule, I’ve announced beforehand that the TD (me) might step in and do one of three things. One option I reserve is to invite non-losing chances in these type of endgames if they are the last game, especially since most of my games are played untimed (though theoretically G/30). Usually, I intervene first (which is still theoretically bad) about the 50-move rule draw and have them count, but it all depends on how much time we have before the parents will be coming for their kids. Finally, in a rare case I’ve adjudicated a game, two forth graders in a B+N+K vs. K endgame wherer I didn’t have time for 50 more moves and insufficient chances doesn’t work. Again all announced beforehand and only if they are the last game and have no promise of finishing soon.

I wouldn’t do this if this were a tournament of greater level or if I were someone else’s TD though.
Ben

What rule would you cite to support these statements? And let’s assume that you were directing a tournament for which there was no such announcement about delay not being used in SD. A player makes a claim of an incorrectly set clock because a delay clock was being used in SD but delay was not enabled. Would you allow that claim?

Offhand I would say 5F and 42D come to mind.

I am not sure what your question is. Delay clocks without the delay set in SD revert back to analog clocks then 16P kicks in.

a) use time-delay
b) not intrude on the game to invite a claim
c) ruled correctly on the claim
d) stop running skittles events

First, I would have (as I always do) announced precisely how clocks were to be set.

Second, I would have (as I always do) spent the first 5 minutes of the round walking the aisles and correcting all clocks that were set incorrectly.

I’m becoming more and more appreciative of the poker maxim: if you find yourself facing a difficult decision, then you must have made a mistake earlier.

My question about ruling on incorrect clock setting hearkens back to a discussion John Hillery and I had in the thread related to GM Joel Benjamin’s article “On Winning Chances”. Specifically how a TD should rule regarding a disagreement between opponents about whether the clock was properly set if delay was off. I had always interpreted 5F and 42D to mean that delay was at least the preferred setting, if not actually required. And I inferred that those rules meant that if either player could provide a delay capable clock, that a SD time control was to be played with delay enabled (unless possibly the players agreed not to use the delay). I think most TD’s I know (myself included) felt that was what the rules meant. John mostly convinced me otherwise. But I’m wondering what the Rules Committee really intended. You might refer to discussion in the latter posts of the thread at viewtopic.php?f=24&t=6446 and perhaps the points I made in post #92067.

To clarify your position on this point specifically:

If a delay-capable clock is being used in SD, but delay was not set, would you would rule it as an erroneously set clock?

If your answer was yes, would it change if the players made opposing claims about whether or not they agreed before the game that they would play without delay?

I have done this in tournaments I direct, but not religiously. I have played in tournaments where some TD’s make this announcement prior to every round, and in tournaments where it is only mentioned if a player has asked how to handle the delay. Usually in the latter situation, and sometimes in the first, it is not completely clear if the instructions the TD is giving are:
a) that he is requiring delay be set or
b) if he is simply explaining how many seconds delay to set if you are using it and/or clarifying if he wants time deducted from the overall time control if delay is used.

Do you allow players to agree not to use delay if they are using a delay capable clock?

This I have not done as I would consider it obtrusive once the game begins. As TD, the only unsolicited change to clocks I make once the game begins is to silence any that are beeping on every move. And yes, I am religious about announcing that beepers on move are to be silenced.

The “intrusion” is early, minimal, deserved (the players’ fault for not correctly following the TD’s instructions), saves potential trouble later, and is usually appreciated - the players usually want to be playing the correct way. Stepping in within the first five minutes is absolutely the right thing to do.

NO! The time control is determined by the organizer, not by the players!

It’s much less of a problem in the first 5 minutes than it is in the LAST 5 minutes.

Again - proper setting of the clocks is not optional. Analog clocks are always (in my events) set so that the first time control ends at 6:00 and digital clocks are always (in my events) set with the proper delay (determined by the organizer, not the players).

Clocks that are set incorrectly should be set correctly - but only if the incorrect setting is detected early in the game. The later in the game you go, the more “creative” you have to be in fixing things. I don’t like being “creative” in my rulings - it encourages players to complain.

I observed a similar situation. One player had an easy K+R mating combination, but didn’t know how to do it. The opponent had pawns, but no chances of promoting. Rather than mating, the player with the winning position went into a ridiculous series of Rook moves and both player were pounding pieces and slapping clocks. I invited the TD over to examine the situation (I was a volunteer Referee and didn’t feel prepared to intervene). The TD stopped the game and declared it a draw… not on insufficient losing chances, but on failure to progress. I haven’t bothered to look up the relevant rules… yet.

  • Virgil

Again, unless there was some obscure reason due to needing to get all of the rounds in on time because of a very late start or simething, or maybe if it was a home-school only tournament, that situation should never had happened. If one side would have lost on time it would have had a more unfortunate short-term affect, but left a far better long-term lesson for both players (especially the loser). This is just an example of misplaced compassion, long rejected by the wisdom of generations of experienced tournament directors.

This would seem to be at odds with the following statement in rule 5B:

“Players, not tournament directors, are responsible for knowing how to properly set (16B) their delay clocks. In any particular game, if the delay clock cannot be properly set, then the opponent of the player providing the delay clock may choose which legal clock is to be used.”

Not quite. The rule you cite concerns responsibility. Mr. Sloan is not arguing that it is his responsibility to set incorrectly set clocks, but that it is both his right and, in general, a good practice. He wants to avoid potential confusion later and is willing to do the extra grunt work at the beginning of the round. He has seen how incorrectly set clocks can lead to major problems. I, for one, commend the practice.

Particularly in scholastic events

I don’t think we have any major disagreement. But it should be noted that the rule does not say that it isn’t the TD’s responsibility to set improperly set delay clocks. What it says is that it isn’t the TD’s responsibility to know how to properly set delay clocks. That’s an important distinction, in my opinion, because it means that knowing how to properly set delay clocks isn’t one of the qualifications for being a TD. And, for that reason, checking and correcting delay clocks cannot be a standard practice for TDs, since some won’t know how to do it.

Ken Sloan can probably give you a more comprehensive list, but I’m guessing he checks to see if the players have clocks, they all face the same direction, the displays hint at the time control being played, that players subtract the five minutes (if required) due to time delay, that multiple late players split time properly, and that the clocks are actually running. With analogs, he might additionally check to see that all clocks are set to expire at 6:00, that they all started at approximately the same time, or that the players don’t give themselves an extra minute (an old practice). This is a formidable task!