Can a TD us a Endgame Table-base to make decisions on the tournament games? Say a play claims a position is a draw, but TD is uncertain if it is or not.
I’m sorry, but I do not understand under which rule the TD has to settle a claim of “the game is a draw.”
The only situation I can imagine this possibly arising is a claim of insufficient losing chances (rule 14H). Now, personally, I’m hoping the motion to eliminate 14H succeeds. But, if not, I would strongly recommend that the TD address any 14H claims by putting a properly set delay clock on the game and let the players play it out. Chess is a game between two players, and 14H is an abomination that brings the playing skills of the TD into the contest.
I would also submit that if the test (which used to be part 14H) is that a C player could hold the position against a master without the clock, then having to use endgame tables is a far cry from determining whether a class C player could hold the position against a master.
To my knowledge, only in ICCF play is reference to a tablebase for adjudication permitted. ICCF also allows computer assistance, so there’s really no comparison.
For over the board play, the claimant needs to prove it by providing a properly set delay or increment capable clock from the beginning of the game and holding the draw with the delay or increment time.
The claimant should not count on the substitution of such a clock, as it is not required under variation 14H6. This variation need not be announced in advance. I don’t announce it in advance and I use it 100 percent of the time.
Clocks without delay capability have not been standard equipment for more than two decades. It’s time to buy another clock.
14H2a. The claim is unclear and a delay clock is available for the game.
A director who believes the claim is neither clearly correct (14H2c) nor clearly incorrect (14H2d), but is instead uncertain as to the correctness of the claim.
I was just thinking it takes the chance of bad choices by a director to make a correct call. By using a data base to say no draw and play on.
You simply avoid these problems by using 14H6.
“You have insisted on using a clock that has not been standard for 21 years? Too bad. Play chess.”
An extremely rude/incompetent answer from the tournament director. Embarrassing, really. I must state though, that for twelve years now, I have run hundreds of tournaments in which no delay or increment whatsoever is used, (the preferred choice for many), and only had the call to make this claim perhaps a half dozen times or so. It is rare. As far as standards go, who exactly sets this standard, and who gave these folks the right to impose on the rest of us?? How many chess different chess clubs and tournaments have you visited, Mr. Price?? I have visited many in several different parts of the South-and I must tell you that the analog clock is till well, alive, and extensively used. In other words, its popularity despite rumors is still very strong. And rightfully so. To each their own. Lets leave it that way.
Rob Jones
If you refer to a database before saying “no draw” then you have provided the opponent with the information that a win does exist. If you are uncertain then either (1) put a delay clock on, (2) temporarily deny the claim or (3) reserve your ruling. If you are certain, and haven’t gone the 14H6 route, then make the ruling.
What a man !! 
If the endgame is complex enough that you would need a tablebase to assess it, then a 14H claim could easily be denied. Either you always slap down a delay clock on R+P vs R or you always say play on. Period. Spending several minutes to find a laptop and actually check the position would be a grievous interruption of the game. (NBA fans can refer to Cavs-Bulls game 4.)
Michael Aigner
(who is in favor of abolishing 14H)
This might be a picky point, but you have said more than once that delay clocks have been standard for more than two decades. I am pretty sure the Delegates approved that policy at the 1996 meeting and it took effect in 1997. That would make it 18+ years. (And peak rating-based floors were lowered from 1xx to 2xx at that same council of the wise, I think.)
I don’t think table bases have any place in ILC claims, assuming 14H survives. The point is not “what happens with best play.” Even if 14H is still around and a TD chooses to honor ILC claims, “let me consult a table base” will never be an acceptable answer, IMO.
For instance, KBB vs. KN should never be a valid draw claim for the side with the N, while it should also never be adjudicated a win for the side with BB. It’s not easy to either win or hold this ending.
At my peak, such as it was, I was a legit low expert on a good day. In time pressure, after a long hard game, I was capable of doing things on a chessboard that defied belief. Best play as dictated by a table base had nothing to do with it…
Fair question. The fourth edition of the rulebook, published in 1993, contained explicit language making an “Allegro clock”–defined as a clock with delay capability–the standard and preferred timer for games ending in a sudden death time control once such a clock became commercially available.
The DGT FIDE clock became commercially available in 1994. Yes, I know it implemented delay as Bronstein. It’s still delay.
We concur, for the same reasons. There is a place for tablebases; it’s called correspondence chess.
Question 1 - the Delegates
Question 2 - the Bylaws
Any questions? Disagree with the decision if you will, but don’t question the authority.
Fine, continue the pompous approach. Given our current governance structure, is this authority truly legitimate?? So, yes, I do absolutely question the authority–as all of us
desiring a return to a truly representative governance structure should. We are not mindless drones, do not expect members to act in lockstep. For over 70 years USCF has survived quite will with a host of differing ideas as to proper tournament structures, time controls, and formats. One size does not fit all. Why the sudden rush to make one size fit all is what many of us are questioning.
Rob Jones
The rush to make one size fit all and disallowing 14H variations and make all members act in lockstep may be as questionable as a rush to disallow any alternate rating system and make all members act in lockstep.
huge difference here-- 14H has been the standard for decades. Accepted as the standard. The first applies to USCF members. The second is the protection of our scholastic membership base from those abusing us from alternative rating systems. The alternative folks are for the most part, members for National Tournament convenience only. Not really legitimate members of our federation, are they?? For they lack the respect due our federation as shown by their disloyalty on the local level.
Sorry, USCF should support those who support USCF. Very clear.
Rob Jones