There have been a number of directors that love the time delay. As the players that have time delay have no right to make the 14H or 14I claims of insufficient losing chances. Say the game gets down to only the rooks, K+R vs K+R and there is no clear checkmate. If one of the players demanded rule 14I4 used, the director could just call it a draw. Since the game has a time delay clock, they cannot make the claim. Sure it is a dead draw, but both players must have agreement to the draw. There are other positions, under the claim of insufficient losing chances. Since the players have a time delay clock, the claim is void.
If having a time delay clock, then being under five minutes. Or the case of under two minutes for a insufficient losing chances with regular and quick. In the case of blitz under one minute. Since the insufficient losing chances cannot be used as a claim. Then would demand the 14F4 claim. Would be demanding the director to count the moves. If myself and the other player are in time trouble, the director should be counting the 50 moves. As both players would not have the time to count 50 consecutive moves.
Time delay, it would make the directors work harder with the 14F4 claims. If one of the players cannot force the 14H or 14I insufficient losing chances, I would be demanding the director count the moves.
Some do have move counters. Do they have move counter and time delay? Got to check the Chronos, if the move counter also has time delay also. As one of the mode of the move counter, only counts the moves for the time control. The other problem with the move counter, it only goes up to move 99 on the Chronos. Directors do not like the idea to replace one clock for the next. Or change the mode of the clock into a move counter and time delay if the clock can be in that mode.
Sure, the director can replace one time delay with a time delay with a move counter and time delay. If the director has a move counter, and for some reason a pawn is captured or moved within the 50 moves. Would be asking the move counter be fixed.
Having a delay clock would make the 14F4 rule just as annoying for the director as the 14H or 14I rulings. So if the director likes time delay for not making the 14H or 14I rulings. Then they would love the 14F4 rulings.
If having to make this ruling, would replace the clock with the Chronos clock set in the mode of DL - C1B. Would set the move counter to 99, then turn the second time control to 0:00 and second time delay to 0:00. If it does go past 99 moves, it would go back to 00 on the move counter or move counter 00 = 100. It would show the dash for the second time control, but would have the correct time from the first and only time control. This would work fine for the director with the 14F4 claim. If the player or the director does not have the Chronos, im not sure with the other time delay clocks with move counters. In worse case, the director would be needing to count the moves.
I don’t agree with this. A clock should be replaced only if defective. In the case you are describing, the TD is delaying and interfering with the game solely for his own convenience,
I agree that the “director may count but doesn’t have to” rule is a potential problem. (For example, two gamescould be in this situation at once). However, a) the actual counting of moves should be trivial for anyone with a four-digit rating, and b) if the player wants to claim a draw, he should keep score. The purpose of those sudden-death rules is to avoid ridiculous results, not to encourage players to use up their time and expect the TD to save them.
14F4f The director may insert a clock with a move counter that shows the remaining time of both players, set the move counter to zero, and order play to resume. When the clock indicates that both sides have completed 50 further moves, either player may claim a draw. If this method is used, the director should inform the players that if a move is erroneously not counted or double counted, the players should stop the clock and notify the director.
The rule does not say a move counter with time delay. Wounder if you can make a 14F4 claim, just to remove a time delay clock for a move counter? So if you are down to 10 seconds on the clock, the time delay clock can be replaced with a move counter only?
So if your one of the directors that loves time delay, if you do not have a time delay clock with move counter, then would have to replace the time delay clock with a move counter only or count the moves.
In the event that a player makes a 14F4 claim in such conditions, i.e. no deputy available to count moves and no delay clock with move counter available, then it seems to me extremely obvious that the player would be able to make a 14H claim. In any event, it’s very clear that 14F4f is an option that can be used by a director, not something that a director would have to do.
Replace the clock for a move counter, when it only has to be a move counter. Not forced having a move counter with time delay to replace a time delay clock.
Let the players count the 50 moves on their own, rejecting the 14F4 claim. Since it is under 5 minutes, the opponent can always challenge the count of the 50 moves from his opponent.
If the director replace the time delay clock with a move counter clock only. Then the players could make a 14H or 14I claim. If the director is a supporter of time delay, this option would not even be on the table. So it would force the directors supporting time delay into counting the 50 moves.
You could be right. If the player makes a 14F4 claim, can tell the players I have the right to replace a time delay clock for a move counter clock without time delay. If the time delay clock is replaced for a move counter only. The player would have the right to make a 14H or 14I insufficient losing chance claim. As rule 14F4 and 14F4f says the director has the right to replace the clock with only a move counter clock.
You can’t replace a time-delay clock with a non-time-delay. I’m not going to waste time chopping logic with you; the idea is absurd.
Aside from this, I don’t think you are reading 14F4f correctly. The structure of that paragraph is ambiguous, and it sounds like you are treating this as an alternative to the TD counting moves. I don’t think that’s correct, though I would be interested in hearing Tim Just’s view. It appears to me that it is a procedure which may be used only after going through 14F (a to e). That is, if the TD counts 50 moves, the opponent contests the ruling, and the protest is upheld (the TD reverses himself), the TD may put in a clock with a move counter and let them play for an additional 50 moves.
This whole discussion strikes me as a tempest in a teapot. If the position is simple enough to justify a 14H claim, and time-delay is being used, the defender ought to be able to keep playing indefinitely with his 5 seconds per move. (If he can’t – if he loses either on the board or on the clock – then by definition he he was not entitled to the claim.) At some point (possibly when it’s time to make the pairings), the TD is going to come by, count 50 moves, and declare the game a draw. If the player wants to claim a draw before that, he has a simple option – keep score.
As a director would not replace a time delay clock with a move counter without time delay. The wording with rule 14F4, never makes it clear about time delay. It only says a clock with a move counter, not a clock with a move counter and time delay. If someone did make a claim of 14F4, would count the moves then replace the clock.
The wording of 14F4f, only says the director has the option to replace the clock with a move counter. The clock could have had time delay or no time delay. The rule states the clock can be replaced with a move counter clock. So in theory a time delay clock could be replaced with a move counter clock without time delay. There is nothing in rule 14F talking about a time delay clock.
The rule 14F4f should say a move counter with time delay. It only says a move counter only. This can be fixed during the next US Open. As I do not like the wording of rule 14F4f, as there is nothing about time delay.
Not all positions are so easily drawn under time pressure, even though they are drawn theoretically, i.e, K+R vs K+R+P. This type of position has been lost many times by Expert players who simply get nervous in the time crunch and make a mistake.
Wouldn’t you agree that the idea of the rule of C player vs Master is that “given sufficient time for both players, a C player can hold a draw”? In this case, I think many TDs take your point to heart and simply say “see, it wasn’t a draw afterall”, after a player flags from nervousness or making a mistake he wouldn’t otherwise make. Just because the player loses on time or makes a mistake doesn’t mean that the position wasn’t drawn.
I apologize if I’ve missed something here, as I’ve not read the entire thread (I’m sure you can imagine the reason).
No. The “C-player vs Master” construction was an early (and not very successful) attempt to define what positions should qualify. Since the preferred method now is to insert a time-delay clock, we have perfectly good operational definition of “insufficient losing chances” – a position which a player can draw with 5 seconds per move.
If you don’t like that argument, I can give you another one. A 14H claim is explicity disallowed if there is a time-delay clock in use. If your reasoning were correct, then in some positions the TD should intervene and declare the game a draw. Since that is not what the rule says, your logic cannot be right.
The “insufficient loosing chances” rule was never intended to give players undeserved half-points they could not earn over the board. It was written top prevent obvious inequities in extreme circumstances created by sudden-death. (Like a player losing on time with an extra Rook.)
If the game comes down to K+R vs K+R, if having less then 2 minutes on my clock. Would have given up my rights for the rule 14I4, if I have it as a time delay clock. Fine, do not mind to play out the game. If I cannot claim a 14I4 rule, then I want to claim a 14F4 rule then.
Can understand why directors like the time delay clock, as they do not have to make a ruling with insufficient losing chances. John and Terry, you have always say with time delay clocks, play it out and prove it on the board. Having the K+R vs K+R starting at G/2 (t/d 5), this game can last for hours or days. This is why I want a resolution to this game. This is why I want the director to enforce the 14F rule.
The director has a choice, can count the moves or add a move counter clock. Now the wording in 14F4f has nothing about a move counter with time delay. In the wording of 14F4f, the director can replace a time delay clock with a mover counter without time delay. This rule should be changed.
With a time delay clock, the director cannot make a ruling on insufficient losing chances. The director can make a ruling with time delay clock with the 50 move rule. John and Terry, if I get down to K+R vs K+R with a time delay clock. Im going to demand you come over to my board, and count 50 moves. As I am not going to accept the 14F4f option, as it can replace a time delay clock with a move counter only.
There’s an even better way. Use DL-C1B as you are doing, but set the move counter to 00 instead of 99. For the second control, set the time to 0:00:00 and the delay to 0:00, exactly as you are doing.
I do this all the time in rated tournaments (not just blitz) which have only a single, sudden death control, and where I would like the move counter turned on in case a 50-move situation develops.
Fortunately, the Chronos interprets “00” as infinity in this case, so in effect you have a single sudden death control.
With the delay, the players are less likely to seek relief through the rules (any rule – 14F or 14H) to begin with. Each player will become convinced, after just a few moves, that the other will be able to draw and will not run out of time. So they’ll most likely agree to a draw without ever summoning the director.
Not me. If it is a blitz game, and your down to G/0:01 (t/d 2), going to make you risk the 3 seconds for the next 50 moves. Going to make you play it out till you blunder or lose on time. Sooner or later your arm is going to get tired, and it will take longer then the delay. Heck, we can set the worlds record for the longist blitz game.
You being wilfully obtuse. In the first place, a player cannot “demand” that the TD come to the board and count 50 moves. That is the director’s option. Next, while it is theoretically possible that a time-delay game could last “hours,” this is not going to happen in the real world. In order to use one hour at five seconds per move, the game would have to go 720 moves. I doubt there is a player anywhere stupid enough to play on under those circumstances. Finally, as I already pointed out, if a game drags on pointlessly, the director will eventually notice and count moves, or otherwise resolve it. This is tedious for one of the players (presumabnly the other is doing it deliberately), but he brought it on himself by not keeping score.
It also doesn’t say “a clock that functions,” or “a clock set to the correct time.” This is understood. Your argument is silly, but I suppose adding a few words to that paragraph would do no harm.
I would also point out (again) that, by my reading, the only time the TD ought to replace the clock with a move counter is if he has already counted moves, ruled a draw, and then reversed himself. (The reasoning seems to be that if he couldn’t count correctly the first time, a mechanical aid is needed.)
I don’t 'love time delay," but it’s better than allowing TDs (who are often much weaker players than those on whose games they are ruling) to interfere in the outcome.
With the time delay, the director is telling me to play on with a K+R vs K+R. If I am down to G/0:01 (t/d 5), I’m going to need the director make the 14F4 ruling some time. If the director tells me just make check marks, the risk to make the check marks and the move within 6 seconds for 50 moves could lose the game. Now if you want to play a ratable blitz with G/0:01 (t/d 2), hope you can move and check mark within 3 seconds for 50 moves. If the director wants to run away from the 14F4 ruling. Sooner or later my flag is going to fall with that little bit of time.
Time-delay was an attempt to solve a problem created by sudden-death time controls. More specifically, it was an attempt to improve on the (clearly unsatisfactory) earlier solution of having the TD essentially adjudicate the game.
Sudden-death, in turn, was adopted to solve another percieved problem, that of games going on too long. Never mind whether it was a good solution, or a real problem; we’re stuck with it now.
The point is that all the fixes (“C-player vs. Master,” time delay clocks) are an attempt to get the same (presumptively equitable) result from a sudden death game as would have arisen from a “real” time control. It was never the intention to give the player who has used up his time a benefit he would not have had before sudden-death.
A player is never entitled to a point or half point by adjudication. (I’ll refrain from putting this in all caps, but you can visualize it that way.) The time-delay clock prevents you from losing on time when you can’t reach another time control, as long as you move within five seconds. The sudden-death rule has relieved you of the need for a complete scoresheet to claim a win on time. But, if you want the privilege of claiming a draw by repetition or 50-move rule, it is up to you to keep score. If you misallocate your time and choose not to keep score, it is not the job of the TD to save you from yourself.