is there still an “insufficient losing chances” claim? if so, what is the rule?
thanks, …scot…
It’s not the default, but it is an acceptable variation. It would have to be announced/posted on site. I don’t think it requires advance notice but I’m sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.
Your question is not quite posted in the best way, e.g. half in the subject and half in the body of the post. If you are using a time delay (or increment) then no, there is no such procedure.
Variation 14H. Claim of insufficient losing chances in sudden death.
This variation need not be announced in advance publicity.
14H1. Explanation.
This procedure is not available for games in which a clock is being used with either the time delay or the increment properly set, whether the game begins with such a clock or one is added during the game (14H2a). If such a clock is not being used, or such a clock is being used without the time delay or increment feature in operation, the following procedure is available.
In a sudden death time control, a player on the move with two minutes or less of remaining time may stop the clock and may make a claim of insufficient losing chances.
No. First sentence of Rule 14H1.
Nor is a director obligated to entertain such a claim even in the absence of a delay capable clock (Rule 14H6). I will not entertain such claims. Delay capable clocks have been standard for 23 years next month; there is absolutely no excuse for not using one in US Chess play.
It is exceedingly rare these days to run into a situation where a game is being played with a clock that lacks delay capability. But every once in a blue moon you will encounter a game with an old Jerger, or other analog clock being used. In these situations I do permit claims of insufficient losing chances. That rule was added for a reason, and adding it was an improvement over the situation that existed before its adoption. If the organizer is not supplying clocks, then the TD should live with whatever clock is supplied by the players in each game.