Nowhere in any of my posts can you find where I’ve advocated giving extra time to anyone, so don’t try and put words in my mouth.
Here’s my point:
Leave 14H as it is:
If the position is that of a C-player vs. Master standard, uphold the claim.
If the position is not one in which a C-player could hold a master to a draw, deny the claim.
ONLY if the TD is unclear about the position, should the TD place a delay clock on the game.
Games which start with, or have had a delay clock placed on the game, may not be considered under 14H.
and
AMEND 14H:
to allow the player’s abilities to be determined.
Players below Class C should not be able to make this claim, UNLESS they can convince the TD that they know how to draw the position.
and
CLARIFY:
that TDs have an obligation to the players to attempt to determine whether or not their claim is valid, instead of defaulting to placing a delay clock on the game.
This is all I’m advocating.
I fully understand the rules as they are written. I’m not absolutely certain that what the Rules Committee wrote is exactly what they meant. Perhaps a clarification on that, would be reasonable.
You should get serious, John. I never advocated “giving you as much time as you need”. Why would you twist my words that way, and promote the idea that I did?
But, in the position you give, if I thought a C-player could hold the draw, I would uphold your claim. I think you would deserve not to lose a game on time in a clearly drawn position.
It all comes down to the idea that a player shouldn’t be clocked to death.
The clock is merely an ancilliary device meant to move games along so that players may get several games played in a day. It ought not be used as one of the main objectives to winning a chess game. I’m sure this was the intent of the rule in the first place.
In our discussion of the Player X / Player Y endgame, one of the solutions proposed was to use the FIDE 30 second increment. This proposal might create better chess and better notation, but it also made me groan. Tournament chess is more accessible to more people if we can fit three or four games in a single day, and get home before dawn.
Anyway, I’m glad to hear the “meta” issues being discussed.
If 14H were to be repealed, and even if it weren’t, a separate rule elsewhere might be good to the effect that a late player can use his delay-capable clock when the game has already started with a non-delay clock by accepting a further 5-minute penalty (option used only before he makes his first move). That takes the TD out of the picture even more so, avoiding many of the 14H scenarios, and even if that were to be repealed, other random dumb stuff like knocked over pieces or which came first, mate or flag.
All three of these would be huge improvements over the present rule.
Better still would be:
(2.5) Clock replacement only or continue the game with the same clock, period.
The TD would retain the option to continue with the same clock, even if a delay clock were available, but he would no longer have the option to adjudicate the position a draw.
Of course, if a delay clock is not available, this would reduce to just one option: continue with the same clock. (Too bad – serves the player right for not furnishing a delay clock.)
By the way – how often, these days, is a delay clock ever “not available”?
That may be true at the beginning of the game, but by the time an ILC claim is made there may be one available (many organizers will have a couple to put on long-running games that started without a clock).
Small tournaments, or tournaments where the organizer does not have clocks, would be candidates for one really not being available.
Another example might be tournaments run by clubs that purchased a bunch of clocks through the USCF back in the days when they used to offer package deals on analog, non-delay clocks. And let’s see: How recently did the USCF do that? Uh, May of 2009!
I believe that one of the above statements describes the current state of the rules, and the other is a fervent wish for what the rules might be in the future.
Just curious…do you believe a person who runs out of time with K,Q versus a lone king should get a win? If it weren’t for the clock, it’s obvious he would win (scholastic chess not included).
What has been the case for the last 100 years if the time control was 40/2 30/1 repeating?
Answer: draw!
Do you seriously propose that the answer should change for shorter time controls?
Certainly, the trend is that the shorter the time control the more important the clock becomes.
It’s a logical inference if you truly believe the clock should have no outcome on the game. However, I expected you to say no.
Do you not see the inconsistency in your position? If have a won game, except for the clock, you’re okay with that costing me a 1/2 point. If I have a drawn game, except for the clock, you think I should get credit for a draw.
Clock management is part of the game. Yes I’ve lost games that “should” have been drawn, but flagged or blundered. I’ve drawn won games because I blundered in time pressure. I’ve also been the recipient of time pressure gifts.
We had a game at our club last night. Opposite color bishops, pawns on both sides, but one player an extra pawn. He had refused a draw offer. The player making the draw offer eventually lost on time. They were playing with delay. It was clearly a draw, but no way to make a ILC. Had they been playing with an analog clock and the player down a pawn made an ILC I’m pretty sure I would have upheld it given the position, but it’s hard to say. With the delay I didn’t need get involved.
So, you want to be able to make a claim that since you’re winning, the TD should declare you the winner. This is not my position, nor that of 14H. 14H is NOT a “Sufficient winning chances” claim! There’s no such animal.
There’s a clear difference in the harm done between drawing a won game and losing a drawn game.
AND, I didn’t say that the clock should have no purpose in the game. Clearly, it does, but the BS of players being allowed to win only because they’re faster on the clock is, well, BS. As an extereme example, but one that is common, consider that BOTH players have less than 1 minute on the clock with a ILC position. This is going to be decided ONLY by the clock, unless they agree to a draw. 50-moves and three-fold repetiton can oftentimes be avoided.
Clock management is, indeed, one part of the game, but it should not become the primary, or ONLY part.
Your club situation last night is a good example of my wanting 14H to remain as is, with only a couple of changes.
However, with the opponent of the claimant having an extra pawn, the ruling can be situational. If you, as the TD, thought it was drawable by a c-player vs. a Master, then that’s all it would take to uphold the claim.
If, however, the player with the extra pawn was the claimant, the ruling is even easier.
I’ve drawn won games because I blundered in time pressure. 
I’ve also been the recipient of time pressure gifts. 