So that, for example, in a game/60 event, each player could choose between game/60, d/0, or game/55, d/5. Each side of the clock would be set according to what that player wanted.
This peculiar-sounding proposal actually has some merit. Trouble is, it’s possible only on the Chronos (I think). I doubt whether the Excalibur, DGT, or Saitek allow one side to be set for the delay and the other not.
As a player, of course, I would always choose the delay on my side of the clock. And I would have no sympathy for an opponent who makes the opposite choice, and then runs into severe time trouble. If he has just a few seconds left, but could easily draw if he had the delay, I’d go ahead and run him out of time without the slightest conscience qualms.
As a TD, I would also have no sympathy for a player who chooses the extra 5 minutes over the delay. Such a player would never get a favorable ILC ruling from me.
I’m thinking that folks are getting the wrong idea that a player has the choice of whether or not a delay will be used in their game. This is not even a option under the current rules, is it? It’s not the players who determine whether or not there will be a delay, rather, it’s the TD who determines this. Am I missing something?
Well, nevermind! Once again, I’m wrong!! Players do have the right to use standard equipment, and the delay clock is standard. I guess what was crosswiring in my brain was the deduction from the primary time - which is at the TD’s discretion.
I’m not sure, though, that it would be good for a TD’s hand to be forced by a player into making a ruling on 14H.
Isn’t this getting us right back to the original problem of the TD’s personal feelings (or chess strength) affecting the outcome of the game? The advantage of time-delay clock was supposed to be that it removed the TD completely from the decision loop.
I think a simple rule that would cover the use of a delay, analog, or one side only delay clocks and give the players what they want while keeping the TD out of the loop.
Proposed Rule: Given no mechanical defect, the game will end with the clock that it starts with. So, if someone starts with a non-delay clock they can not make a 14H claim. Their game ends just like it did before 14H, with a flag fall.
I’m sure the original poster proposed this as a Variation, which would have to be announced in all pre-tournament publicity. I join you in hoping players don’t get the idea they can already do this unilaterally.
According to W.T.'s proposal, the player who chose not to have the delay on his side would not be allowed to make a 14H claim. That would make my personal feelings moot – or, perhaps more accurately, would ensure that my personal feelings would never be at odds with the announced rules of the tournament.
The USCF does not permit games at time or piece odds to be rated, and although the rulebook doesn’t appear to specifically address this, I think setting the clocks differently for the two players is a form of time odds.
I don’t believe that games should be ratable unless the clocks are set identically for both players. This appears to be something that can be addressed via rule 16A, as opposed to modifying the rulebook.
Since a player WITH a delay clock already cannot claim 14H, your proposal amounts to getting rid of 14H entirely. Any player who is too cheap, too stubborn, or too uninformed to furnish a delay clock would have to live with the consequences.
As time goes on, your proposal sounds more and more attractive. Maybe it would be a good idea in a few more years. But first, I’d like to see USCF stop selling clocks without delay capability.
I stand corrected – and thanks for the information.
Does anybody know about the Excalibur or Saitek in this regard?
Although I’ve never set a Saitek, I seem to recall seeing that, during the setting process, the main time appears on the left clock face, and the delay time on the right. So I doubt if the Saitek would have one-sided delay capability.
The Excalibur probably doesn’t, either. It displays the delay in a single location for both players.
It’s not 100% obvious, however, that 5 extra minutes for the game vs 5 extra seconds for each move constitutes time odds, especially since some organizers have, in effect, declared them equivalent by removing 5 minutes of main time from games using the delay.
While it might be arguable that it represents odds, or at least in whose favor, I believe that USCF’s policy has been that players must have IDENTICAL conditions, including settings on their clocks.
The problem to have one clock at G/TC vs G/TC (t/d x) [TC = time control, x = 2, 3, 5 second delay] is a moot idea. Can the player with time delay call a 14H judgement if the opponent does not? Can the player with no time delay call for a 14H claim as the player does not have delay but the opponet does? As a director, would not mind if someone wants to play with two different time controls. Just do not see the reason to have mixed time controls. Have been in one event with mixed time controls, that was time odds for black.
I have a lot of sympathy for this idea, but it would lead to an awful lot of nasty disputes. A less radical suggestion would be a version of something Bill suggested earlier.
“A player with less than one minute remaining in sudden death [[I’d like to make it 30 seconds, but this could be hard to determine with an analog clock]] may request insertion of a time-delay clock. This request is first a draw offer, which the opponent may accept. The claimant will receive the lesser of his existing time or five seconds on his clock plus the 5-second time delay; the opponent will have the time delay added to his existing time.”
Comments: 1) Five seconds plus the delay should be enough to keep a player from losing on time in a trivial position like R+P vs R, without giving him an undeserved bonus. 2) Should there be a clause allowing the TD to reject “obviously frivolous” claims? I would say not, mainly because I can’t think of a case in which a player in a dead lost position would benefit by giving his opponent the delay. 3) This does not solve all the problems, since a player could still interrupt the game with such a claim and gain thinking time. However, the only complete solutions are Tim’s formulation (“terminal sudden death”) and getting rid of SD. 4) I think the biggest problem with this is that it places an undue burden on TDs to obtain and use time-delay clocks. However, the tech-lovers on the Rules Committee have had no problem with this in the past, so I am probably in a minority.
Although I strongly favor giving the TD absolute and explicit blessing to substitute a delay clock in response to ALL 14H claims if he wishes, I also strongly favor giving the TD absolute and explicit blessing to NEVER substitute a clock if that’s what he prefers.
There are a lot of legitimate reasons a TD should not be required to substitute clocks, especially in large tournaments – lack of TD staff, lack of clocks, worries about how an unknown player might treat the TD’s personal clock, etc.
If some TDs substitute liberally (almost universally) while others do so conservatively (almost never), then the player will experience a lack of uniformity in the way the rules are applied. But I say, big deal – a player can create his own uniformity by furnishing a delay clock to begin with.
Sorry, I know I’m in the minority, but I’m not about to put out the price of a 1-year USCF membership just to have a delay clock. Call me cheap, but I’m not about to retire the perfectly good clock I have.
Besides, with regular analog clocks being some $20 cheaper than time-delays, the scholastic player who wants to feel fully equipped at a price they can afford will likely choose the cheaper alternative. And I can’t see me trying to explain the advantage of 5-second delay times to elementary and junior high players, especially when I don’t see it myself.
If the TD says I have to have such a clock, then I expect him to provide one for me. I’ve won many games without the use of a time delay feature when my opponent’s flag fell, and I expect there will be more in the future. If the USCF decides analog devices are no longer acceptable, then I’ll stop playing in tournaments or else ask where I can turn in my fully functoining clock for credit.
I agree with this, which is why I’ve been opposed to the “digital time-delay takes preference” rule. However, you must still answer the question which started this thread – what should be done about positions in which a player is losing solely because of sudden death? (Flag fall loses? TD adjudicates some positions? Other?)
The advantage is that you can avoid losing on the clock when you’re not apt to lose over the board. All you need do to confirm the benefits of delay is to make yourself the defender of a K vs K+RP position where your K can control the promotion square. How would you like to be flagged in this position and lose the game? I’ve lost a few with analogs. The object of the game is to win OTB, not on the clock. The clock is merely an ancilliary device to insure that the games are finished by a required time, and should never be the primary way to win. This is why we have KvK draw claims.
Should he also be required to furnish you a set and board? Pen, pencil, scoresheet, transportation to the event?
If your opponent has a delay clock and you don’t, no matter what color you are playing, you must use the opponent’s clock, if he so desires.
This is the “me factor” that unfortunately too many folks suffer.
They’ve already determined that they aren’t standard
