Insufficient Losing Chances Ruling - Right or Wrong?

Running Chess Tournaments
41

At the time of the revision of the rulebook for the 5th edition, one member (not me) of the rulebook revision committee suggested changing the name of the rule from “Claim of insufficient losing chances” to “Request for relief from insufficient delay time”. I still regret, to this day, that something like this didn’t happen. It would have brought the rule out of the dark ages and into today’s world of improved technology and better available options.

Mechanically, the conditions under which such a claim (or request) could be made would remain the same, i.e. the request could be considered only in the last 2 minutes of sudden death, and only if the clock were were not already set for a 5-second delay. And, just as now, the request would be considered a draw offer.

The TD would have only two options (or, at least, 2 main options, with any other options to be used only rarely):

Option A: Deny the claim.

Option B: Put a delay clock on the game. (Same details as at present, i.e. claimant loses half his main time, and both players get the 5-second delay.)

Each TD could develop a philosophy, which could vary anywhere on the gamut from always using option A to always using option B. Neither extreme (nor anything in the middle) would be considered a variation requiring advance notice.

Always using option A is justified because the players, after all, should be providing delay-capable equipment to begin with, and any player who does so has the right to insist on the delay from move one.

Always using option B is justified for those TDs who don’t want silly time scrambles happening on their watch, and who want the games to be decided by the players.

An example of a feasible in-between philosophy might be: Put on a delay clock if the TD believes it is likely to make a difference, otherwise deny the claim. For example, if the claimant would be dead lost anyway, even with the delay, forget the clock change and let the game continue. Conversely, if the position is dead even and locked with bishops of opposite colors, and the players are just moving their bishops around, put on the delay clock to prevent an absurd result.

Above all, get rid of the atrocious C-player-vs-Master standard. Why should it matter how a C player would likely fare against a Master, when the game is being played between a B player and an Expert, with an A player TD looking on?

It’s way past time to get real, and get sensible.

Bill Smythe

42

Though MY peeve is with the “don’t consider the ratings of the combatants” rule, if a C-player could hold against a Master, then it’s fair to say that two players above C would fare similarly.

HOWEVER, what’s weird (in my apparently limited understanding) is why it should matter how a C-player would fare against a Master when one or both of the combatants are BELOW C-class? How in the heck could a Class D player receive the same benefit of drawing a position that’s relegated to Class C understanding?

The way the language is currently b[/b], my interpretation is that a lower rated (but NOT a D-player) player is protected in the same manner as the Master; that is, the lower rated player has the right to the same claim against a higher rated player as a Master has against his lower rated foe. If it’s fair for the Master to claim against a lower rated, then it’s fair for the lower rated to make the same claim against a stronger opponent.

BUT, I do not see that this provision should be interpreted to include Class D players, who do not, theoretically, have the same knowledge as the C-player. In my opinion, the example is faulty if the intent is that Class D players have recourse to the same claim.

43

Because it’s a ruling on the position and not on the game.

It’s a way of describing a large class of positions where “draw” is the fairest result - regardless of the identities or strengths of the players.

But, the time for this rule has probably passed. I think it’s time for a Delegate motion abolishing the ILC rule entirely. Bring a time delay clock, or play clock - players’ choice.

This will make the TD’s life easier, and it will be a windfall to our B&E business.

44

That’s my peeve, too (although that’s only part of it).

If two masters are playing on with K+R vs K+R (and it’s not one of those “problem” positions), it seems somewhat natural to declare the game drawn. But if two (typical) second-graders are doing the same thing, I would not want to declare a draw, because there’s probably a 95% chance that one of them will sooner or later fall into a skewer.

I am proposing that option A (deny the claim) and option B (put on a delay clock) would be the main options (almost the only options), with other options (such as declaring a draw outright) being used only rarely. The TD should declare a draw only if he feels the claimant would be virtually certain to (at least) draw the game if a delay clock were substituted. Notice I said “the claimant”, not “a hypothetical C player”. It should be legal to consider the ratings of the players. (Nevertheless, substitution of a delay clock would still be preferable, as the opponent then would not be able to whine that a TD ruling denied him a chance to win legitimately.)

Perhaps, but if it’s desirable for a TD to consider this particular form of even-handedness, he could rule a draw only if he feels the claimant would be virtually certain to hold the draw if the delay were in effect and the opponent could do the same if the positions and clock times were reversed. That way, the TD could still take into account the ratings of these two players, rather than the ratings of a hypothetical C player and a hypothetical master.

Even this proviso seems far-fetched, though. I am trying to visualize a game in the first round of the U.S. Open going well past midnight, with a GM desperately trying to avoid a time forfeit against a D player in a dead-even position. :slight_smile:

Bill Smythe

45

What’s the probability that the second-grader with K+R would be able to checkmate after the skewer?

46

For someone who often says that the “game should be decided on the board”, you seem awfully eager to adjudicate the game by projecting what you think will be the outcome based on the identities of the players involved.

ILC is not about guessing the result of this particular game (if one factor were to be changed - the times on the clocks). ILC is a judgement on the position on the board.

Part of the point of the ILC rule is that if it’s not at least probable that it’s an easy draw, then the ILC claim is “clearly incorrect”. In my experience, most of the positions that some TDs agonize over, or (knee-jerk) place a time delay clock on are “clearly incorrect” claims.

Making rulings based on the identities of the players is a very slippery slope.

Besides…K+R vs. K+R is a draw between 2nd graders, too - because most of the time K+R vs. K is a draw, for them. Talk about “pet peeves” - one of mine is chess coaches who allow players to even set up the board with all 32 pieces on it before the players involved can mate with K+R vs. K.

Quiz: what’s the most common result for KQRRNNBBPPPPPP vs K?

Answer: DRAW! (by stalemate)

47

Its funny watching them play when they know they can’t mate with KQ vs K, so they are getting their 4th Q thinking it will help and stalemate anyways!!!

48

Every time I see a game like that I swear my playing strength goes down by another 100 points. :stuck_out_tongue:

49

Rule of thumb for such players it K+Q vs K is a draw 50% of the time and K+2Q vs K is a draw 95% of the time.

50

The scene: unrated tournament for all comers, mostly kids.

Mom: Please, sir - is there any way to stop a game when it’s hopeless? My son has a K, his opponent has K+Q, and neither player knows that you can’t mate with just K+Q.

TD: Why don’t we let them play on for awhile?

(10 minutes pass)

Mom: You are a very wise TD! After a few moves, my son and his opponent figured out that you can’t mate with K+Q, and they agreed to a draw all by themselves!

TD: Come again next week! I’m glad you and your son had a good time.

You can’t make this stuff up.

51

Oh, but now, you’re considering the ratings and/or the ability of the players, which the rules forbid, if you make a literal reading.

See, this is what I mean about the C-player vs. Master idea. I would agree with you on the K+R vs K+R position, but that would involve an interpretation instead of a literal reading, and it seems that most of the ANTDs and NTDs judgements differ.

I’m not convinced that what the Rules Committee wrote in 14H2 is what they intended, but then, I wasn’t there, so my opinion is just that. Does anyone ever review the actual language for possible ambiguities in interpretation before allowing it to be placed in the rulebook?

52

Interpretations, that were unintended and unforeseen, crop up after the fact. That is when the delegates (and others, including the Rules committee) get to put a band-aid on the rule that will fix it–well, until a new unintended or unforeseen interpretation pops up. Then there are more band-aides and the rule starts to look like that proverbial camel that a committee created when all they wanted was a horse.

I would prefer at this point to replace (or create a variation to) 14H with something like: Unless there is a clock defect, the clock that starts the game will be used throughout the game.

So, if a game starts with an analog clock, it ends with an analog clock when the flag falls, no matter what the position, the game is over (just like the pre-delay days). If the game starts with a delay clock it ends with a delay clock. If one of the players wants to “game” the rule by not setting the delay clock properly then some sort of rule should dictate how to deal with that situation (I prefer something like: The player that places an incorrectly set clock on a game gets no additional time while the opponent gets 5 seconds per move made added to their time).

IMHO: 14H has seen it’s day, and it is over.

53 
 Just like print magazines and mailed entries, there is still a sizeable minority who use "old fashioned" clocks.  At the U.S. Amateur Team, for example, they give clocks to the top teams (overall, and in several rating and age categories too).  Until recently, these clock prizes were all BHB clocks, engraved with the name of the prize.

 Some players may arrive late to the game, perhaps through their own fault and maybe as a victim of circumstances not entirely their own fault.  I think it would be an unduly harsh penalty for someone who arrives late, maybe even a couple of minutes late, to be possibly consigned to an ultimate endgame of dueling clock-punching monkeys.
54

Perhaps add a caveat to the arriving late rule about equipment saying if the first player on board had an analog clock, but the player arriving late has a time-delay capable clock, the late player may use his clock as long as he can set it to show the time he has already missed for being late.

Adding more emphasis to time-delay/and or increment clocks being preferred over non time delay.

55

As Polly points out, there are quite a few people who do not use digital clocks. Getting rid of 14H would put us right back in the muddle that it was intended to resolve – the result of a game could be significantly perverted by the existence of a sudden-death time control. I’m not entirely happy with 14H, but I consider that totally unacceptable.

56

I agree with Steve that forcing someone to be stuck with an analog clock through out a game because they’re late is unfair. If they have the type of position that either warrants an immediate draw or a time delay clock because it’s unclear they shouldn’t lose that right. The game I mentioned may not have had a different outcome even if I started with a time delay clock.I have 1 draw and 8 losses against the guy. However if I had managed to get the position to one that had a decent chance of getting an ILC ruling with a delay clock being inserted would have been nice.

I like Jedi’s suggestion that a time delay clock could be inserted on a game started with an analog if 14H is elimninated.

57

Then I take it you don’t agree with the FIDE rule (proposed FIDE rule?) that says that a late player loses the game?

Alex Relyea

58

I am so sure of that; i.e., there were a lot fewer delay clocks when the rule was published. Something had to be done to deal with G/30 and the huge number of analog clocks compared to the very few number of delay clocks used in those contests. I suspect those numbers are now reversed.

The current 14H also seems to fly in the face of TD non-interference. I still believe that 14H needs some serious revisions. I am glad to see that my initial revision got some posters to comment and propose some ideas to improve it.

Or, 14H could just die a natural death when analog clocks become relics.

59

Personal Mode: ON

I believe Tim has hit the nail squarely on the head. I called my friend Wayne and between the two of us have a hard time remembering the last time someone used an analog clock in a tournament in the Peoria area. This ILC rule is a non-issue in our area now for at least 5 years, because every tournament game uses a digital clock.

I disagree with the philosophy of the rule in that someone other than the players determines the outcome of the game in a chess-wise fashion. Another person or persons that are not the opponents in the game decide whether the game is drawn or not.

The game and rules are structured so that the two opponents are the only ones to have direct control of the game and its consequences. Only one of the players can call a clock where the time has expired. Only one of the opponents can call an illegal move. Only one of the players can claim a draw.

To have it that another, third party can decide if a position is a Draw such that a Class C player could hold it against a Master, introduces a person and his/her chess judgment into the game that is not one of the opponents.

Putting a delay clock on the game, even after the game has started, still keeps the outcome of the game totally in the control of the two players.

So while it is occurring that the need for this law is diminishing greatly by the ubiquitous use of delay clocks, and this rule is becoming obsolete, it may be necessary to change the situation. What I mean by this is to abolish the rule as it is written and have one that says a delay clock may be placed on a game at any time of that game, especially when one becomes available.

60

Come to the Marshall Chess Club any day there is a tournament and you will see analog clocks in use. Even though Steve Immitt and the Marshall have some digital clocks available for players without clocks, certain individuals will borrow the analog clock instead. If they have an opponent who is later or doesn’t care about what type of clock is being used the analog clock rules.

There is something inherently wrong with a rule that is dependent on a TD having to evaluate a position and make a ruling based on a nebulous criteria of a C player holding the versus a Master. It becomes really absurd if the director isn’t even a C player himself. Can a director rated 1100 really make that determination?

I think changing the rule to allow for a delay clock to be placed on a game at anytime has to be thought out carefully. There is probably no harm in doing so in games with longer time controls or games where no adjustments for delay has been made.

It becomes trickier in tournaments where a deduction has been made for delay clocks. Many G/30 - G/60 tournaments with a tight schedule deduct 5 minutes to compensate for the possibly longer games. You would not want a situation where a player with 15 minutes on his clock and his opponent only having 6 minutes left suddenly has a digital clock at his disposal, and 5 minutes having to be deducted from each side.

Perhaps the rule would be written in such a way that the late arriving player could swap out the analog clock placed on his game for his digital clock with the appropriate time taken off for being late, and what ever adjustment has been made for delay.

To avoid the scenario I brought up above there needs to be a cut off time for simply exchanging an analog clock for a delay clock. However, once one player is under 5 minutes a delay clock be put on the game under the conditions of 14H with the requesting player losing 1/2 his time. The tournament director would not have to make a decision in terms of validity of the request. The request of delay clock at this stage would still be treated as a draw offer.