There are two things wrong with this. First, it could (and would) be used tactically. I suppose you can argue that this would cancel out since both players can use the same tactic. The bigger problem is, where is the TD going to get all those time-delay clocks? It may not be a problem in a small club tournament, but suppose twenty or thirty players at the World Open all demand time-delay clocks just before time control? If your answer is that the player has to supply the clock himself, are you willing to let all those players stop the clocks and insert new ones unsupervised? It would be a logistical nightmare in a tournament of any size.
This really amounts to a relaxed version of 14H. I have philosophical problems with it, but it could probably be made to work.
Since I have no idea how to get my comments in the right spot, I’m addressing your points down here. I didn’t mean to imply that the organizer or TD would have to provide the time delay clocks if requested. I was thinking in terms of what would happen if 14h was redone. I agree that in large tournament it would be impossible for the organizer or director to have enough delay clocks available. Also there may be abuses of strategically timed requests for a delay clock. So perhaps it should be simplified to this:
If a player arrives late, has a delay capable clock in his possession, and the opponent has started an analog clock; he can request to have the delay clock put on the game with the appropriate amount of time deducted. (Time elapsed since clock was started and any deductions that the organizer is using for scheduling purposes (G/25 5d G/30 no delay).
If a delay clock has not been placed on the game once both players have made their first move, then the request for a delay clock would have to be made under the provisions of 14h in whatever version the rules committee comes up with to deal with ILC claims.
Now we’re getting somewhere. Good ideas by several posters.
That’s for sure. The devil is in the details. A well-intentioned, but ill-thought-out, proposal can be worse than no proposal at all.
So we need good details. How about something like the following for starters:[b]
Change the name of rule 14H from “Claim of insufficient losing chances” to “Request for relief from insufficient delay time”. [/b]This would clarify that the emphasis is now on the clock situation, rather than on the position. For the benefit of players who aren’t quite up to date on the rules, any claim of ILC would be regarded as a request for such relief.[b]
Define insufficient delay time (IDT) as having less than a 5-second delay (or no delay at all) [/b]in a tournament where the delay is in effect, either by announcement or by default.[b]
Require that the player making the request can furnish, and knows how to set, the delay clock. [/b](The TD would be permitted, but not required, to furnish and set the clock.)[b]
If the TD grants the request, adjust the clock times as follows:
4a. If at least 10 minutes remain on requestor’s clock, requestor loses 5 minutes of main time, opponent loses no time. [/b]Both players get the 5-second delay.[b] In this case the request is not regarded as a draw offer.
4b. If less than 10 minutes remain on requestor’s clock, requestor loses half his main time, opponent loses no time. [/b]Both players get the 5-second delay.[b] In this case the request is regarded as a draw offer.
The TD (or organizer) may do any of the following:
5a. Routinely deny all requests for relief from IDT. [/b]This can be justified because each player has the right, at the outset of the game, to furnish and set a delay clock.[b] OR:
5b. Routinely substitute the delay clock [/b]in response to any proper request for relief from IDT. (“Proper” would mean, for example, that the requestor is able to furnish and set the clock, that his time has not already expired, that the delay is not already in effect, etc – all the usual stuff.) This option is justified for TDs who do not want ridiculous time scrambles occurring “on their watch”.[b] OR:
5c. Adopt a policy intermediate between the extremes of 5a and 5b. [/b]A discussion of acceptable intermediate policies could be the topic of 14I, presently entitled “Advice on claims of ILC” but change it to “Advice on requests for relief from IDT”.[b]
None of these options (5a, 5b, 5c) would be considered a “variation” requiring announcement in pre-tournament publicity. [/b](Players can protect themselves from policy differences among TDs simply by furnishing a delay clock, being on time, etc.)
5c is likely to be the trickiest, but we can leave that for later posts.
Oh, dear, 38 hours since I posted the above, and no further posts yet. Is this another of my infamous thread-ending posts?
I always worry that a post is a thread-ender because it is so bizarre and stupid that nobody finds it worthwhile to answer. Simultaneously, I am egotistical enough to hope that the post is so intelligent and well thought out that it is beyond refutation, so that no further conversation is necessary. I wonder which one this was?
I suppose there is a third possibility, that people are composing thoughtful replies in their minds, and want to get it right before posting. If so, can we expect a barrage of replies in another day or two? Let’s hope so.
For me, starting with “Request for relief from insufficient delay time” as the new name says it all. It is too wordy and complicated. The idea is right but the delivery needs some work. As written here it looks to be just as complicated as the current 14H (it may not be, but it looks that way). I would prefer something a bit simpler.
Yeah, I like it. But find ways to simplify. I would also state that players requesting the IDT before they make their first move (arriving late etc) would not be penalized the 5 minutes. (There clock would however remain running while they get the delay clock set).
This does make it simpler for a TD to rule because there has to be NO examination of the position at all. A person with 30 seconds left in a position that it is easily won or drawn but many moves away would simply get a delay clock at their request.
So it would go: Player requests IDT. TD sees clock is at 0:30 and informs opponent it is a draw offer. Accepted? Done. Rejected? takes 1/2 time off and sets delay on clock if available.
Question? If no delay clocks are available, is the claimant just SOL?
How about simply “Player Request for 5 Second Delay”?
That covers both the “no delay” and the “less-than-five-second” delay scenario.
Out of curiosity, how long do you all think it will be before delay or increment becomes standard in all USCF tournaments, other than maybe g/5 blitz? This would seem to be an intermediate step on that road. In what other instances might an organizer want sudden death with no delay? Are we approaching the point at which the old rule becomes the exception, and the old exception becomes the new rule?
If we are considering going down this road… (which by comments, some of us are)… How about changing the preferred equipment rules to say that every player has a right to use a delay clock if one is available. Then spell out rules (as Smythe did above) on what to do if the game wasn’t started with one.
So a player arriving late has a right to replace the analog clock with his delay clock.
A player w/o access to a clock but one comes available mid game has a right to request it (but may get the 5 minute penalty for not starting the game with one as Smythe says).
A player with less than 10 minutes has the right to a clock, but in waiting this long is attaching a draw offer by stating he doesn’t think he could win w/o the delay so late in the game. He then forfeits 1/2 his remaining time as penalty for not starting with a delay clock.
Perhaps add the ‘remains’ of ILC to the end in that: If no delay clock is available, the opponent declines the draw offer, and the claimant has less than 2 minutes, and the TD through observation or consultation concludes a C player could not lose this game against a Master, the TD may declare the draw.
Before we go any further with this discussion, it would be helpful to know if we are actually proposing to submit an ADM for this for the August meeting. I assume it requires a Delegate motion, and if so, who would be willing to do so?
We are probably approaching that tipping point when the delay out numbers the analog; however, there will remain small non-urban areas that will keep the tradition alive for some time.
Don’t forget! US Amateur West (40/2, 25/1) is this Memorial Day weekend in Tucson, AZ!! Bring all your fancy-dancy delay-capable clocks. We LOVE insufficient losing chance claims! :mrgreen:
“Player Request for Delay Clock” … not quite tight enough. What if they’ve got a delay clock but they’re not using the delay? That can happen either inadvertently or intentionally.
“Request for Delay” … that would work, but not for the proposed rule Smythe outlined above. His rule allows players with a delay of less than five second to request a five-second delay.
Let’s be as specific as possible in the actual rule title, while bearing in mind that fewer words are better than more words. Thus:
