Even though 5 seconds is the standard, I played in a tournament that had a 15 second delay. What about increments? How would that be handled?
“Captain Hard-Nose” checking in here (well, I’ve been called something similar, but I’ll leave that to the reader’s imagination 
) …
For my taste, the proposed rule is much too complicated. Captain Hard-Nose would say that if a player wants to be sure the game is played with a delay capable clock set correctly, then show up on time and own a delay capable clock. The rules already provide that a correctly set delay capable clock is preferred equipment if there is a sudden death time control. If the player does not show up on time, sorry – the game proceeds with whatever clock the opponent provided.
However, the Captain could be persuaded (very reluctantly) to show some leniency to a player who arrives late and has a correctly set delay capable clock. In that case, there might be an argument for immediately replacing the clock before the late player makes even one move. Again, it is the player’s responsibility to know how to set the clock and to be able to adjust the clock to match the times shown on the opponent’s clock.
Notwithstanding, the Captain feels no leniency toward players who want the game to be played with a delay capable clock but who do not provide one. Realistically, the cost of a delay capable clock such as the Excalibur Game Timer is not excessive (especially compared to many (most?) tournament entry fees). And setting the clock really isn’t rocket science (though older eyes may have trouble reading the sticker on the bottom of the clock with the preset time controls, notes the Captain with a trace of sadness …).
Basically, I would make no provision for allowing a player to request a delay clock once both players have made at least one move. Once the choice is made, it is in force for the entire game.
LOL, don’t look at me…I just proposed a title for a rule someone else wrote. (See Smythe above.)
But seriously…the rule could be written “If the game is using less than a five-second delay or increment…”
I see the point of Captain Hard-Nose; however, I think this new rule uncomplicates things considerably both for TD and players, as compared to the current “insufficient losing chances” rule.
For our club tournaments, we (ahem) strongly encourage the use of delay clocks. In all the times I’ve gone up to a board at the beginning of a round and said “please use our club clock with delay instead of your analog clock”, no one has ever refused.
I think the rule should state the games does not otherwise have an increment or delay on it.
Those that don’t start with the advertised delay/increment would only be eligible for the 5 second under the rules. Note that a lot of increment tournaments give extra time to those starting a game with an analog clock, so it would be unfair to allow them to add the increment mid game.
This will complicate things a bit more, but since those choosing analog clocks get extra time in those situations a TD Tip or alternative for Increment tournaments should be added such as this:
Variant: For tournaments using an increment that includes a provision to add extra time to an analog clock to make up for not using an increment:
1a: The person owning the analog clock and getting the extra time may not claim right to Time Delay unless they have less than 5 minutes on their clock. (They provided the analog clock and are aware of the risks)
1b: In cases where the opponent of the owner of the analog clock arrives late, can’t aquire an increment cable clock until some time in the round, or at other times by TD discretion, the td may:
1bi: Subtract the time that was added originally on the clock and let the increment cabable clock be put on the game with increment set properly.
1bii: Keep the clock times as is and add the 5 second delay.
TD Tip: In cases of a player arriving late with the Increment capable clock in their possessin, it is preferable to use 1bi. Otherwise 1bii is the preffered option.
I have enjoyed this discussion and it has inspired me to consider making an ADM for the upcoming Delegates Convention.
I see at least two issues here:
First, the intervention of the TD into the game as it is currently outlined in 14H needs to be changed. That is my primary concern. This is what my ADM will focus on.
Second, the idea that a delay clock can replace an analog clock at any time during the game. Hmmm…I am not so sure about this one; however, it might be worth a try. There are still a lot of analog clock users out there and forcing them to give up their clock at any time during the game might prove to be an up hill battle.
BTW, the May Chess Life indicates that the deadline for ADMs is June 1. Remember that any delegate, not just yours, can present motions. So if you feel strongly about item two above then write the ADM and get a sponsor. My suggestion would be to somehow tie it in with 42D and/or 39A1 rather than 14H.
Is 14H so bad or is it rather that some TDs don’t understand their roles and responsibilities? Perhaps the language just needs to be modified instead of throwing the whole ILC out.
I still like Jim Meyer’s analysis of old of the whole situation: “The clock is merely an ancilliary device, and a player should never lose a game on time when it’s unlikely that they will lose OTB”.
IMO, 14H is still needed, and functional, but could use a modification in language, and perhaps an amendment, that the ratings of players MAY/SHOULD/OUGHT to be considered by the TD.
If the standard remains “Class C vs. Master” (and that’s appropriate, I think), then it should stand to reason that the ability of the claimant needs to be considered, and that players rated below Class C should simply receive a delay capable clock.
This is just my own personal opinion and perspective. Assuming that ILC remains in place, I would like to see unequivocal language added to 14H that gives the TD the option to simply place the delay clock and let the players duke it out. Or equivalent language that allows the TD to opt to not evaluate the position and carry on the game with delay.
Could the system be gamed? Maybe. But loss of half the claimant’s time with the draw offer on the table should prevent that. (I assume that’s part of the why of the clock adjustments in 14H2a. Plus that a draw claim should survive being drawn with delay plus half claimants time.)
I suppose I’m saying that my opinion is that it’s not the TD’s place to evaluate board positions except for clear lack of mating material, nor to be required to find someone capable of making that evaluation. (At least, not this TD’s place.)
Failing that, get rid of the system and allow the players to manage their time. (Though I also like “Captain Hardnose’s” idea of allowing a delay clock to be placed anytime before Black’s first reply, for late players. Still and all, if 14H is going to remain, let it remain with that addition in place.)
As for titles… “Delay for Delay”? 
:mrgreen:
Excellent ideas.
I do agree with Tim that perhaps allowing delay clocks to be put on games before a normal 14h situation arises would be controversial or unfair. I see the potential for abuse.
However, I like the idea that a late arriving player could replace the started analog clock with his properly set delay clock before making his first move. If he can’t produce a digital clock before starting to play then he loses the right to place one later, except under 14h.
I think 14h should give the TD more latitude to just put the delay clock on when an ILC is made without thinking about whether a C player could hold the position against a Master. The existing time reductions under 14h would remain in effect. Not all TDs are strong enough players to evaluate the C player vs Master, so eliminate the need to do so.
I think this is already the rule:
14H2a. The Claim is unclear and a delay clock is available for the game. A director who believes the claim is neither clearly correct (14H2c) nor clearly incorrect (14H2d), but is instead uncertain as to the correctness of the claim, may place a delay clock on the game,…
I have never had a complaint against TDs who are uncertain. My complaints are with TDs who know that the claim is correct (or incorrect) and refuse to make the proper ruling in response to a player’s request. TDs who are weak players are certainly allowed to be “uncertain”.
Now…making a ruling “without thinking”? That I have a problem with.
Polly,
Ken provided the rule that allows weak-player/TDs to insert a delay capable clock on the game. Your concern for the TD who’s a weak player is valid (I, too, may be uncertain and a bit skittish about a position in which a Master makes an ILC claim), but as Ken states, it’s already provided for by the rules; I can declare it uncertain and place a clock on the game.
BTW: I have no problem whatsoever in generally ruling on an ILC claim. At the beginning of my tournaments, I let the players know that if they want to retain the right to claim ILC, and their opponents don’t object, they may start without the delay, but that if they do so, they do not have any rights to demand a delay later. If they would rather not have my input into the game, then they should start with the delay. I think this addresses part of LaughingVulcan’s last post.
I like this idea too. The delay clock is standard, and just because a player is late shouldn’t preclude him/her from using it, provided it can be setup quickly, and without disruption to other players.
I also think that TDs should be responsible for learning how to set the most common clocks.
At this point, 40% of the clocks I see are the chronos and gametime. about 30% analog and the other 30% is random with the majority going to whichever digital clock is “new” and “trendy”.
This topic turned out to be timely… I had to handle an ILC claim for the first time this past weekend, and thanks to this discussion I was a lot more clear and confident how to handle it. FWIW, the claim was denied (clearly incorrect even to me) and I didn’t place a delay clock on the game.
Grant Neilley
Good for you, Grant. It’s a good thing for the TD to act within the rules, and you did so by denying a claim that you thought to be wrong.
I find it strange that some people think the ILC rule should be abolished, or at least seriously revised, because delay clocks have made it obsolete. Since the current ILC rule states that ILC claims can’t be made when a delay clock is being used, then it stands to reason that the ILC rule will become less and less important even if it isn’t changed.
And that’s not to say that it’s all that important even now, at least in my experience. I’ve directed a total of 6 tournaments that averaged about 20 players each, and I’ve had exactly one ILC claim (which, btw, was clearly unjustified).
I agree with some of this, but not all of it.
Rule 14H2 clearly says that the ratings of the players should not be considered. But that is not the same as saying that their abilities or knowledge levels regarding the board position in question should not be considered.
Let’s consider an example.
Imagine that you are called over by Black for an ILC claim, and the position of the board is as follows:
-
Black has nothing but a king, which is on the e8 square.
-
White has a pawn, which is on the e6 square, and a king, which is on the e5 square.
How would you rule (assuming that White rejects the draw offer)?
If I were called upon to make the ruling, the first thing I’d immediately realize is that the position will end in a draw if Black plays it correctly, but if Black makes a single mistake and White plays it correctly, White will win.
Note that this is true regardless of the players’ ratings. If Black is a class J player who knows how to play the position and White is Gary Kasparov, the game will still end in a draw. But if Black is a master level player who doesn’t know how to play the position and White is a class J player who does, White might end up winning. Admitedly, the odds are greater that the master level player will know how to play the position than that the class J player will know how to play it. But it would be silly to rely on probabilities when you have the ability, under rule 14H3, to question Black about how he plans to keep White from winning. For a TD who doesn’t already know how Black can hold a draw in this position, Black’s explanation would also serve to educate that TD.
Of course, if you have a delay clock available, then you can simply put it in and the problem will be solved. Otherwise, I’d opt for conferring with Black to see whether he can explain how to prevent a win. If he can, then I’d rule in favor of the claim. Otherwise, I’d reject it, though I’d keep an eye on the game (as described in rule 14H2b) to see if Black at some point demonstrates that he has figured out how to prevent a win.
Note that the role of the TD with regard to ILC claims is never to try to guess what the probable outcome of the game will be. The reason the rules state that the ratings of the players should not be considered is because, if the TD needs to know the ratings of the players in order to rule, the ruling is going to be a guess about the probable outcome. And if the position is unclear enough that the TD needs to make a guess, then the claim should simply be denied.
This amounts to adjudication by a stronger player. There are several problems with this, starting with the fact that a lot of TDs are, well, not strong players. If the case you describe arose and no delay clock was available, I would probably fall back on the “continue play and watch for progress” rule.
It doesn’t really make any difference how strong a player the TD is. If the TD isn’t strong enough to know that the position should end in a draw, then the claimant’s explanation will serve to educate them. Ken mentions this, but suggests that such education is the only reason for conferring with the player. My point is that the TD may need to confer with the player even if the TD is strong enough to realize that the position should end in a draw, since it is also important to establish that the claimant knows how to hold it to a draw. (In the example I gave, virtually any error on the part of Black will allow White to win, if White plays it correctly.)
Ken has repeatedly said that the knowledge and playing skills of the claimant aren’t relevant, but I don’t find anything to this effect in the rulebook. All it says is that the players’ ratings shouldn’t be considered (since, if their ratings are relevant, the game isn’t far enough along for an ILC claim to be appropriate). In this case, it is the board position that makes it possible for Black to prevent a win, but Black must know exactly how to do it in order for it to work.
I can find nothing in the rules that requires the claimant to know how to hold the draw. Can you point it out for me, please?
The rules suggest that a C player should know how to hold the draw against a Master - but also that a Class H player gets the same ruling as a GM. The GM gets ZERO credit for being better than a C player, and the H player is not penalized one iota for being weaker than a C player.
Again, I claim that the capabilities of the two players is completely irrelevant. An appeal committee should be able to decide on the correctness of the ruling without knowing anything whatsoever about the players. It’s a ruling about the position. The position is either an ILC position, or it’s not.
The consequences of this are that, in practice, I estimate that 75% of all ILC claims are “clearly incorrect”. They tend to be attempts to salvage a draw from a lost position - or to gain more time to play out an unclear position. Putting a delay clock on the lost positions is not a great miscarriage of justice - but giving more time to play on in an unclear position is wrong. There are many players who intentionally start the game without the delay, and then ask for a delay if and only if it turns out to be to their advantage. This behavior should not be encouraged.
In those positions which are legitimate ILC positions, about 75% of all players will simply agree to a draw. 14H was intended to protect players from opponents who insisted on trying to win by blitzing. Organizers wanted sudden death - but they did not want “blitz chess ethics”.
Rule 14H3 says that “A director who is unsure how to rule may confer privately with either player or with both players separately regarding the player’s plans.” Now, let’s say that a TD does this and the claimant responds by saying “I have no idea how to hold this to a draw.” Should this statement affect the TD’s ruling? If not, why does the rule permit the TD to confer with the player?
Let’s consider the hypothetical situation I posed, then: Black has nothing but a king at e8, while White has nothing but a pawn at e6 and a king at e5. Black makes an ILC claim. How would you rule? Would a C player know how to hold a draw against a master in this position?
My answer is that it would depend on what C player we’re talking about. Some would have a 100% chance of holding the position against anyone. Would most C players know how to do it? I have no idea. How would a TD even determine something like that?
And is that the standard? Rule 14H2c says that a C player should have less than a 10% chance of losing the position to a master - not that fewer than 10% of C players should lose the position to a master. To determine whether a C player would have less than a 10% chance of losing the position to a master, I’d have to confer with the C player regarding the player’s plans.
In the first place, both 14H3 and, in general, “ruling” on the claim at all are leftovers from the time when delay clocks were not generally available. A makeshift was needed. It isn’t any more. The correct ruling in the case you give, assuming the opponent is too stubborn to agree to a draw, is to put in the delay clock.
Now, if you are starting with the assumption that a clock is not available, then you have to find some other solution. The one I’d prefer is “continue and watch for progress.” The problem with all the other suggestions you give is that they result in the game being determined by something other than play over the board. If the TD decides, based on his own chess knowledge, that’s adjudication. Likewise if you “consult with stronger players.” Adjudication of games was rejected decades ago, for good reason. If you “confer with the player,” you raise the possibility of a player getting what he wants because he’s a fast talker, and the TD is ignorant or gullible. (I once had a GM try to bully me into awarding him a draw in a position in which he had a pawn for the Exchange. He didn’t succeed.) There may be times when you have to do this sort of thing, but it is strongly disfavored. Instead of arguing about how to implement a fundamentally flawed method, you should be concentrating on preventing it from ever happening.