Is delay ethical at extreme situations?

Running Chess Tournaments
1

What if a player use the delay clock at extreme situations, would it be ethical?

If you are down under two minutes on the clock with delay, your opponent has little over five minutes on the clock. When your opponent goes under five minutes, your opponent can play out the rest of the game at blitz speed without a scoresheet. If you understand the position is drawish, your opponent can hold back on the movement of the pawns, just to make the game last as long as it can go.

Like the readers perform a test. Set your delay clock at G/2 (t/d 5), have a friend play out the other side. Just play out the pieces in any drawish endgame you want. Just count the moves till one clock falls. If you are a teenager, you should be able to make I feel around 300 - 600 moves before the flag falls. If you are much older, you will find yourself no longer in the play station 2 age group. You could find yourself able to make the delay time for the first 10 or 20 moves before you start to get tired. When you get tired, you can find yourself being upset to play out a drawish game. When you get tired or upset, sooner or later you will start to need more then the 5 seconds to make a move. When that happens, it will start to take away from your two minutes on the clock.

Can understand why players like G/90 or slower time controls. They like to think what they are doing with the position. If you get down to G/2 (t/d 5), this is much faster then ratable blitz. The time delay stops you from asking the director to adjudicate the game under 14H. If it is a draw game, your opponent with the delay clock can force you to play on till you do lose on time.

People have said it is extreme for a player to play out a drawish game with a delay clock. As a tactical idea, it is so ideal to play out the game if your opponent is down to G/2 (t/d 5) and yourself at or over G/5 (t/d 5). I understand it as not ethical to play out a drawish game and hope to win with time. If you read my posts, at extreme situations to play out a draw game to win is so much granted onto us all.

2

OK, in theory you have a point, again. In practice???

Once again (is this the third or fourth time) I urge you to post at your events some variation of the now defunct 175 move rule from the 4th edition of the rulebook. That way you can deal at your events with the kind of possible, yet improbable, delay clock situations you keep posting over and over again on these forums.

In this case I would suggest that how a player uses their time is part of the game. It has been for a long time now.

Tim Just

3

The delay clock SOLVES more ethical problems than it creates.

Suppose I am white in the following position:

White: Pe4, Bd5, K almost anywhere, 10 minutes remaining.
Black: Pe5, Bd4, K almost anywhere, 3 seconds remaining.

– and my opponent wants a draw.

With the delay, I would agree to the draw immediately, because I would know I could never win.

Without the delay, I would STILL agree to the draw, because as an ethical player I would know that I could never win except on the clock.

Now let’s change the position a little. Suppose I am two pawns up in an opposite-bishop ending, and one of my pawns is passed.

Borderline winnable. Borderline drawable.

Without the delay, I would face a huge ethical dilemma. Play on, and win on time in a position which the opponent likely could have drawn over the board. Or agree to the draw, even though the position still offers some (slight) winning chances. One decision would be unfair to my opponent, the other unfair to myself.

With the delay, there is no such ethical problem. I can play on, knowing that my opponent has a fair chance to prove he can draw, and also knowing I am testing his endgame technique legitimately.

Bill Smythe

4

The problem with the old rule of 175 moves, nobody could prove they made 175 moves. The only way anyone can prove they made 175 moves, would be a scoresheet. If they get down to under 5 minutes, then the game becomes a blitz game. I’m glad the 175 move is gone, as I never have seen anyone have a scoresheet with 175 moves or more. If I declare a game draw because of the old 175 move rule, would have to count the moves. I cannot be at every board when the players get into time trouble just to count moves.

5

Bill:

The delay clock does solve a number of ethical problems. Can understand the player wanting to play on, just to win the endgame on the board not the clock. The rule 14H with standard time or the analog clock, does solve the problem to stop a player to win a game when the position is a draw. The delay clock, can make the player lose a game when the position is a technical draw.

If you have a opponent that wants to play on in a technical draw. It can be the most text book case of a position we teach our scholastic players. It can be the a or h pawn, with the King able to force a stalemate or lone Kings. If you have a lone King, you know if your opponent flag falls, you can only get a draw. If you have the a or h pawn, you know you will get a draw, and able to win the game if your opponent flag falls.

6

The culture I see with delay clocks, the generation that likes delay are the younger players. The older the person becomes, they start to stay away from delay clocks. The only reason I like delay clocks, as the delay time is about right to move a piece and punch my clock.

Having the delay clock to stop someone to make a 14H claim, would be like having insurance in the case I was abducted by UFO alians. It could happen, only the people that have the faith it was a true abduction: would be the nice people looking at the dark sky in Nevada.

When was the last time anyone ever made a 14H claim? If you did get a delay clock to stop the 14H claim, it would not be the norm as the claim is so uncommon in the first place. Even in the extreme situation someone wants to play out the game. If the position was a dead draw, and my opponent wants to play out the game with delay. I’m not going to get into slap the clock, as I wanted to play in a classical time control to enjoy my weekend.

Bill Smythe, if we are in a dead draw position, and you want to play it out with the delay clock. I would just resign, it is only a game for rest and enjoyment. I’m just way to old to play a G/60 or slower in slap the clock.

7

Is there anyone besides Douglas who cares about this issue, for which this is now the THIRD thread in the last few weeks.

If not, let’s move on to other topics.

8

Three of those threads have outlived their usefulness, and a fourth (the current one) was brain-dead to begin with.

However, “Insufficient Losing Chances vs Insufficient Delay Time” was nipped in the bud. That one was just getting interesting.

It’s a pity there isn’t (apparently) a way to exclude a specific poster from a specific thread, without excluding him from the entire forum. That way, interesting conversations could remain interesting, and on-topic.

Bill Smythe

9

While Doug’s posts are usually extremely lengthy, time consuming, difficult to read and generally obnoxious, I’m against censorship where it doesn’t involve posting rules. I’ve learned to skip over and completly ignore his posts. I’m against his censorship because I do believe that he truly is trying to learn proper tournament procedures, rules, etc. He is a Local TD, and it should be our policy to assist in any way possible to his better understanding of the rules.

My two-cents is to not lock the topics he posts in (which are ALL OF THEM!!), but rather, simply ignore his long tangents, answering only those we deem interesting.

DOUG: Could you be a bit more brief in your posts? Many of us don’t have the time nor the inclination to read and understand long, grammatically impaired, posts.

Terry Winchester

(PS) I agree with Bill’s implication that threads are being locked prematurely.

10

I think Doug’s point is that because of a delay clock being in use, a player may be harmed by not being able to claim 14H when that player has a clearly drawn position. If my interpretation is correct, then I will join in with his dilemma.

If the position is clearly drawn, then the TD should probably be willing to entertain a 14H claim if the TD is of sufficient playing strength to make the determination. Perhaps a variation that would allow the TD to accept a 14H claim, even with a delay in use, should be considered. My understanding is that part of the reason for the advent of delay was to allow TDs to avoid deciding games which they didn’t feel themselves capable of doing so. If the TD is of the opinion that he/she can determine a result fairly, then maybe he/she should be allowed to do so.

I agree with Doug’s frustration when encountering a situation where the TD believes, without a doubt, that one player is simply trying to win on time. These types of situations should probably allow the TD to step in, regardless of the types of clocks in use, on ethics basis.

In a SUPERNATIONALS tournament I directed, I had a class A player lose on time in a K+R vs K+R+P position. The players had started with an analog clock, and upon the defender’s claim, and after speaking with him in private as to what his plans were, I awarded the draw. He told me that he had Philidor’s draw, and considering him being a class A player, and considering that I knew, myself, that he could hold the draw, I ruled in his favor. His opponent appealed to the Chief section TD, and he overruled me and placed a time delay clock on the game. Out of frustration, and out-right nervousness, he blundered and dropped the Rook. I was so frustrated by that.

Anyhow, any chances my ideas are workable?

Terry Winchester

11

I am not a tournament director, but this thread interests me. As a player, I do not wish for a TD to intervene unless it is absolutely necessary. I am happy that the widespread adoption of delay clocks has essentially made 14H irrelevant. I do not think that TDs should be allowed to entertain 14H claims under any circumstances if a delay clock is being used.

I think Terry’s RP vs R situation is a perfect illustration of my point. He was frustrated, but if I were the player with the R and P, I would probably be even more frustrated than he was. The player with the R may have known he had Philidor’s position, and he may have known how to draw in theory, but there is a big difference between knowledge and execution. This point was proven when the player with the R hung his rook.

We are human beings. We make incredible mistakes, and we vastly overestimate our chess capabilities. Ask some chess players whether they think they are overrated or underrated. I have a feeling that “underrated” will be the answer chosen by the vast majority. An 1800 player (or a TD watching an 1800 player) may think that he is strong enough to be able to always play a rook ending without hanging his rook, but he is not. Tens of thousands of blitz games (and even one of my slow USCF tournament games!) has convinced me that this is true. In blitz, I even play on with KR vs KR, and I’ve managed to win the rook many times (and lose it, too). One master even managed to walk his king to the side of the board and get checkmated, believe it or not. Sometimes our brains make us do the strangest things.

Doug points out that delay could cause someone to lose a position such as KP (rook pawn) vs K, because they cannot make a 14H claim. If someone does not know how to draw this position (but they do know that it’s drawn - otherwise how could they make a 14H claim?), don’t they deserve to lose?

If I have the KP vs the K and I just want to make sure that my opponent knows how to draw it, what is wrong with that? Remember that with the delay, my opponent gets 5 seconds per move. If it turns out that my opponent does not know how to draw, why should he not lose the game? In any other chess position, if a player does not know or find the correct moves, he suffers the consequences! Why should this one be any different?

Edit: Sorry. After discovering that there were several other threads on this topic and reading them, I have discovered that my post is not needed. Others have already made the same points several times.

12

This is how someone with a delay clock can win a draw game. If you have any Rook pawn, with a Bishop not of the color of the square of a8, h8, a1, h1. Just hold back as long as you can from moving the pawn.

Not that many people in time trouble, are thinking right at that time of the 14F rule. Most directors, when it becomes a large event do not want to count the moves. The only hope, would count the moves in a oral statement. This becomes a problem, as you can lose count making the oral statements for yourself and the spectators. Making the oral statements, become very annoying for the boards around you – as you are talking. If you are making a oral statement and making moves, will take all the delay time or some of the regular time from your clock. Has anyone found out how many seconds it takes to say in a oral statement the word 35. If you make your move, make the oral statement of the count, then press your clock – it will take more then 5 seconds.

Even if you did make the count. All your opponent has to do is move the pawn from say a2 to a3 and hold the pawn with the Bishop then the King. That would mean you would have to count the moves over again. Just to get the draw, you would have to count the moves 400 times in a oral statement just to get the draw. As the pawn can move from a3, a4, a5, a6, making every pawn move take 50 moves before the pawn is moved.

Would like someone do a test. Set the clock at G/2 (t/d 5), then set the board at white: pawn - a2 King - b2 Bishop - c3 Black: King - a8. Find out hold long it would take someone to lose on time, if the pawn is not forced to move for 50 moves. Make sure Black is counting the moves, and counting the moves before pressing the clock. I do not see the average player able to get a draw under 14F.

13

Terry, if there was a minor change in the rules. Then I would support the change. As the time delay clock can force someone to lose on time. Not everyone is able to play at blitz speed. During my 20’s, could play very fast at blitz. Now at 39, have my good days and my bad days at blitz. If my clock gets down to G/2 (t/d 5), then forced to count the moves. I did try it with lone Kings, up to 50 moves. Only having around 30 to 40 seconds on my clock. If I had to play out would have lost the game, if the pawn is move. I would say I would lose the game after 70 - 90 moves.

14

Bill, moderating an online forum is not an easy job, and I’ve been doing it in various places around the Net since at least 1991.

During that time I’ve been criticized (here and elsewhere) for being too liberal and for being too conservative, sometimes for the same decision.

If I shut down a thread prematurely, people are free to start a new one.

However, if the same old arguments resurface, I’ll shut that one down, too. Eventually people have to agree to disagree and move on to other topics.

Some of the people who frequent this or other online forums I moderate remind me of Sir Winston Churchill’s definition of a fanatic: Someone who cannot change his mind and won’t change the subject.

15

This will be my final statement on this issue. Having a delay clock or a non-delay clock for the players, does not change the outcome of the final game to the level some people state. If having the delay clock, just to stop your opponent from making a 14H claim. Would need your opponents clock under two minutes in the first place. Myself cannot recall a single rated game, when my opponent was under 2 minutes (for a G/30 or slower), the game ended in a agreement of a draw.

Delay is nice, if you are a blitz player. If you want to play slow, with time controls of G/60 or G/90 or slower. If you do get into time trouble, with very slow time controls. The evidence would show you like to think over the moves. If you start out at G/90 (t/d 5), then get down to G/2 (t/d 5), the empirical evidence would say your not a very good blitz player. Blitz players like faster time controls of G/30 or G/60. If you are not a blitz player, G/2 (t/d 5) is still going to end with your flag fall.

The best way to show if delay cloks work for you, is to test it out. For blitz test it out at G/1 (t/d 2), quick G/2 (t/d 3) and regular G/2 (t/d 5). If you lose with a flag fall, then delay is not right for you. If you can play out the game without a flag fall, then delay is right for you. If the flag falls most of the time with these time controls, you should stay away from having a delay clock.

Delay clocks are designed for a blitz player. If you are not a blitz player, the flag is going to fall anyway. If your opponent is a blitz player, and you are not. If one is going to be in time trouble, it would be the non-blitz player. Look, if you get into time trouble down to G/2 (t/d 5) with slow time controls. The evidence would state you are not a very good blitz player. If you know you are not a very good blitz player, G/2 (t/d 5) is not going to help you out.

So far this year, only one person did get under G/2 (t/d 5). I did checkmate him when he only had 60 seconds on the clock. Im not at my top form with blitz at this time. I still think of myself as a fair blitz player. If I can get my opponent down to G/2 (t/d 5) with myself having 5 or more minutes on the clock. Even if the position is a draw or a true claim of insufficient losing chances. Very sure I can play it out an win the game with a flag fall or a clear victory. My personal idea is this, if you get into time trouble with delay. My bet is your a poor blitz player!

16

That’s an appealing idea, but such a claim should be allowed only in extreme situations. Defining “extreme” is similar to the problem inherent in 14H to begin with, i.e. defining “clearly drawn”. In other words, such a rule could lead to abuse, or to claims of abuse. What looks “extreme” to a TD may look quite different to one of the players.

I would have preferred to put a delay clock on the game, and let the claimant prove to the world that the draw was within his capabilities.

Knowing that you have a Philidor position is very different from knowing how to draw it, as the eventual result proved.

The defending player’s inability to hold the position, even if born of frustration or nervousness, is a pretty good indication that the chief section TD had the right idea.

Bill Smythe

17

Well, I’m probably the oldest person contributing to this thread, and I have liked delay clocks almost from their inception.

Bill Smythe

18

But you have made those points more eloquently than most. And your message bears repeating, as is borne out by the very existence of a barrage of attempted “refutations”.

Bill Smythe

19

Abuse? By whom, the TD? Most TDs don’t want to interfere in games, which is one of the reasons the delay clock was introduced. I don’t think many TDs would regard this exception as an excuse to intervene in a legitimate position. Further, the player could always convince the TD to overturn his ruling.

I was thinking of extreme situations such as, in addition to Philidore’s draw, a passed R pawn being kept from promoting by a Bishop of the same color as the promotion square. Other positions are equally extreme, as in RP+K vs K controlling the Queening square, when the player with the extra pawn dinks around with the K without moving the pawn in an attempt to flag the opponent. (gee, am I sounding like Douglas? :laughing: )

The eventual result was not proven. The idea of the 14H rule is that “given ample time… a player will have no trouble with the draw.” Ample time is not proven here. The player was upset over the appeal and overturning of the claim.

This is not at all correct, Bill. A class A player would certainly know how to avoid blundering the Rook, given ample time….

OK, my examples probably put me in the minority here, but there are clearly situations where, because of the use of a delay clock, the player has to play on and on in hoplessly drawn positions when the opponent is trying to steal a win on the clock. My purpose here is to be able to intervene in these situations when one player is clearly attempting a win primarily on the clock.

Again, “the clock is merely an ancilliary part of the game and should never provide the primary method for winning a game” - Jim Meyer )paraphrased).

Terry Winchester

20

Bill Smythe:

The only time you need delay the most, is to stop the 14H claim. If you cannot blitz out the games at (blitz G/1 (t/d 2) quick G/2 (t/d 3) classical G/2 (t/d 5)) these fast time controls, it would be clear delay is not good for you. Bill have checked your MSA record as I’m sure you have checked out mine. As you are still a class A player, most class A players and up have better skills with blitz and classical time controls.

Delay clocks are designed for the blitz players. If the time controls are G/90 or slower, it drives away the blitz players as the time controls are so slow. If some plays at the common speed of blitz, they should not get into time trouble in the first place. The blitz player should not get into time trouble to have G/2 (t/d 5) on the clock. The non-blitz player that gets down to G/2 (t/d 5), is not that good at blitz or stays away from any blitz games.

Bill I know you like delay clocks, but you are a strong player able to play blitz and classical time controls well. There are only a small percentage able to do both well. Most players that become great at blitz destroys their slow game. If they become good at slow games, they destroy their blitz skills. If someone wants to play at G/90 or slower, never going to any tournament faster then G/90. The majority of the players would tell you they are not that great at blitz chess. If they start out at G/90 or slower and get down to G/2 (t/d 5). It would be fair to say they are not blitz players.

Bill, you have talked about the idea of delay clocks to prove it out on the board. Not all times will a player down to G/2 (t/d 5) can win the game. The position can be worse for the player, even to the point it is a lost game. If the position shows a win for white or black, the players understand it is not a 14H claim. The reason the 14H claim came about, so the player can get a draw in a drawish position. As it is very unethical to win a game if the position was a draw in the first place.

The delay clock can make the game extreme, as the player now can win the game with a flag fall in a drawish game. If a player feels they will lose on time with the flag at G/2 (t/d 5), the delay is not the persons friend. If the person is not a class A player or higher. As a class A player should be great with both time controls. Delay is not good for all players, as a non-blitz player down to G/2 (t/d 5) should lose the game with a flag fall. If the person just make sure to play it out as a drawish game.