Time Delay / Bishp vs Rook

Running Chess Tournaments
1

The following was asked the other day

=================================================================

What should have John done differently?

John found himself in an interesting situation in a recent game.

John (a Class A player) was white and they used his opponent’s dgt clock which he is not familiar with, but knew that it had the ability to be set with delay. John did not check the clock setting before the game started, but later realized that the delay was not set.

He was down an exchange for a pawn. He recognized that he could trade down to a book draw, and since he was in some time pressure, he decided to go that route. He proceeded to trade off all the pawns and was left with a bishop vs. rook end game – a book draw with when John positioned his King in the “right corner” (i.e. one that is not controlled by the bishop) diagram (W: Kh8 Bh7 B: Kf6 Rc3)

John had a little over two minutes left to play. He offered his opponent a draw, which was declined. His opponent was under some time pressure (and I believe his opponent also stopped taking notation around this time), but without a delay, John stopped taking notation and believed that no one could have kept up with the notation as too many moves were happening too quickly. John and his opponent each played 20 – 30 moves as John thought his opponent (also a Class A player but about 100 rating points higher rated than John) just wanted him to prove that he could hold the book draw.

Without notation, John could not prove either threefold repetition, or the 50 move rule. John offered another draw, but his opponent declined. John stopped the clock with 4 seconds left on the clock called over the TD, and pointed that there were “insufficient losing chances “ and the book draw and asked the TD for a delay clock. The TD declined, using his discretion (which he confirmed by reference to the rulebook). When later asked why, the TD responded that he always declines to allow the delay clock. After a couple more moves, John flagged.

Let’s dispense with the obvious:

John should have made sure that the clock was correctly set with a delay – true

His opponent could have accepted the draw, as part of the good sportsmanship that is typically part of chess. Perhaps he should have, but he didn’t.

There is much to be learned from this experience. But no, it’s not to expect the worst from people; it’s good to learn early in life that sometimes life sucks…etc.

The TD could have used his discretion to allow the delay clock, the point of the question is not to 2nd guess his decisions – TD’s have a thankless job and get way too many complaints already. The chess players should be thankful that they generously donate their time.

So some of the questions:

Should John have involved the TD earlier, so he could have watched John “holding” the book draw? What difference would it had made?

What choices did John have on taking notation; as he was probably correct that the moves were happening too quickly for even a third party to accurately take notation?

Since the TD could use his discretion, there wouldn’t appear to be any way to appeal the ruling or involving other players.

What else could/should John have done?

2

This is actually a very tough draw. Just check out Chess Life from July (2008) and I believe there is an article that shows even GMs mess up this “book” draw. This shows the TD was absolutely correct to decline the insufficient losing chances claim and to not put a delay clock on the game.

What John should have done was called over the TD the moment either player had less than 5 minutes (the time you can legally stop recording the moves) and the rook vs bishop ending was reached. You can then request the TD to count the moves for you, which he can do by either counting himself or by using the move counter on a clock. If you can prove to the TD, e.g. by a scoresheet, that the ending was reached some moves ago, the TD can use that as the starting point for his move count.

3

You are thinking of Rook and Bishop vs. Rook. The incident described was Rook vs Bishop. Once the King is in the right corner, it’s the deadest of draws.

I disagree that the TD would have been right to not put a delay clock on even for RB vs R.

Frankly, I think that the owner of a delay-capable clock who “forgets” to put the delay on should simply be forfeitted, but I suppose there’s no support in the rules for that.

This part is correct. You should also do that with a delay clock on.

Conclusions: On the facts as presented, (1) players should avoid this TD’s touraments; (2) John’s opponent is a scoundrel; and (3) always call the director as soon as a problem with the clock is discovered or a potential 50-move-rule situation in time trouble arises.

4

I disagree with your characterization of R v. B – there several winning positions, even when the weaker King is fairly close to the “right” corner, and this assumes that the defender knows how to draw in the first place. (Averbakh gives it 3 1/2 pages.) However, I agree with your conclusion that the right way to deal with a 14H claim in such a position is to put in a time-delay clock. The TD is not in the business of adjudicating games, and the result of a game should never depend upon the TD’s knowledge or playing strength.

5

A few random observations:

(1) In the position you describe (W: Kh8 Bh7 B: Kf6 Rc3), white has an easy draw, but there are pitfalls, e.g. 1. Be4 Kf7 2. Bh7?? Rc8+. So perhaps the TD was reasonable in not awarding an immediate draw.

(2) It is not the TD’s responsibility to know how to set any digital clock. For this reason (among others), the TD was probably within his rights not to substitute a delay clock.

(3) In theory, it is both players’ responsibility to make sure the clock is set correctly, with the delay turned on, at the outset of the game. Meeting this responsibility, however, often presents practical problems. For example, on a clock with Bronstein mode instead of “true” delay, there is no way to tell whether Bronstein mode has been set until the main time begins to show mm:ss rather than hh:mm. (I think this occurs with 20 minutes remaining on the DGT, or 5 minutes remaining on the Saitek.)

(4) Because of (3), a TD should be sympathetic to a claim, made late in the game, that the clock was set incorrectly. The TD in this case could then have demanded that John’s opponent set the clock correctly for the remainder of the game. If John’s opponent refused (or claimed that he did not know how), then the TD could have given the John the opportunity to substitute his own delay-capable clock. If John didn’t have a delay clock, or didn’t know how to set it, then tough bananas, play the game out with the original clock and without the delay.

(5) John could have taken advantage of (4) by observing the clock’s behavior just inside the 20-minute mark, and making a claim then. This would not be an insufficient losing chances claim, but rather, a claim that the clock had been set incorrectly at the outset.

(6) The claim suggested in (5) might not work, depending on the TD. But at least it would be worth a try.

Bill Smythe

6

First - there is no such claim as “I want a delay clock”.

The proper claim is “insufficient losing chances”. In response to such a claim, one option is for the TD to put a delay clock on the game - but this is not a claim that a player can make.

In this case, John should have made an “insufficient losing chances” claim AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (once he thought he had achieved a dead drawn position). Because this position requires some judgement by the TD (it’s not, as I recall, one of the positions which is “insufficient losing chances” by rule), John should expect the TD to observe the game (or, perhaps, put a delay clock on the game - but again, that’s the TD’s option, and not John’s). Making the claim is a draw offer to the opponent, and most TDs will check with the opponent, allowing him to accept the draw offer. I know - you said that John had already offered the draw, but many plalyers will accept the draw when the TD is there, but not when they are trying to flag you and no TD is present.

Waiting until there are 4 seconds left on John’s clock means that the “insufficient losing chances” must be patently obvious to the TD, and he must agree that (as a guideline) a C player could hold the draw against a Master. John’s knowledge of the drawing procedure is IRRELEVANT. The question is: will the average C player know how to hold the draw against a Master? its not immediately obvious to me that this is the case, and I’m not sure I can fault the TD for requiring John to play on.

Note that John simply muddied the water by claiming “I want a delay clock”. Again - there is no such claim. Some TDs will, as a matter of principle, simply deny this incorrect claim; others might take the time to explain to John that there is no such claim, but that he might claim “insufficient losing chances”. This depends on the experience of the TD, and perhaps on the level of the tournament and the extent to which the TD expects you to know the rules without coaching from him.

I’m astounded at the number of responses here (some from very good TDs) arguing about whether or not John’s claim “please give me a delay clock” should have been granted. One more time: there is no such claim!

And, of course, the correct thing for John to have done was to insist that the time delay be turned on as soon as he realized it was off. Early in the game, the TD should have insisted that the opponent turn on the delay; the later you get into the game, the less likely it is that the TD will do this. Certainly, with 4 seconds left, you cannot suddenly ask for a time delay. Your only recourse is “insufficient losing chances” - and in this case I doubt that the TD made a reversible error by insisting that John should play on.

7

I think you’re being kind of picky here. Of course a player can’t “ask for a delay clock.” But most players do not know the exact wording of the rules, and if a player makes a statement like this in a situation where it which could reasonably be construed as an “insufficient losing chances” claim, that’s how it should be treated. You don’t tell the player he can’t make a claim unless he says the magic words.

8

I don’t think so. I’ve seen too many cases where the TD treats “I want a delay clock” as an “insufficient losing chances” claim - and then had to deal with the mess when the claimant says he did NOT offer a draw.

I usually will clarify this with the player - but my complaint was with the discussion. Rules discussions should be precise. Words matter. Those who refuse to contemplate the past are doomed to work for a fulfillment company…or, something like that.

9

Some of us have little patience with this kind of legalistic hairsplitting. The proper reply to “I want a delay clock” (assuming that the conditions for a 14H claim are satisfied) is “Are you making a claim of insufficient losing chances?”

Please support with specific quotes your claim that there are “… responses here (some from very good TDs) arguing about whether or not John’s claim “please give me a delay clock” should have been granted.”

10

Of course it is true that there is no such valid claim as “I want a delay clock”, but it is almost appropriate to interpret such a statement as “I am claiming a draw on the grounds of insufficient losing chances”. I say “almost” because the claimant may not realize he would be offering a draw. The solution, as both Prof. Sloan and John Hillery have suggested, is to clarify the rule for the player, and then ask the player if he is making such a claim.

But, in the case of a delay-capable clock not set for the delay, another claim may be in order – namely, a claim that the clock was set incorrectly to begin with. The TD has a lot of discretion here, as to whether (and how) to correct the clock setting. Obviously, the TD is more likely to be sympathetic to such a claim if it is made early in the game. I have suggested that a TD should consider being sympathetic to such a claim made late in the game, if the clock’s design makes it difficult to tell, earlier, whether the delay is set or not.

Incidentally, I have found that owners of DGT and Saitek clocks are far more likely to “forget” to turn the delay on, than are owners of Chronos and Excalibur clocks. This could be because DGT and Saitek use Bronstein instead of “true” delay, and/or because these clocks make it easier to hide the lack of delay. (Those who dislike delay may be inclined to own a clock which lets them be sneaky.)

Bill Smythe

11

My DGT XL clearly says the word “Delay” (or “Fischer” if I’m using increment) over the time. It would be hard to be sneaky.

Alex Relyea

12

What does it say if no delay is being used?

What the rulebook says is that:

“Players, not tournament directors, are responsible for knowing how to properly set their delay clocks.” (5F)

“Players are responsible for knowing how to set their own clocks.” (16Bb)

But what about a player who is not using his own clock (as in this case)? The rules indicate that his opponent, who owns the clock, is responsible for knowing how to set it. But what if his opponent tells him it is set correctly and it is not? Does his opponent incur any liability under the rules for not having set the time delay according to the tournament director’s instructions, as required by rule 16Bb?

13

.

You raise a good point Bob; though I have seen essentially this same point treated dismissively in these forums.

There should be some kind of responsibility that the owner/setter of the clock be required to meet. Otherwise it is too easy to generate hypothetical scenarios that violate a common sense grasp of fair and reasonable play.
Rule 16b may not contain enough specific detail on this point about “responsibility”.

A player answers his opponent – “Yes I set my clock the correct way you are inquiring about” – only to find late in the game when things are crucial that the clock owner did Not set the clock in the manner he promised.

It is unrealistic to say the other player (the non-owner of the clock) is responsible for physically inspecting the clock to verify that the clock owner has set it properly.
.

14

While we are into looking at the rules let us not overlook the following from 42B: “If such clocks are used in competition the providers should, upon request, explain all relevant operational facts to the tournament director and each opponet.”

A creative TD can simply use this rule to penalize the clock owner for not explaining the proper operation of the delay when it is not set and they claim it is. The trick here is that most times when the delay is not set, while it is believed to actually be set, to determine if it was intentional or not. In most cases the intention was to set the delay and it just gets done wrong by the clock owner (or someone else that sets the clock for them). One, but not the only, solution is for the TD to not determine if the delay non-setting was intentional or not. Instead, set the delay and give the non clock owner additional time based on a total of 5 seconds for each move made and give no extra time to the clock owner.

Yes I know the chess lawyers will find a way to abuse about any rule or ruling, including this one, but it is not a perfect world. This solution has the up side of holding the clock owner responsible, no matter what, and also trying to make things right for the non-owner.

Of course with only a few seconds left…

15

Excellent suggestion. It avoids the whole argument of whether the incorrect setting was intentional, which invariably degenerates into a heated “he said she said” debate.

Even if no extra time is added for either player, there is still some justice done, as time will be added going forward.

Bill Smythe

16

I’m astounded at the number of responses here (some from very good TDs) arguing about whether or not John’s claim “please give me a delay clock” should have been granted. One more time: there is no such claim!

Where did you get this from? It clearly states in my first post:

John clled the TD over and pointed that there were “insufficient losing chances”

17

Since the quoted post clearly says “responses”, by definition it does not refer to your initial post.