Why have time delay?

Running Chess Tournaments
21

I had a bad experience a few months back with my first delay game. I had a clearly won position, and my opponent was in time trouble. With
2 minutes left on his clock (5 second delay), he began making moves in blitz-like fashion.

I found this a huge distraction, especially with the crowd it generated.
After about 20 more moves, I blundered and eventually lost. My opponent had 15 seconds left. I had about 10 minutes.

I personally do not like time delays, but I understand the justification
for them. I do think time delay favors younger and more nimble players.
I have trouble making moves very quickly–so if I start with 70 minutes
rather than 75, I don’t tend to get my five minutes back. For me, it is
more the mechanics of moving the piece and hitting the clock quickly. For this same reason, I have noticed that my Game/5 abilities have diminished over the years.

My advice: if you don’t like delay, but your opponent wants to use it,
don’t count on any type of a time advantage. :wink:

As a TD, I hope the day never comes when I am asked to decide an
insufficient losing chances game. I wish there was a computer program
to do this, or some absolute standard. If the players are both 2100–how do I as a 1600-1700 player decide this? Luckily, most players I have encountered are very honorable, and would only make such claims under extraordinary circumstances (like opposite colored bishops).

I don’t think the original poster meant to be offensive. I took his remarks
to be satirical, but perhaps it would have helped to add a :laughing: or a :unamused: after the remark.

Sincerely submitted,

W.T. Hales, TD
Asheboro Chess Club (North Carolina)

22

The most recent ILS decision I had to make (last month) was after a game had gone almost 2.5 hours for each player (and probably more than 75 moves, though there was no scoresheet to verify that). It was between two experts with one expert having single digit seconds left and a stronger position before realizing that the digital clock had not been set for delay. He reached an obviously drawn ending with his knight stopping a g-pawn from safely reaching the queening square and with the knight dancing around the pawn while being chased by the opposing king. The only reason the opponent (who’s earlier draw offer had been rejected) was continuing to play was because of the potential win on time.

After playing like this for about 20 moves the player finally made an ILS claim with 2 seconds left. I did uphold it, but would have preferred that the clock had had its delay set so that the result of the game did not need my decision.

23

Do not understand why directors fear the 14H rule?

Have seen players play out the game, even when they could demand the 14H ruling. With the 14H rule, thats life deal with it or theorpy around $150 an hour. If it is not clear there is always 14H2a. Change the clock for a time delay clock, how spookie is that?

24

What’s wrong with 14H is a) no game should ever be decided by adjudication, and b) the result is inevitably affected by the playing strength of the TD. Any TD conceited enough not to “fear the 14H rule” has thereby proved himself too weak a player to make such rulings.

25

And the problem with the word insufficient means anything that would not be enough for a checkmate. John, it would be fair to say you have insufficient chance to be President of the United States. Then again I can say the Moon has insufficient chance to be President of the United States. Both statements are true, as the keys to the sentence are the words insufficient and chance.

It does not matter what the position on the board is. It does not matter if the claim is correct or false when there is a time delay clock. Even if the position is screaming out as a technical draw. If you have a position on the board with white Pawns on a4, b5, c4, d5, e4, f5, g4, h5 with the white King on e1; Black pawns on a5, b6, c5, d6, e5, f6, g5, h6 with the black King on e8. With this position can you win the game with White or Black? Would you be happy if your opponent wants you to play it out?

The problem with the 14H1 claim with time delay, it does not matter what the position on the board is. If there is a time delay clock on the board, the director has no right to declare a draw. Even if there is K vs K as the position, as the position is insufficient for checkmate for both White and Black to win with checkmate.

The rule 14H1 trumps any other rule, as the position can not be questioned with a time delay clock. The director has no rights to declare a draw when a time delay clock is on the board. If you have K vs K and you want a draw, I can not give you a draw as I do not have that right, when you have a time delay clock.

The rule trumps any rule even rule 14J, or any rule with any position. Except for stalemate, there is no rule for adjudications of any position. If 14H1 is stronger then the rule 14J, then it trumps everything with a position with an active board.

The rule 14H is not a common rule any director will have to perform in their life. Having a time delay clock just to stop the director from making any 14H claim. Its’ like having a snow blower in Key West Florida, it could snow you never know.

26

There is a difference between insufficient losing chances and NO losing chances. K vs K and K+B vs K are examples of NO losing chances. It is literally impossible for either side to lose the game even if the flag falls and I would interfere in such an ongoing game and adjudicate that as a draw in a heartbeat. K+R vs K+R with nothing special going on and no delay set on the clock is an example insufficient losing chances. That requires a claim by either player and a review of the position to make sure that there is no win currently on the board.

To take your presidential analogy, the moon has NO chances to become president while you may have insufficient backing to become president. A judge could summarily reject a nominating petition for the moon while that same judge would have to review a nominating petition for you to see whether or not there were sufficient signatures to put you on the ballot.

Whenever you have to make an insufficient losing chances decision you are stating that your understanding of the position is enough to make the correct decision. I would not be surprised to hear that ILS claims were made by people having overwhelming material superiority but facing a forced mate, and also would not be surprised to hear that sometimes an invalid claim was initially upheld by a director (even one at an expert-level playing strength) who did not initially see the forced mate. Since an ILS claim depends on the accuracy of the director making the ruling, no director should feel comfortable with judging a non-obvious position.

27

In a ridiculously drawn position, the 50 move rule could still save the day.

A TD could force adjournment of such a game–and let the players battle it out after completing other rounds. If they are not in the running for money, everyone else could go home.

I agree that NO losing chances is different. However, players with just
two bishops each do not qualify–but the 50 move rule would kick in.
As a TD, I would strongly encourage the players to agree to a draw in
such a ridiculous position.

Bishops of opposite color endings where one side has extra pawns is a
bit more tricky. These can lead to wins, though it is unlikely. I
would not begrudge someone with two extra pawns looking for a way to
make progress.

Players wanting to play on with no mating material are probably just
inexperienced. The game will be a draw regardless. I say let them play–
just go ahead and record the result for tournament purposes. :open_mouth:
Actually, in the case of youngsters, I would have several adults to agree
and convince them the position is a draw.

I’m beginning to think this topic may generate a lot of response!!

Sincerely submitted,

W.T. Hales, TD
Asheboro Chess Club (North Carolina)

28

I don’t want to be rude here, but I feel like I’m talking to a tree. In the first place, if a player does not have mating material, he can’t win the game. If neither player has mating material, the game is immediately drawn (and any additional piece shuffling is mere skittles) – see 14D. This argument is completely irrelevant.

In the second place, you seem to be missing my real point, which is that NO GAME SHOULD EVER BE DECIDED BY ADJUDICATION. Games should always be decided over the board. The director SHOULD NOT be involved in deciding the outcome.

I’m certainly not saying that every TD must have a time-delay clock. (If I had the choice, I’d go back to 40/2, 20/1 with no sudden death.) But if a delay clock is available, it should be used. The result of a game should not depend on the playing strength of the TD (or, more often, the lack thereof), nor on the ability of the players to argue and browbeat.

29

W.T., as one example of the difficulty in judging apparently equal positions, I can cite one of my round 12 games from a US Open some years back. The A-player I was playing against was trying to get a final round draw against an expert and had reached an ending with K+R+B+6P vs K+R+B+6P. My opponent had very little time left to reach the first time control, so I decided to extensively analyze the position (rather than trying to blitz him) and offered to trade rooks and go into the opposite color bishop ending. He accepted the trade offer because he did not have the time to also analyze the position and discover that I would be able to invade with my king and this was part of the roughly 1% of the time where the even pawn and opposite color bishop ending was actually a win. Even when you may think a position is clearly drawn you have to be aware that there may be more going on than there initially appears to be.

Since the strength of the players is not supposed to be considered there are other positions that are clear enough to readily justify a director simply denying the claim and not putting a delay clock on the game (such as K+N+P with nothing special happening trying to claim against K+N+3P). If the players are considerably weaker than experts then the player with the stronger side is less likely to find a way to actually push through the existing advantage, and that decision per the rules that refuses putting a delay clock on the game can also affect the outcome of the game.

Rfeditor, if you feel that, even in the K+N+P vs K+N+3P position, a delay clock should always be placed to resolve ILS claims (and the automatic draw offer made), then you will need to petition the rules committee to see about getting that rule changed in the future. A proposal such as that may need to be in a new topic, and seems worthy of at least being discussed regardless of whether or not it seems worthy of actually being implemented. I personally see very few negatives involved with using time delay.

As a side note, it is often worthwhile to determine whether or not a digital clock being used actually has the delay turned on. Since some clocks have the option to turn the delay on as a seperate function from setting the number of seconds of the delay (or can be set so that the delay is only on for some of the sessions of the time control), it is quite possible that a player with a fairly new or a borrowed clock may erroneously think that the delay is on when it actually isn’t, so simply asking the person who set the clock is not a guarantee of getting a correct answer. Check the time once both minutes and seconds are displayed.

30

There is even a way to get around the 14H claim. Some directors would have the round times of a G/60 event as 1pm, 3pm ect. If the players started the game with G/60 (t/d 5), the game can run into the start of the next round. The director can declare an emergency under 14J, as the players are still at play at the start of the next round. The director can declare a draw under 14J. The director can declare an emergency under 18G, as they players are still at play at the start of the next round. With rule 18G, the director can adjudicate the game with best play. The director can adjudicate the game as a win for White or a win for Black.

The director can trump the 14H1 claim, with the 14J or 18G claim. These claims can be declared from the director not the players. Even if you have a time delay clock, I can declare an emergency under 18G and adjudicate the position and say you lose.

If you have a time delay clock, you wanted the time delay clock so the game would not be adjudicated. In all the years as a director, never adjudicated any rated game, when there are two active clocks. Will never adjudicate any game under 14J or 18G, unless both players flags are down.

If you have a time delay clock, will not adjudicate any position you have on the board. If you can show me a stalemate, or repetition of position, then you will get a draw as that does not need a clock.

Some want to show 14D, the players still have the right to play it out. If you want the director to adjudicate the game with a time delay clock under 14D. Then you should not a problem for the director to adjudicate the game under 14J or 18G.

Its’ very simple, adjudicate all the games or have no right to adjudicate all the games. The law is very simple, the law shall not have some yes and some no. If you have a time delay clock, do you want the games adjudicated or not adjudicated. Society does not have laws to make us happy all the time. If someone gets a speeding ticket we can not say thats great but if you get a speeding ticket that law is bad. If you have a time delay clock, some positions are not going to make you happy every single time.

31

There are only two choices, do you want adjudication with time delay clocks or no adjudications.

Then you will not get adjuducation with a time delay clock. Then you do not have a claim under 14D, as you have an active time delay clock. Then you have a choice, walk away and get a draw under 14E, or play out the game under 14F. The problem with 14D, players can still play on till one or both players flags are down. There have been rated games when both players could make a 14D claim, they did play on till one or both players are in a 14E. If one director has let the players play on with a 14D till it ended in a 14E. Then I should respect the rights of the players to play on till one or both players flags are down.

32

Douglas, note that 14C, 14F and 14H state that the game is drawn when a player makes the claim. Having the claim made is a prerequisite to a 14C, 14F or 14H ruling.

14D, 14E and 14G state that the game is drawn, period. Thus a claim by a player is not required. If a player makes a claim under 14D, 14E and 14G to bring the situation to the director’s attention then that claim is also treated as an immediate draw offer which the opponent can accept even if the claim is incorrect. Since the game has by definition already ended in a draw, there is no reason to state that a delay clock precludes a director from making a 14D, 14E or 14G ruling on the finished game.

33

Please stop pumping out red herrings. 14D is not a “claim” in the sense that the TD has any discretion. If a position arises in which neither player has mating material, the game is drawn. Anything the players do after that is meaningless. The presence or absence of a time-delay clock has absolutely nothing to do with this.

If one player has mating material and the other does not, the game continues normally except that if the flag of the player without mating material falls, the game is drawn. The only effect of a time-delay clock here is that the player with mating material cannot make a 14H claim – but why would he want to? He might win and he can’t lose.

34

It’s not fair to blame your bad experience in this case on the delay. You simply let your opponent’s “blitz” strategy get to you. Psychologically, when he started blitzing, you got caught up in the excitement and followed suit.

It’s almost always a mistake to move quickly when your opponent is in time trouble. You are far more likely to blunder than he is – after all, he’s accustomed to time pressure, you’re not. Calm yourself, say a prayer, and force yourself to slow down.

Objectively, you would have been even more likely to fall into this trap without the delay. Your opponent’s time pressure would have seemed even worse, so the psychological effect would have been even greater. And your own lack of a delay might have increased the pressure still more.

If you still had 10 minutes remaining after the game was over, that means you had PLENTY of time when he started blitzing. You should have made use of it.

If the delay was in any way responsible for your loss, I think it is only because either (1) your own inexperience with delay added an element of unfamiliarity to the game, or (2) you came into the game prejudiced against the delay, and you let it bother you.

Bill Smythe

35

Could you not have simply slapped a delay clock on the game and let it continue? The result would have been the same, and all questions about the TD’s ability to judge the position would have been made moot.

In this case, your own rating (around 2000) was sufficient to judge this position accurately, but what if a TD rated 1400 had been in this situation?

Bill Smythe

36

Yes, if the 5-second delay is in use. If not, then the player may not have time to make 50 moves.

And again, the delay saves the day, as it makes the players far more likely to agree to a draw after just a few moves.

For the third time, the delay rides to the rescue. The player with the advantage can play on with a clear conscience, free of the guilt that may arise from the possibility of winning only because of the clock. And the player with the disadvantage is given a fair chance to prove he can draw.

Bill Smythe

37

Conversation continued in the Tournament Direction forum, under the title “Insufficient Losing Chances vs Insufficient Delay Time”.

Bill Smythe

38

TD TIP: Rember a 14D draw claim is first a draw offer (Rule 14, The Draw Game). page 45

With rule 14 on page 38 - 39, check page 39.

  1. The opponent may immediately accept the draw offer and end the game (14B).
  2. Instead, the opponent may ask the director to rule on the claim. If the director upholds the draw claim, the game is over.
  3. If the director does not uphold the claim (does not declare the game a draw), the game contimues. The implied draw offer is still in effect, and the opponent may accept it or reject it (14B).

If there is a time delay clock and one wants to play it out. If there is an active time delay clock, like I said I washed my hands from it as the goal of a time delay clock is not have adjudications. If you do not like it bring an analog clock!

39

Just to clarify, a director is explicitly given the authority to declare the flags fallen in 14G2, but not in 14E. Thus 14E does not automatically exist the moment the flag falls. It exists once the flag is actually called. That allows a span of time after a flag fall and before the call of the flag where the unsuspecting opponent can be mated and where the mate on the board can override the fall of the flag.

40

In this particular situation I not only felt confident in my skill in judging the position but also, having watched the position for about 20 moves before the claim was made, could point to the player having already demonstrated his capability of holding the position even if I felt I should take the option to reserve my opinion. Thus I felt this particular claim could be clearly upheld without needing to put a delay clock on it. I probably should have actually said “so that the result of the game did not need my decision in the event I was not strong enough to give a definite ruling”.