Why have time delay?

[W.T_Hales]

@Smythe Dakota

@W.T. Hales

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. …

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

I agree completely, Bill. I take full responsibility for my loss. The point
was meant a bit tongue in cheek and as a warning to others

I do think time delay with time taken from the original (let’s say rather
than Game/75 we play 70 with 5 second increments) tends to favor more
nimble players. I am not old by any means, but I have trouble completing
a move in 5 seconds. Knowing this, I am reluctant let my time run down
too far. If I know I can’t move in 5 seconds, I pretty much start out with
a time disadvantage if my opponent can move within 5 seconds.

If I had 7 seconds, I could do it. With only 5, I consistently lose time unless I move completely without thinking.

Perhaps a good goal for me in such a situation would be to focus on forcing a draw first (by making sure my opponent has no checkmating
material).

The problem I have is not getting my full 75 minutes. If I had five more
minutes, no problem. I can win that. But I can’t win an endgame with
5 seconds per move–I’ll lose it by not moving quickly enough. Let’s say I’m down to no time and 5 seconds per move: try queening a pawn and
hitting your clock in time. For me, at least, it is difficult. Nimble players
can actually gain time at 5 seconds per move.

I’d much prefer to have the five minutes more on my clock. That way, I
could take 10 seconds per move and still make 30 more moves (probably enough to win most situations). If the method of leaving my original time be and adding increments is used, I feel a bit more comfortable with it.

What is the purpose of the time delay feature? I would guess to
prevent absurd wins based solely on time. The only problem is, it can
also cause absurd wins. If I have a king with two rooks, and my opponent has a king and two pawns, I can still lose by not moving within
five seconds. (Even I could make those moves quickly enough!).

I see two ways to compromise on this:

#1. Time delay for one and not the other. Why not have this option? I
am not sure if todays clocks can handle it, but I don’t see why this
would not work. That way each player can choose his method that
works best for him. The person with time delay would accept less
initial time as the cost of choosing delay. No ILC for either side
would be permitted, though.

#2. Time delay but with ILC still possible at the 2 minute mark. This
gives people the ability to prove a draw, but not the ability to
steal a win. Isn’t this more in the spirit of preventing absurdities?

If we were at the old time controls, things would be a lot easier. It is
not easy to play quality chess in 75 minutes. I particularly hate not
getting to write down my moves due to time pressure.

All this being said, I can live with the rules as is and will modify my play
accordingly. I just don’t like time delay–it favors younger more nimble
players.

Go easy on me guys…This is, after all, an opinion.

Sincerely submitted,

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

[edgy]

@W.T. Hales

All this being said, I can live with the rules as is and will modify my play
accordingly. I just don’t like time delay–it favors younger more nimble
players.

Go easy on me guys…This is, after all, an opinion.

I think what your respondents are trying to say is, it’s the sudden-death that favors the young and nimble, not the delay; the delay makes things a little better by preventing the game from becoming completely smash-the-clock.

Your sig says you’re a TD, so why not try not subtracting the 5 minutes in your events? If you have any influence at your club, maybe they could try a few tournaments with a longer delay, say 10 seconds?

-ed g.

[rfeditor]

@Localtdforsythe

@jwiewel

14D, 14E and 14G state that the game is drawn, period.

@rfeditor

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.

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!

You are mistaken. All that “Remember a 14D draw claim is first a draw offer (Rule 14, The Drawn Game)” means is that the opponent can say “I agree to a draw,” relieving the TD of the need to make a ruling.

There is a fundamental difference between 14D and 14H. Under 14H, the TD must evaluate the position and determine whether to uphold the claim. In 14D the TD must merely verify the absence of mating material, an objective fact. If you do not understand the difference between these, you really should not be discussing the question.

There is no “right” to play out a position in which neither player has mating material any more than there is a “right” to keep playing on after checkmate. The game is over.

[Localtdforsythe]

Rule 14 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).

@rfeditor

You are mistaken. All that “Remember a 14D draw claim is first a draw offer (Rule 14, The Drawn Game)” means is that the opponent can say “I agree to a draw,” relieving the TD of the need to make a ruling.

John if you and me have the position with K vs K. You look up at me and say the word draw. Will look right back at you and say play on. Are you telling me since I have a time delay clock you want a draw. I want you to prove to me on the board King vs King is a draw. So I have rejected your draw claim.

Now if you want to talk with the director that is fine. Then you are asking the director for adjudication of the game. The rule 14D says the game is a draw, it does not say the director has the right for adjudication. The director can use rule 14.2, but that is part of the 14 rules and one is the rule 14H. With rule 14H, it does say the director has no right for adjudication. It does not matter if you have more then 2 minutes or less then two minutes. the spirit of the rule is no adjudication.

The only way I can have adjudication of a 14D rule is bring out rule 14J. John if you want me to use 14J for adjudication of the rule 14D. If the director can have one position have adjudication against the wish of one player with a delay clock. If the player can demand adjudication against the wish of the opponent with a delay clock. Then all the players can demand adjudication against the wish of the opponent with a delay clock.

John study Immanuel Kant. If the spirit of delay clocks is not have the director have the right for adjudication. Then the position does not matter, what matters is the delay clock. John what you are asking is hedonism, making the greatist amount of people happy is not my cup of tea. John you are asking me to break the rule for you to make you happy. If you did not have a time delay clock, would be happy to adjudicate the game for you. If you have an analog clock, would be happy to adjudicate the game into a draw. The problem is, you have a time delay clock.

There is no “right” to play out a position in which neither player has mating material any more than there is a “right” to keep playing on after checkmate. The game is over.
[/quote]

[rfeditor]

@Localtdforsythe

Rule 14 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).

@rfeditor

You are mistaken. All that “Remember a 14D draw claim is first a draw offer (Rule 14, The Drawn Game)” means is that the opponent can say “I agree to a draw,” relieving the TD of the need to make a ruling.

John if you and me have the position with K vs K. You look up at me and say the word draw. Will look right back at you and say play on. Are you telling me since I have a time delay clock you want a draw. I want you to prove to me on the board King vs King is a draw. So I have rejected your draw claim.

Now if you want to talk with the director that is fine. Then you are asking the director for adjudication of the game. The rule 14D says the game is a draw, it does not say the director has the right for adjudication. The director can use rule 14.2, but that is part of the 14 rules and one is the rule 14H. With rule 14H, it does say the director has no right for adjudication. It does not matter if you have more then 2 minutes or less then two minutes. the spirit of the rule is no adjudication.

The only way I can have adjudication of a 14D rule is bring out rule 14J. John if you want me to use 14J for adjudication of the rule 14D. If the director can have one position have adjudication against the wish of one player with a delay clock. If the player can demand adjudication against the wish of the opponent with a delay clock. Then all the players can demand adjudication against the wish of the opponent with a delay clock.

John study Immanuel Kant. If the spirit of delay clocks is not have the director have the right for adjudication. Then the position does not matter, what matters is the delay clock. John what you are asking is hedonism, making the greatist amount of people happy is not my cup of tea. John you are asking me to break the rule for you to make you happy. If you did not have a time delay clock, would be happy to adjudicate the game for you. If you have an analog clock, would be happy to adjudicate the game into a draw. The problem is, you have a time delay clock.

There is no “right” to play out a position in which neither player has mating material any more than there is a “right” to keep playing on after checkmate. The game is over.

[/quote]

If you insist on going through this absurd rigamarole –

1. A position of K vs. K arises. You look at your opponent and say “draw.” You opponent says “no” and makes a move.

2. You stop the clock and summon a director. When he arrives, you tell him you are claiming a draw under 14D, Insufficient material to continue. (“The game is drawn when one of the following endings arises, in which the possibility of a win is excluded for either side.”)

3. The TD looks at the position. If he’s a cretin, he then looks at page 45 of the rulebook and finds “14D1, King vs. king.” He verfies that the game is a draw.

All this is explicit. It is unambiguous. It is written in standard English. If you are reading it in any other way, I’m afraid we have no basis for communication.

[W.T_Hales]

Can’t we all just get along?

I think TDs are allowed a certain amount of discretion. If someone
wanted to play on with K+B vs. K+B, I would declare the game a
draw. Let them complain to USCF if they don’t like it.

I’m not sure if the rules are written technically correct, but I think
I understand what they mean. Let common sense prevail.

Sincerely submitted,

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

[rfeditor]

@W.T. Hales

:shock:

Can’t we all just get along?

I think TDs are allowed a certain amount of discretion. If someone
wanted to play on with K+B vs. K+B, I would declare the game a
draw. Let them complain to USCF if they don’t like it.

I’m not sure if the rules are written technically correct, but I think
I understand what they mean. Let common sense prevail.

Sincerely submitted,

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

The TD has considerable discretion (which should always be exercised with restraint), but it is not unlimited. He cannot, for example, allow a (sudden-death) game to continue after both flags have fallen. Nor can he allow play to go on in an ending “for which the possibility of a win is excluded for either side” (14D). Speaking as a player, I would certainly file a complaint with the TDCC against any TD who refused to rule the game a draw with K vs. K or K+B vs. K+B. There’s no judgment involved; these cases are in the Rulebook.

The point, however, is that all this is completely irrelevant to the original topic, the desirability of time-delay. The presence or absence of a time-delay clock has nothing to do with the validity of a 14D (“Insufficient material to continue”) claim. Why keep bringing it up?

[Localtdforsythe]

@rfeditor

If you insist on going through this absurd rigamarole –

1. A position of K vs. K arises. You look at your opponent and say “draw.” You opponent says “no” and makes a move.

2. You stop the clock and summon a director. When he arrives, you tell him you are claiming a draw under 14D, Insufficient material to continue. (“The game is drawn when one of the following endings arises, in which the possibility of a win is excluded for either side.”)

3. The TD looks at the position. If he’s a cretin, he then looks at page 45 of the rulebook and finds “14D1, King vs. king.” He verfies that the game is a draw.

All this is explicit. It is unambiguous. It is written in standard English. If you are reading it in any other way, I’m afraid we have no basis for communication.

At a personal level support your claim. It would make me feel much better if I can give you a draw. Would at a personal level support your claim of a draw. As a director have to support the will of the law not my persoanl feelings. John you are asking me to cheat and break the rules for you.

[Forumer]

** The Time Delay concept is essential for any long time control that uses Sudden Death, such as in 40/90 SD/60. The purpose of the clock is to keep the game moving forward, not to become a tactical issue in itself.

** The common choice of 5 seconds for the duration of the Time Delay seems unnecessarily stingy. Doubling it to 10 seconds adds only a tiny amount of time percentage wise to the whole game, yet it makes endgame strategies worthwhile - a major plus. 5 seconds is too frantic.

** USCF rules that require the TD to make judgments about whether to declare a game a draw are and have always been ill conceived on principle, IMHOpinion. Better to give both players the right to declare the game a draw any time either so chooses after both players have completed 100 moves (or N=? number of moves). “Judgment”, “insufficient” - these are red flag words in a Rule book.

[rfeditor]

@Localtdforsythe

@rfeditor

If you insist on going through this absurd rigamarole –

1. A position of K vs. K arises. You look at your opponent and say “draw.” You opponent says “no” and makes a move.

2. You stop the clock and summon a director. When he arrives, you tell him you are claiming a draw under 14D, Insufficient material to continue. (“The game is drawn when one of the following endings arises, in which the possibility of a win is excluded for either side.”)

3. The TD looks at the position. If he’s a cretin, he then looks at page 45 of the rulebook and finds “14D1, King vs. king.” He verfies that the game is a draw.

All this is explicit. It is unambiguous. It is written in standard English. If you are reading it in any other way, I’m afraid we have no basis for communication.

At a personal level support your claim. It would make me feel much better if I can give you a draw. Would at a personal level support your claim of a draw. As a director have to support the will of the law not my persoanl feelings. John you are asking me to cheat and break the rules for you.

I’m sorry, Doug, but you clearly do not understand the rules, and you should not be making assertions about them that may mislead inexperienced TDs.

[Localtdforsythe]

@Forumer

Better to give both players the right to declare the game a draw any time either so chooses after both players have completed 100 moves

The USCF did remove the 175 move rule with the delay clock. The problem with the delay clock with long games, they can run into the next round. If the players have the delay clock with a five second delay, if they make 360 moves (360 moves X 5 seconds X 2 players = 1 hour) they have added one hour to the clock. In theory any single game could have 360 moves or more. The director has no right for adjudications with any delay clock.

[Localtdforsythe]

@rfeditor

I’m sorry, Doug, but you clearly do not understand the rules, and you should not be making assertions about them that may mislead inexperienced TDs.

John:

The position on the board is pointless with a delay clock on the board. It does not matter if there is insufficient losing chances or not. It does not matter if there is insufficient material to continue or not. The reason for the delay clock, the director have no right for adjudication on the position of the board.

[timjust]

@Localtdforsythe

@rfeditor

I’m sorry, Doug, but you clearly do not understand the rules, and you should not be making assertions about them that may mislead inexperienced TDs.

John:

The position on the board is pointless with a delay clock on the board. It does not matter if there is insufficient losing chances or not. It does not matter if there is insufficient material to continue or not. The reason for the delay clock, the director have no right for adjudication on the position of the board.

Doug,

Huh?? Why would a director want to adjudicate a game with a delay clock?

Tim

[W.T_Hales]

Gentlemen:

After having read and re-read the section, I believe there could be
a misinterpetation of the rules here.

You may offer a draw whether a time-delay clock is used or not. Your
draw offer can be based on many different reasons. If your opponent
rejects the draw offer, then you may decide to involve the TD.

If the TD finds that a 14A or 14D type draw is present, the game is a
draw. No “proof” of this is necessary by using a delay clock, and play
must cease. The game is done.

14H, Insufficient Losing Chances, only occurs if the position is not clear
cut as described in 14A or 14D. As the book says, a 14H claim is FIRST
a draw offer. So the director must FIRST judge the validity of the draw
offer, using all criteria in chapter 14. If the position is not clear cut,
then the person claiming the draw (if delay clocks are used) under 14H
would be making an incorrect claim, and could be penalized. (See 14H2d).

All draw offers are listed as first and foremost being draw offers. Once the offer is rejected, one has the right to involve the TD regardless of whether delay clocks are used. However, one might be penalized.

That is my reading on this, and the way I will enforce it should the matter
ever arise.

Sincerely submitted,

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

[W.T_Hales]

@Localtdforsythe

@rfeditor

I’m sorry, Doug, but you clearly do not understand the rules, and you should not be making assertions about them that may mislead inexperienced TDs.

John:

The position on the board is pointless with a delay clock on the board. It does not matter if there is insufficient losing chances or not. It does not matter if there is insufficient material to continue or not. The reason for the delay clock, the director have no right for adjudication on the position of the board.

Douglas,

I must respectfully disagree with your read of the rules. Since a 14H claim is FIRST a draw offer, the TD can decide if the draw offer is appropriate based on 14A, 14C or 14D. If not, the draw offer is clearly not correct and the offerer may be penalized. True, given no 14A, 14C, or 14D claim, if the offer is rejected, the TD may not adjudicate the position based on a 14H claim when a delay clock is being used.

Since 14H is FIRST considered a draw offer, the three steps outlined on
page 39 must be followed. Step 2 allows the TD to rule on the claim. This
ruling must be based on section 14.

That is the way I read this. It took me several reads to get to this conclusion. I offer this opinion, as all others, in the realization that I could be in error.

Sincerely submitted,

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

[Localtdforsythe]

@W.T. Hales

Douglas,

I must respectfully disagree with your read of the rules. Since a 14H claim is FIRST a draw offer, the TD can decide if the draw offer is appropriate based on 14A, 14C or 14D. If not, the draw offer is clearly not correct and the offerer may be penalized. True, given no 14A, 14C, or 14D claim, if the offer is rejected, the TD may not adjudicate the position based on a 14H claim when a delay clock is being used.

Since 14H is FIRST considered a draw offer, the three steps outlined on
page 39 must be followed. Step 2 allows the TD to rule on the claim. This
ruling must be based on section 14.

That is the way I read this. It took me several reads to get to this conclusion. I offer this opinion, as all others, in the realization that I could be in error.

That is fine, with myself very Platonic. If I say to myself on Monday something is not ethical, then on Friday it is ethical if it enpowers myself. then on Sunday go back to its’ not ethical. Thats way to much conflict, take a week or two to think of the idea then make a choice. There is no right or wrong, only the faith you have made as a choice.

Bill Symthe has been filling my mind for the past year how delay clocks are right. If it was not for the readings of Bill, I would not have picked this faith of delay clocks. Starting to hate delay clocks as two different sets of clocks, analog and delay are in total conflict. The idea of delay clocks are not to have any adjudications from the position of the board. If I go along and say one board can have adjudication with the position on the board, then go along and reject adjudication with the position on the board. Then I would base my rulings not on the rule of law, only what I am feeling at that time and place.

Do you want a judge on the bench, that gives out prison sentenses because of the mood of the judge? One day the judge can be in a great mood, the sentense 1 - 2 years. The next day the judge can be in a bad mood, the sentense 10 - 20 years. Nobody would want a judge on the bench having conflict like this.

The reason for time delay is not have the director have any right for adjudications. If you show me the same position, during different times of the week or the year. If I am in a good mood I can say oh White can win this game. If I am in a bad mood, I can say oh Black can win the game. If I am in a different mood, like I do not care what happens say its’ a draw.

The delay clock, stops the director from adjudications. If I grant you adjuducation, just to over turn a delay clock. Then I would be having a bias for you, being in a great mood for you and a bad mood for your opponent. Any adjuducation, is a clear bias of the director. Do we want a director have a clear and present bias for one player then the next? Do we want a director with a strong constution before the start of the round?

[W.T_Hales]

@Localtdforsythe

@W.T. Hales

Douglas,

I must respectfully disagree with your read of the rules. Since a 14H claim is FIRST a draw offer, the TD can decide if the draw offer is appropriate based on 14A, 14C or 14D. If not, the draw offer is clearly not correct and the offerer may be penalized. True, given no 14A, 14C, or 14D claim, if the offer is rejected, the TD may not adjudicate the position based on a 14H claim when a delay clock is being used.

Since 14H is FIRST considered a draw offer, the three steps outlined on
page 39 must be followed. Step 2 allows the TD to rule on the claim. This
ruling must be based on section 14.

That is the way I read this. It took me several reads to get to this conclusion. I offer this opinion, as all others, in the realization that I could be in error.

That is fine, with myself very Platonic. If I say to myself on Monday something is not ethical, then on Friday it is ethical if it enpowers myself. then on Sunday go back to its’ not ethical. Thats way to much conflict, take a week or two to think of the idea then make a choice. There is no right or wrong, only the faith you have made as a choice.

Bill Symthe has been filling my mind for the past year how delay clocks are right. If it was not for the readings of Bill, I would not have picked this faith of delay clocks. Starting to hate delay clocks as two different sets of clocks, analog and delay are in total conflict. The idea of delay clocks are not to have any adjudications from the position of the board. If I go along and say one board can have adjudication with the position on the board, then go along and reject adjudication with the position on the board. Then I would base my rulings not on the rule of law, only what I am feeling at that time and place.

Do you want a judge on the bench, that gives out prison sentenses because of the mood of the judge? One day the judge can be in a great mood, the sentense 1 - 2 years. The next day the judge can be in a bad mood, the sentense 10 - 20 years. Nobody would want a judge on the bench having conflict like this.

The reason for time delay is not have the director have any right for adjudications. If you show me the same position, during different times of the week or the year. If I am in a good mood I can say oh White can win this game. If I am in a bad mood, I can say oh Black can win the game. If I am in a different mood, like I do not care what happens say its’ a draw.

The delay clock, stops the director from adjudications. If I grant you adjuducation, just to over turn a delay clock. Then I would be having a bias for you, being in a great mood for you and a bad mood for your opponent. Any adjuducation, is a clear bias of the director. Do we want a director have a clear and present bias for one player then the next? Do we want a director with a strong constution before the start of the round?

Douglas,

I can’t exactly comment on everything you said as it seems to be written
as a parable. Adjudication would involve a judgment–judging a position.
No judgment is necessary if the position satisfies 14A, 14C, or 14D. Either it does or does not.

The important thing is what does the rule actually mean. It is possible
that different interpretations could exist, but I don’t seriously believe the
intention of the rule was to have opponents prove out a K vs. K+B to be
a draw. If that be the case, and no one ever went over their allotted time,
the game could go on until one player passed away.

I think unclear draws must be decided by delay clock when possible. Draws which are clearly defined under section 14 can be ruled a draw.

This is my final word on the subject, as I think the discussion here has become unproductive.

If Tim Just or Daniel Burg would like to add their two cents, I would consider it a breath of fresh air.

Sincerely submitted,

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

[Localtdforsythe]

W.T. Hales:

If the position is K vs K, there is a better way to get a draw then 14D with a deley clock. Inform the director you are going to be absence for the rest of the game. Your opponent can make the 20H claim, granting the director to make a adjudication as the game is over (as you informed the director of being absence for the rest of the game). Since the game is over, the rights of the delay clock are pointless as the game is over. Adjuducation is now granted, with rule 18G. Since the position has K vs K, declare the game a draw on best play by both sides. If your opponent wants to watch your flag fall. Then would grant a draw under rule 14E.

[smartidiot]

I think someone is reading too much into this. There is a clear rule that states the director may rule a legally defined draw (K vs K for example) a draw no matter if there is delay or not. Thus if the game is K vs K a draw can be ruled.

The reason for the delay is so that the director does not have to make a call on the ISL, it has nothing to do with adjudicating a game that is already drawn.

This mood thing has nothing to do with it. The USCF clearly states that delay is the preferred mode of timer, followed by an analog clock followed by using a digital with no delayed.

The delay clock, stops the director from adjudications. If I grant you adjuducation, just to over turn a delay clock. Then I would be having a bias for you, being in a great mood for you and a bad mood for your opponent. Any adjuducation, is a clear bias of the director. Do we want a director have a clear and present bias for one player then the next? Do we want a director with a strong constution before the start of the round?

Putting a delay clock on a game has nothing to do with bias. It is only fair if the ILC claim is not clear. Again, if it is a defined draw, the game is drawn, even if the flags have fallen. Putting a delay on a game will actually remove bias given that if you rule for ILC you may be showing a bias for a certain player.

[timjust]

Douglas,

Remember the old 4th edition of the rulebook? Check out rule 14K. Allegro Clock 175-move rule. Copy it. Post it at your tournaments. Use it. Let us know each time you use it. We eliminated the rule in the 5th edition because it had no value. It was not needed. Out of the millions of games played over the 10 year life of that rule it was used perhaps once–if ever.

In real life players with dead drawn endings do not play on forever. Theory and practice are different.

Tim