I came across this tournament rule in some chess book reading, and am
having
some trouble understanding the details and its application.

Can someone elaborate it a bit, in layman's terms? E.g. what is the
purpose of
switching to a digital clock with time delay? How does a player
decide when is
a good time to raise such a claim?

Thanks,
Raymond

On Mar 18, 12:07 pm, wrote:

I came across this tournament rule in some chess book reading, and am
having
some trouble understanding the details and its application.
Can someone elaborate it a bit, in layman's terms?

I suspect this rule was created to combat
players who might try to win from a lousy
position by pounding the clock until the
enemy's flag falls.

Suppose you have a King and Rook,
while I am short of time but have a King
and Queen; further suppose that I am so
lame that I cannot seem to get a handle
on your Rook, so I can just trade my
Queen for it and escape my extreme
time pressure to draw. Should you get
to *win* because of your time advantage
alone?


E.g. what is the purpose of
switching to a digital clock with time delay?

I have read here that these newfangled
time-delay clocks solve the problem of
time-pressure blunders, but it's simply
not true. Many players cannot play
accurately at just five seconds per move,
are not /trained/ to play at that pace with
any particular skill.

But I suppose they do reduce the
number of games decided by the clock,
as compared to games decided on the
board; in this respect, a time-delay is a
good thing.


How does a player decide when is
a good time to raise such a claim?

A good time would be *before* your
flag has already fallen, and you have
lost on time! You have to decide if you
are going to go for a win, or chicken out
and make such a claim. Several moves
earlier, it is likely you could have
foreseen the coming difficulties, and
began pondering which direction to
take-- are you a man, or are you a
chicken? I say lose on time by going
for the win; then blame the loss on
somebody else. No, wait! What I
meant was you should be brave, but
not stupid: figure the odds and act
accordingly.


-- help bot

On Mar 18, 12:07*pm, wrote:
I came across this tournament rule in some chess book reading, and am
having
some trouble understanding the details and its application.

Can someone elaborate it a bit, in layman's terms? *E.g. what is the
purpose of
switching to a digital clock with time delay? *How does a player
decide when is
a good time to raise such a claim?

Thanks,
Raymond

This is best answered by a tournament director, but I'll put in my
two cents' worth. The rule is intended to prevent a player who does
not have anything close to a win on the board from winning by means of
the clock. An obvious example, for the sake of clarity:

Nearing the end of a game with a time control of, say, G/2 (i.e. 2
hours for the game, whatever its length) Player A (White) has 20
minutes left on his clock, Player B (Black) has 1 minute. The position
on the board is White: Ke2, Be4, Pd3; Black: Kd4, Bc7.

This is a potentially winnable position, since if White can promote
his pawn he will have mating material, but his practical chances of
doing so are nil except against the most inept play. Even if White
were able to advance his pawn, Black could sac his B for it, leaving
insufficient mating material.
So, should White then be allowed just to make meaningless moves
simply to use up Black's remaining time? The USCF rule says no.

On Mar 18, 4:10 pm, wrote:
On Mar 18, 12:07 pm, wrote:

I came across this tournament rule in some chess book reading, and am
having
some trouble understanding the details and its application.

Can someone elaborate it a bit, in layman's terms? E.g. what is the
purpose of
switching to a digital clock with time delay? How does a player
decide when is
a good time to raise such a claim?

Thanks,
Raymond

This is best answered by a tournament director, but I'll put in my
two cents' worth. The rule is intended to prevent a player who does
not have anything close to a win on the board from winning by means of
the clock. An obvious example, for the sake of clarity:

Nearing the end of a game with a time control of, say, G/2 (i.e. 2
hours for the game, whatever its length) Player A (White) has 20
minutes left on his clock, Player B (Black) has 1 minute. The position
on the board is White: Ke2, Be4, Pd3; Black: Kd4, Bc7.

This is a potentially winnable position, since if White can promote
his pawn he will have mating material, but his practical chances of
doing so are nil except against the most inept play. Even if White
were able to advance his pawn, Black could sac his B for it, leaving
insufficient mating material.
So, should White then be allowed just to make meaningless moves
simply to use up Black's remaining time? The USCF rule says no.

The player ask the Tournament Director basicly to call the game a
draw. The player asking must have 2 minutes or less on thier clock.
The TD first ask the other play will take a draw. If the other player
says yes game over. 2nd if the player requesting is clearly winning it
is a draw. 3rd the Rule Book list a lot of common draws for this
claim. 4th the player has no business making this claim. Then 1/2 his
remaining time is put on the clock or the TD may put 1/2 his time on a
time delay clock with the delay set.
Please note if the game starts with a properly set time delay clock
this rule can not be used. please note the TD is the one who decides
to put the time delay clock on the game after the claim.

Terry

On Mar 18, 5:10*pm, wrote:
On Mar 18, 12:07*pm, wrote:

I came across this tournament rule in some chess book reading, and am
having
some trouble understanding the details and its application.

Can someone elaborate it a bit, in layman's terms? *E.g. what is the
purpose of
switching to a digital clock with time delay? *How does a player
decide when is
a good time to raise such a claim?

Thanks,
Raymond

* This is best answered by a tournament director, but I'll put in my
two cents' worth. The rule is intended to prevent a player who does
not have anything close to a win on the board from winning by means of
the clock. An obvious example, for the sake of clarity:

* Nearing the end of a game with a time control of, say, G/2 (i.e. 2
hours for the game, whatever its length) Player A (White) has 20
minutes left on his clock, Player B (Black) has 1 minute. The position
on the board is White: Ke2, Be4, Pd3; Black: Kd4, Bc7.

* This is a potentially winnable position, since if White can promote
his pawn he will have mating material, but his practical chances of
doing so are nil except against the most inept play. Even if White
were able to advance his pawn, Black could sac his B for it, leaving
insufficient mating material.
* So, should White then be allowed just to make meaningless moves
simply to use up Black's remaining time? The USCF rule says no.

It is a rule, incidentally, with which I strongly disagree. In my
opinion, White in the case you describe should have the opportunity to
reap the rewards of his superior time management. The clock is every
bit as much a part of the game as the king...

Regards,
zdrakec

On Mar 19, 4:47*pm, zdrakec wrote:
On Mar 18, 5:10*pm, wrote:





On Mar 18, 12:07*pm, wrote:

I came across this tournament rule in some chess book reading, and am
having
some trouble understanding the details and its application.

Can someone elaborate it a bit, in layman's terms? *E.g. what is the
purpose of
switching to a digital clock with time delay? *How does a player
decide when is
a good time to raise such a claim?

Thanks,
Raymond

* This is best answered by a tournament director, but I'll put in my
two cents' worth. The rule is intended to prevent a player who does
not have anything close to a win on the board from winning by means of
the clock. An obvious example, for the sake of clarity:

* Nearing the end of a game with a time control of, say, G/2 (i.e. 2
hours for the game, whatever its length) Player A (White) has 20
minutes left on his clock, Player B (Black) has 1 minute. The position
on the board is White: Ke2, Be4, Pd3; Black: Kd4, Bc7.

* This is a potentially winnable position, since if White can promote
his pawn he will have mating material, but his practical chances of
doing so are nil except against the most inept play. Even if White
were able to advance his pawn, Black could sac his B for it, leaving
insufficient mating material.
* So, should White then be allowed just to make meaningless moves
simply to use up Black's remaining time? The USCF rule says no.

It is a rule, incidentally, with which I strongly disagree. In my
opinion, White in the case you describe should have the opportunity to
reap the rewards of his superior time management. The clock is every
bit as much a part of the game as the king...

In my experience, one's opinion of this rule is directly related to
one's tendency toward Zeitnot. Quick movers think it's bad, slow
thinkers like it. Historically, I have exhibited the latter tendency,
but I don't recall ever being able to claim a draw under this rule in
a USCF-rated game.
On the other hand, I have harvested many points from quick-moving
but superficial-thinking opponents. So if a guy wants to make the
clock his main weapon, I'm OK with that, especially when I mate him
with a minute left on my clock while he has forty.
I have helped adjudicate a few claims under this rule, in minor club
tournaments. The USCF standard, as I recall, was that the position
should be such that a class C player could hold it against a master.
Is that still in effect?

On Mar 19, 6:20 pm, wrote:

So, should White then be allowed just to make meaningless moves
simply to use up Black's remaining time? The USCF rule says no.

It is a rule, incidentally, with which I strongly disagree. In my
opinion, White in the case you describe should have the opportunity to
reap the rewards of his superior time management. The clock is every
bit as much a part of the game as the king...


That is not really the case, for the clock
was "added on" in an effort to discourage
the rotten apples who refused to move as
as way of avoiding losing. Among so
called gentlemen, it was not really a
necessary part of the game.

However, it does have one other benefit:
the equalization of thinking times between
the two opponents. I think that is a very
significant benefit.


In my experience, one's opinion of this rule is directly related to
one's tendency toward Zeitnot. Quick movers think it's bad, slow
thinkers like it. Historically, I have exhibited the latter tendency,
but I don't recall ever being able to claim a draw under this rule in
a USCF-rated game.


Over the course of many years, the USCF
rules have been changed with regard to the
priority of the clock versus the board position.
Not all of these changes reflect the actual
preferences of chess players; they are more
a reactionary response to the chronic
complaints of the weak players who are
victimized.


On the other hand, I have harvested many points from quick-moving
but superficial-thinking opponents. So if a guy wants to make the
clock his main weapon, I'm OK with that, especially when I mate him
with a minute left on my clock while he has forty.


At certain points in time, the USCF's rules
committee could be credited -- if that is
quite the word -- for making the clock a
lethal weapon. Why blame it on the players?


I have helped adjudicate a few claims under this rule, in minor club
tournaments. The USCF standard, as I recall, was that the position
should be such that a class C player could hold it against a master.
Is that still in effect?


I've played in some events where a time-
delay clock was used, and nobody to my
knowledge made such claims; this fits
what was described earlier in this thread,
where it was claimed that use of a time-
delay clock made this rule inapplicable.

In my experience, Class C players play
terribly in winning positions against these
masters, and it is very likely that their
skill level will be vastly overestimated
by adjudicators. Offhand, I would guess
that perhaps half of all easily won games
are botched by the Class C players,
when facing such opposition. Against
grandmasters-- well, the GMs must
obviously be drunk to get into such a
position, so let's just refrain from trying
to guess the percentages.


-- help bot

zdrakec wrote:
On Mar 18, 5:10=A0pm, wrote:
Nearing the end of a game with a time control of, say, G/2 (i.e. 2
hours for the game, whatever its length)

Actually, that would be G/120. G/2 is two minutes per side.

Player A (White) has 20 minutes left on his clock, Player B (Black)
has 1 minute. The position on the board is White: Ke2, Be4, Pd3;
Black: Kd4, Bc7. [...]

So, should White then be allowed just to make meaningless moves
simply to use up Black's remaining time? The USCF rule says no.

It is a rule, incidentally, with which I strongly disagree. In my
opinion, White in the case you describe should have the opportunity
to reap the rewards of his superior time management. The clock is
every bit as much a part of the game as the king...

But it isn't `superior time management'. Black has used most of his
time to get to a position that's a crystal-clear draw. White, on the
other hand, still has twenty minutes left on his clock that he can't
do anything with. Black has managed his time better than White.

If the position on the board was the same but the players both had
only one minute left (so there's no question of one player having
managed his time better than the other), do you believe that the game
should be won on time by the player who's able to wiggle his king
faster? If so, why does the same not apply to cases where no
checkmate is even theoretically possible (e.g., two bare kings)? If
not, doesn't this demonstrate that the clock is actually less a part
of the game than is trying to checkmate the opponent's king?

It seems to me that, without a rule such as the USCF insufficient
winning chances rule or the similar FIDE article 10.2, good time
management is impossible in any game with a time control of `... and
then X minutes for the rest of the game.' In such a game, you could
never know how many moves your opponent will insist on playing in a
dead-drawn endgame so you'd never be able to leave enough time for
that. OK, so the fifty-move and repetition rules help but, even in a
simple ending, a player could drag things out for maybe a hundred
moves before either became available.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Broken Whisky (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ single-malt whisky but it doesn't
work!

On Mar 20, 7:35*am, David Richerby
wrote:
zdrakec wrote:
On Mar 18, 5:10=A0pm, wrote:
Nearing the end of a game with a time control of, say, G/2 (i.e. 2
hours for the game, whatever its length)

Actually, that would be G/120. *G/2 is two minutes per side.

Player A (White) has 20 minutes left on his clock, Player B (Black)
has 1 minute. The position on the board is White: Ke2, Be4, Pd3;
Black: Kd4, Bc7. [...]

So, should White then be allowed just to make meaningless moves
simply to use up Black's remaining time? The USCF rule says no.

It is a rule, incidentally, with which I strongly disagree. In my
opinion, White in the case you describe should have the opportunity
to reap the rewards of his superior time management. The clock is
every bit as much a part of the game as the king...

But it isn't `superior time management'. *Black has used most of his
time to get to a position that's a crystal-clear draw. *White, on the
other hand, still has twenty minutes left on his clock that he can't
do anything with. *Black has managed his time better than White.


I must respectfully disagree with this last comment. If the position
is even, and White has 20 minutes more than Black, then White has
needed less time to play at least as well as Black. Therefore, in my
opinion, White has managed his time better.
Regards,
zdrakec

On Mar 19, 5:20*pm, wrote:
On Mar 19, 4:47*pm, zdrakec wrote:





On Mar 18, 5:10*pm, wrote:

On Mar 18, 12:07*pm, wrote:

I came across this tournament rule in some chess book reading, and am
having
some trouble understanding the details and its application.

Can someone elaborate it a bit, in layman's terms? *E.g. what is the
purpose of
switching to a digital clock with time delay? *How does a player
decide when is
a good time to raise such a claim?

Thanks,
Raymond

* This is best answered by a tournament director, but I'll put in my
two cents' worth. The rule is intended to prevent a player who does
not have anything close to a win on the board from winning by means of
the clock. An obvious example, for the sake of clarity:

* Nearing the end of a game with a time control of, say, G/2 (i.e. 2
hours for the game, whatever its length) Player A (White) has 20
minutes left on his clock, Player B (Black) has 1 minute. The position
on the board is White: Ke2, Be4, Pd3; Black: Kd4, Bc7.

* This is a potentially winnable position, since if White can promote
his pawn he will have mating material, but his practical chances of
doing so are nil except against the most inept play. Even if White
were able to advance his pawn, Black could sac his B for it, leaving
insufficient mating material.
* So, should White then be allowed just to make meaningless moves
simply to use up Black's remaining time? The USCF rule says no.

It is a rule, incidentally, with which I strongly disagree. In my
opinion, White in the case you describe should have the opportunity to
reap the rewards of his superior time management. The clock is every
bit as much a part of the game as the king...

* In my experience, one's opinion of this rule is directly related to
one's tendency toward Zeitnot. Quick movers think it's bad, slow
thinkers like it. Historically, I have exhibited the latter tendency,
but I don't recall ever being able to claim a draw under this rule in
a USCF-rated game.
* On the other hand, I have harvested many points from quick-moving
but superficial-thinking opponents. So if a guy wants to make the
clock his main weapon, I'm OK with that, especially when I mate him
with a minute left on my clock while he has forty.
* I have helped adjudicate a few claims under this rule, in minor club
tournaments. The USCF standard, as I recall, was that the position
should be such that a class C player could hold it against a master.
Is that still in effect?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I was not speaking of using the clock as a weapon; rather, I was
speaking of enjoying the benefits of making decisions more quickly,
while obtaining (in this example) a position of at least equality. I
have harvested points from superficial-thinking opponents also (and
given up a few when thinking superficially myself,all too often), but
I've seen "superficiality" of both the slow and fast variety

Regards,
zdrakec