"John Fernandez" wrote in message
...

John,

-snip-

So then, N+R vs. B+R is a delay clock claim, and the arbiter should count.

I don't see how R+B vs R being clearly wrong and R vs N being unclear would
cause one to conclude that N+R vs. B+R is unclear as well. To me it's
clearly correct. I think, given AMPLE time and nothing unusual about the
position, a 1500 could hold against a 2200 better than 90% of the time.

(If
you don't, you're in a heap of trouble probably, especially with someone
like
Hikaru who is fast and accurate.)

A lot of players don't know to ask for help counting 50 moves when they have
less than 5 minutes in SD. Anytime the USCF rules give the TD the right to
do this on their own, I think the TD should avail themselves of the
opportunity.

By the way, it has been reported that Hikaru said he was a few moves away
from
giving the draw when he hung the knight.

How much time was on the clock when the player first asked for the draw?

IMO, either the claim was clearly correct, or a delay should have been put
on the game when the first draw claim (implied 14H) was made.

George

Also don't underestimate how many players own digital clocks but don't
know how to set the delay. A few don't even realize the clock has
delay-capability. Really. I had a 1900 player at the W.O. tell me that
his DGT "doesn't have a delay, of course."

Didn't seem to bother the guy. He probably doesn't realize that
Bronstein and delay are essentially the same. Would be nice to see the
terminology streamlined somehow....

ERM

The DGT clock is by far the clock which produces the most freak outs. I can
think of at least half a dozen times where Bronstein mode was in effect and
players started shrieking during the game "IT'S ADDING TIME!!!!!!" (Funny how
the clock got the same effect out of many different people.)

John Fernandez

George John wrote:

I don't see how R+B vs R being clearly wrong and R vs N being unclear would
cause one to conclude that N+R vs. B+R is unclear as well. To me it's
clearly correct. I think, given AMPLE time and nothing unusual about the
position, a 1500 could hold against a 2200 better than 90% of the time.

It's a matter of simplification, for me. A position is much easier to hold if
various derivatives are easily drawn. It's like if a player has one pawn left,
a rook pawn is usually never sufficient for a win, while a center pawn at least
gives practical chances.



A lot of players don't know to ask for help counting 50 moves when they have
less than 5 minutes in SD. Anytime the USCF rules give the TD the right to
do this on their own, I think the TD should avail themselves of the
opportunity.

I happen to think that anyone who DOESN'T count 50 moves in such a situation is
just a completely incompitent arbiter, unless he/she gets dragged away by
another dispute.

How much time was on the clock when the player first asked for the draw?

No idea.

IMO, either the claim was clearly correct, or a delay should have been put
on the game when the first draw claim (implied 14H) was made.

Given an analog clock being used, this is what would have happened. I'd suggest
delay clock, though.

John Fernandez

"John Fernandez" wrote in message
...

John,

-snip-

Given an analog clock being used, this is what would have happened. I'd
suggest
delay clock, though.

Under the current rules, if the claim is clearly correct, it is flat out
wrong to insert a delay clock.

I ask you once again, if both players had ample time, do you think a 1500
would hold against a 2200 more than 90% of the time in a K+R+N vs. K+R+B
endgame and nothing unusual in the position?

George

"Jane Adams" wrote in message
news:SG6Qa.873$Ze.733@fed1read03...

Why this is just so typical for the USCF. What makes you think that they
even need a new rulebook. Most of the time they just make things up as
they
go along when it is politically correct to do so. Just a big waste of time
and money.

Seems to me like a new version of the rule book could be a revenue source.
I know I used to buy a new version whenever they came out.

I'd heard that a new version was going to be released in August. Any truth
to that?

---
Douglas L Stewart

I ask you once again, if both players had ample time, do you think a 1500
would hold against a 2200 more than 90% of the time in a K+R+N vs. K+R+B
endgame and nothing unusual in the position?

I think that a 1500 would lose this position at least 25% of the time; Maybe
50%. That's why their a 1500.

Allan

"Douglas L Stewart" wrote in message
.. .

"Jane Adams" wrote in message
news:SG6Qa.873$Ze.733@fed1read03...

Why this is just so typical for the USCF. What makes you think that they
even need a new rulebook. Most of the time they just make things up as
they
go along when it is politically correct to do so. Just a big waste of
time
and money.

Seems to me like a new version of the rule book could be a revenue source.
I know I used to buy a new version whenever they came out.

I'd heard that a new version was going to be released in August. Any
truth
to that?

---
Douglas L Stewart




Douglas,

Does this mean that Hillary has anything to worry about? Will "Lying
History" drop into 2nd place after our rule book comes out? Will ChessDon go
on a book tour signing autographs with each copy sold? Will Carol Jarecki be
the pilot?

Jane
http://www.lvcm.com/jadams

George John wrote:

Under the current rules, if the claim is clearly correct, it is flat out
wrong to insert a delay clock.

Ultra-liberal clock substitution?!

I ask you once again, if both players had ample time, do you think a 1500
would hold against a 2200 more than 90% of the time in a K+R+N vs. K+R+B
endgame and nothing unusual in the position?

And again, I really have no idea what the number is. I'd say it's clearly
greater than 5%, but less than 25%. It's going to happen. That's absolutely
sure.

I think this brings us to the core of the idiotic C player vs. Master
construct, since in this case, it's really difficult. Let's say the C player
has studied N vs. R and R vs. R+B. In that case, I'd say it REALLY drops, since
the C player can blunder material.

C players are REALLY REALLY bad. I have many examples of C players and stronger
completely self-destructing in incredibly simplified positions with plenty of
time. I beat a 1775 player in a completely drawn K+1 vs. K+1 when he put his
king on the wrong square with over an hour left on his clock. I beat a strong A
player in a completely drawn K+2 vs. K+1 ending when he inexplicably blundered
with 15 minutes on his clock.

The reality is- C players are going to find incredible ways to screw up
positions. Sometimes even I'm amazed at the blunders people can produce, in
positions where even I have given up all hope of ever winning. Given that a
2300 player managed to lose it, that gives me more than enough reason to expect
a 1500 player to screw it up royally every now and then.

John Fernandez

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 00:37:43 GMT, "George John"
wrote:

I don't see how R+B vs R being clearly wrong and R vs N being unclear would
cause one to conclude that N+R vs. B+R is unclear as well. To me it's
clearly correct. I think, given AMPLE time and nothing unusual about the
position, a 1500 could hold against a 2200 better than 90% of the time.


To bad you do not play chess. If you could play our game, you would
know that a 2200 player would beat a 1500 player almost every time in
this endgame.

You would be advised to limit your comments where chess playing skill
are not a factor.

http://www.64.com/uscf/ratings/12679293

Sam Sloan

"Jane Adams" wrote in message
news:t9rQa.1544$Ze.685@fed1read03...

"Douglas L Stewart" wrote in message
.. .

"Jane Adams" wrote in message
news:SG6Qa.873$Ze.733@fed1read03...

Why this is just so typical for the USCF. What makes you think that
they
even need a new rulebook. Most of the time they just make things up as
they
go along when it is politically correct to do so. Just a big waste of
time
and money.

Seems to me like a new version of the rule book could be a revenue
source.
I know I used to buy a new version whenever they came out.

I'd heard that a new version was going to be released in August. Any
truth
to that?

---
Douglas L Stewart




Douglas,

Does this mean that Hillary has anything to worry about? Will "Lying
History" drop into 2nd place after our rule book comes out? Will ChessDon
go
on a book tour signing autographs with each copy sold? Will Carol Jarecki
be
the pilot?

chuckle...

Nothing like a bitter sock puppet...

--
Looney
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.patzersprogress.com