Very wrong on my part; I plead brain siezure.

Allan

Sorry this is wrong. The draw offer is on the table until the opponent
makes a move. The opponent does not have to make a decision before the
TD rules.

Doesn't the ILC claim involve pausing the clocks? If the clocks are paused,
the opponent is not on move and may not move.

David

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...

So? There's still a draw offer being made. The opponent is entitled to
consider the draw offer - while the clocks are paused and the TD is
dealing with the ILC claim...and later, on his own time. The draw offer
disappears *only* when the opponent declines it - either verbally, or by
making a move on the board.

the TD may...or may not...make the draw offer moot by declaring the game
drawn - but if he doesn't, the draw offer is still on the table.

Ken, Thanks. This is very helpful in considering the full range of how
these claims are handled. Much appreciated.

David

I remember the first time I found out about this rule. I was playing
in a G/60 type situation with no delay clock. It was opposite-colored
bishops with my opponent having two rook pawns, one of them opposed by
my only pawn.

I was unaware of the rules, but I had heard players mention that they
could request a time delay clock. So I did so, and my opponent said,
"Sure, I'll take a draw." I was a little puzzled at the time, but I
did the obligatory handshake and posted the result.

We were playing a match, and the next week, we came back for Round 2.
I told him, "Hey, it was nice of you to offer the draw in that
position." He said, "Well, actually I was responding to YOUR offer."
After some conferring with the rulebook and the club TD, we determined
that I hadn't actually directly claimed insufficient losing chances,
and so I hadn't directly offered the draw. However, had the TD come
to the table, he should have first asked me if I was claiming
insufficient losing chances (I would have), and then proceeded from
there.

I should note that a lot of club TD's don't know the rules, and so I
highly recommend to all players to know the rules inside and out.


"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message gy.com...
Here's the scenario:

Two players are playing a G/30 game with an analog clock. The tournament
allowed use of a digital with 5-second delay, but neither player had a
digita. It's Black's clock...White didn't have one.

White got into time trouble. With two minutes left to play, he stopped the
clocks and asked the tournament director for a digital clock (there was now
one available from a nearby finished game).

The tournament director said White could have a clock with 5-second delay,
but would only get half his remaining time, in this case 1 minute. Play
resumed with the new clock, and White now had 1 minute remaining with a
5-second delay.

Was this a fair ruling?

In article ,
(Fifiela) wrote:

It's clear to me that it's an ILC claim with a draw offer implied and I
would
have so informed both players.

I disagree with Alan here. I have often discussed the request with players who
have asked for a delay clock and they frequently have no idea that the ILC rule
exists, just have seen the clock put on other games and thought it would help
them win.

The TD has three options when facing a request for a delay clock (player says "
I want a delay clock".) First, tell him it's not allowed and walk off. Second,
tell him you are treating his request as if he had properly made an ILC claim
and proceed as if he had done so. The third option is to tell him that he
cannot just request a delay clock and explain how he might be able to get a
delay clock put on the game by making an ILC claim if it is appropriate, SD
control and less than 5 minutes on his clock and delay not already on the game.

In my opinion, option 3, discussed in front of both players is best. First,
both learn the rule and second, they are both completely aware of their
options.
Regards, Ernie
Ernest W. Schlich

In article ,
(Fifiela) wrote:

All rules have extreme exceptions. Your situation may or may not qualify
but I
would persue the appeal.

Rule 21H1in both the new (unchanged) and old book applies. "A player may appeal
a director's ruling .... within one half-hour AND BEFORE THE PLAYER RESUMES
PLAY ...."

The player can of course appeal the ruling to the USCF but I would expect it
would be disallowed. If I were on the rules committee and hearing the appeal,
first I would disallow it as the player did not appeal the TDs ruling in
accordance with 21h1. 21F1, which is also the same in both the old and new rule
book, clearly states that by not immediately appealing the ruling, in most
cases, they have waived the right to later appeal unless new evidence later is
discovered. In my opinion, not knowing the rules does not come under this
exception.

An important concept to keep in mind is to never allow a player to benefit from
a delayed claim. It is very unfair to allow a player to defer appealing a
ruling which would result in him getting a draw until after he sees if he can
win the game over the board. This is a primary reason behind the requirement
for an immediatle appeal in 21H1.
Regards, Ernie
Ernest W. Schlich

In article m, "The Masked
Bishop" wrote:

Since the TD did not mention the draw possiblity, but just changed my
opponent's clock at his request, I think I am obligated to belly-ache to him
about this. It might go nowhere, but it's now obvious that the TD misruled. TMB


I would belly-ache frequently and pointedly. It sounds like this is the only
way to force the TD to take the time to learn the rules. However, it should not
get you the half point.
Regards, Ernie
Ernest W. Schlich

In article 7lJ3b.222317$cF.73729@rwcrnsc53, "Chris Merli"
wrote:

Sorry this is wrong. The claim is a draw offer which the opponent may
reject thereby requiring the director to rule on the claim. Once the draw
offer is rejected and the TD has ruled the outcome of the game can be a win
loss or a draw.

There are a great many TDs who disagree with the opinion I am expressing. My
reply is that if you implement the rule as written, it is the only proper
ruling. If you disagree, change the rule. Eric Johnson convinced me during the
discussion in the pamphlet he wrote concerning dealing with ILC claims.

Consider the situation where a player makes an ILC claim and the director rules
he will watch (14h2b2 in the new rulebook). When this occurs, THE CLAIM IS
STILL IN EFFECT. Now it happens that while the TD is watching the game, the
claimant's opponent drops his queen. As the claim is still on the board and it
is clear that there are no losing chances in this specific instance, it is
improper for the TD to rule that the claim is suddenly no longer in effect and
allow the game to continue with the claimant having a chance to win. This is
why the TD really has to consider the possibiliites when selecting this option.
I think this is the situation discussed where the claimant has only a drawing
opportunity. Obviously, it only continues until the TD makes a ruling of other
than draw. Then we are back to the situation where each player can win, lose,
or draw.
Regards, Ernie
Ernest W. Schlich