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?

According to the 5th edition rulebook rule 14H the player is basically
claiming insufficient losing chances. It was a bit sloppy of the TD not to
make sure of the rule the player was invoking as technically he can not ask
for a change in the clock. I am also concerned that the TD did not point
out to the opponent that the request was the same as a draw offer. But the
basic ruling was accurate.


"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message
y.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?

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).

If White wants to use a digital clock, he should buy one. In my tournaments,
games begin and end with the same clock.

Thanks for the responses. I was Black in that game, down in material, and
went on to lose. But since at the moment of the stopped clocks I had a
tactical queening threat, and could have won back the material if white
misplayed, I have e-mailed the TD with the PGN of the game and have
requested a Draw. We'll see!

TMB

"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message
y.com...
Thanks for the responses. I was Black in that game, down in material, and
went on to lose. But since at the moment of the stopped clocks I had a
tactical queening threat, and could have won back the material if white
misplayed, I have e-mailed the TD with the PGN of the game and have
requested a Draw. We'll see!

TMB

Not sure if this is on point, but last night I was TD at my club when a
possible insufficient losing chances situation occurred. Perhaps someone
more experienced than I will tell me if I handled it correctly.

Black has K+R+2P; White has K+R+P. The pawns are on the same side of the
board. White, though down material, is blocking the pawns' advance and there
is nothing reasonable either player can do to make progress.

Black has two minutes left, White has 20 minutes left. The clock is analog
with no delay.

Black offered a draw which White declined. They played on for a while.
White, though he had much more time, actually played a series of weak moves
that gave him slight losing chances. At this point the players agreed to the
draw.

I was watching closely in case my services as TD were requested, but in
fact, they were not.

As soon as the game ended, I asked Black if he knew about the insufficient
losing chances rule. He said he did not.

I told him, "In this position, rather than lose on time, you could have
claimed insufficient losing chances. This is equivalent to making a draw
offer, so I would have asked your opponent if he agreed to a draw in this
position. If he said yes, the game would be a draw.

"If he said no, I would have to rule on the merits of your claim. Depending
on the exact position when you made your claim, I might grant your claim
immediately [remember I had already been watching for some time], or I might
ask to see a few more moves played before making a ruling."

I will just mention here that I am not a big fan of changing clocks during a
game unless the clock is malfunctioning. Also I do not have a digital clock
to substitute, though it is possible I might have gotten one from one of the
players who had already finished playing. In our club our time control is
40/80, SD/30. Games played with a digital clock are permitted to use
5-second delay with no minutes taken away from the time control.

After this game finished, one of the other players at the club--who is rated
2100--questioned my right to apply the insufficient losing chances rule to
the position in question. He argued that a C-player might lose this position
to a master; therefore it was not relevant for me to watch these particular
players to see if *they* understood how to play the position.

I don't agree with him that a C-player would have lost the position to a
master, but it seems to me he does raise a good question about watching.

Comments from any TDs about any of this? Bear in mind I am a Local TD who
scored only 87.5% (B+) on his test. ;-)

Tim Hanke

These questions result from the current foggy digita/analog age that we live
in. In another 5 years, digital clocks will be the norm and these questions
will fade.

But it's a good point, about switching clocks. As far as I'm concerned,
Black has clock choice, and clocks should not be switched in a game,
especially when one player stops them because he's in time trouble. I know
this goes against the trend of the rules, which are trying to "be fair" to
those players stuck with analog clocks. But hey, you want a digital clock,
go buy one. If the TD wants to mandate that digital clocks take precedence
over Black's preference, he needs to do that, too.

I personally think that this 5-second jive is causing more problems than
it's solving.

TMB

I don't agree with him that a C-player would have lost the position to a
master, but it seems to me he does raise a good question about watching.

As a TD, I once had a Big Dispute in a weekend tournament over a similar
position. I ruled that a C player would likely loose this position to a
master.

At my club a few days later the dispute continued with our strongest C player
claiming that a C player would never lose that positon. So I set up the
position with the C player and recruited a strong A player to play it out. C
player started out well enough and then a few moves later made the Big Blunder.
The A player won easily. You could try the same experiment at your club.

My rule of thumb is that a C player will lose almost any position with rooks
and pawns against a master.

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?

No.

Cavey, please elaborate on your "no." I'm contesting the ruling, and any
info would be helpful!

TMB

The Masked Bishop wrote:

Cavey, please elaborate on your "no." I'm contesting the ruling, and any
info would be helpful!

TMB

Three words which should never be uttered together on this forum are,

"Cavey, please elaborate"

It is forbidden to say these words outside the atmosphere of Planet
Kevin and the penalty is severe even there if one is not inside the Cave
of Pain or the Tower of Excruciation.

Even your magic underwear and the beauty of Michelle Pfeifer shall not
save your ass if you do this again.

Best Regards,

Bruce