Author: KarinsDad
Date: 09:54:04 01/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 1999 at 03:56:38, Reynolds Takata wrote: > >> >>>I have always thought a director had to >>>make a decision on claims based on which came first? If that is the case a >>>person might be able to call no losing chances even if their flag has fallen if >>>the opponent hasn't called flag(this is yet to be tested:)). >> >>I disagree (not with the general rule of which claim came first, but with your >>example of it). >> > >Well as i said it is yet to be tested. To some degree i agree with you and to >some degree i don't. The don't part is because of the spirit of the no losing >chances rule. Which was developed so that people wouldn't lose a totally winning >or drawing position on time Yes, the no losing chances rule throws a big monkey wrench into the game in an attempt to resolve the fact that we have clocks at all. It is a rule designed to give an advantage to players who play slower and better (i.e. to protect the results of the game so far) over their opponents who play faster and worse. I've always disliked adjudications of any sort with the exception of forced draw situations due to repeat of position, 50 move rule (which handles the KBP vs. K example below if using a 5 second delay), or lack of mating material. The battle should be between two players within the rules of chess itself with a clock that gives both sides an equal amount of time. What may occur on a chessboard should be irrelevant. It takes the game out of objectivity (what happened) and into subjectivity (what could happen if). Simplicity should be the name of the game. Both sides have x amount of time (this is fair to both sides). Whoever mates, wins. Whoever forces a draw, draws. Whoever flags, loses. For example, I think the no losing chances rule in blitz chess borders on lunacy. One player makes a blunder, the other capitalizes, but the reason he capitalized was that he used up more of his time, and then since he is up material, he claims a draw with no losing chances. What a crock! This happens repeatedly in our chess club where an expert player has an advantage against a B class player, but the B class player played so well as to force the expert to use up a lot of time. The expert "swindles" out of the loss on time by claiming no losing chances and the B player only draws the expert instead of beating him. This often happens with a lot of pawns and a few minor pieces left on the board. Tournament directors (especially those rated lower than the player claiming the draw) are often unwilling to argue over it with someone higher rated, so they allow the claim. In blitz chess, blundering and time pressure is the name of the game and many experts with only 20 seconds on their clock (without a delay) would have a difficult time maintaining the draw within the time frame. > (ex Q+Q+Q+K vs K+P). And the precedent for the >clock not always being the judge for instance is when you have a (K+Q vs K) even >if the person who had the queens flag falls they don't lose the game because >essentially the POSITION is a draw(position dictating as opposed to clock). Ok, fair enough. I will amend my position to: 1) If it is totally clear to the TD that the side whose flag fell has a forced draw (such as K+B+P vs. k where the pawn is an h pawn, the bishop is on a white square, and the black k controls h8) or a forced mate (such as mate in 2), then the TD should accept the claim (even with the flag down). The forced mate will still only result in a draw though since the claiming player claimed draw, not mate (and so that this does not disagree with you mate and flag simultaneously rule). 2) If it is somewhat unclear at all (even if the flagged player has a winning game, but cannot immediately prove forced mate or a forced draw), then it should be a loss for the flagged player since the clock is part of the game as well as the position. The TD was called in to examine the game, hence he is called in to examine both the position and the clock. If the position doesn't definitively support a forced drawor forced mate, then the clock (being part of the game) should dictate. The player that flagged should have the right to have the game analyzed between rounds by the TD and the highest rated players and from this, the TD may change his ruling. If this does not happen, then for tournament standings and prize funds, the loss stands. The player could then appeal and have the USCF adjudicate the position, but this should only result in a possible increase/decrease in the player's ratings, not in a change of tournament results. One of the problems with the advancing of technology is that we continue to change the clock (and other) rules, the original intent of which was to give each side an equal amount of time (the 5 second delay does not do that) in which to play the game. It has migrated into this abyss of special rule on top of special rule. It's starting to get almost as bad as our legal system. Don't get me wrong. I do like the 5 second delay since it allows players to force a draw using the 50 move rule. I just don't like adjudications, especially ones that result in a win for one side. Once pratically everyone has a digital clock with delay capability (maybe 10 or 20 years hence), then I would like to see the no losing chances rule removed or limited to when you do not have the delay clock (the 50 move rule would then handle it and the clock could keep count of the moves). Once we get a 3000 rated chess computer, we could add in a rule that if you want to claim insufficient losing chances, you have to finished the game with a delayed clock and against the computer (i.e. you have to prove it). It wouldn't be that subjective then. BYW, if you want to see a real fun set of special rules on top of special rules, go check out the new ratings rules that the USCF ratings committee is proposing (and hence will probably pass). What a conditional mathematical nightmare that is! You raised good points :) KarinsDad >Until recently in fact there wasn't even this use of the clock, I believe the >rule just stated that if the tournament director judges that a C player could >force a draw or win with a master, then the TD had the option to declare the >game drawn(this rule has been amended to the way described previous). The rule >wasn't changed because of the spirit of the rule, but because disputes were >always arising people saying "that a C player could or couldn't EASILY force a >draw" thus the rule was subjective and brought about disputes as it was. So i >still hold that it might be reasonable that a person claims no losing chances >before the claim of flag is made, then perhaps the no losing chances should be >ruled on and a second given on the clock. Time can be given(in my game i >mentioned above i had 3 secs when i called no losing chance. The clock we used >didn't have half seconds so i was given 2 secs on the delay. Anyway this is >getting away from computer chess > >>To claim no losing chances, you should (or have to, I'm not sure) stop the clock >>to involve the TD. If you stop the clock to make the claim and your flag has >>fallen and your opponent doesn't notice that the flag has fallen, it would seem >>to me that it would be unfair for the TD to allow the claim. The TD should deny >>the claim, regardless of the position since you DO have a losing chance (your >>flag fell, you have technically lost, even if your opponent has not yet noticed >>it). He should say, "You have a losing chance, play on.". He should not tell why >>you have a losing chance, it is up to your opponent to see why. >> >>This would be the fair thing and would correspond to other rules. For example, >>if you mate an opponent and you hit your flag and your flag falls while hitting >>it, your opponent can claim that you lose on time, even though it "appears" that >>he is mated. The clock takes precedence (as long as your opponent notices it). >> >>If your flag has fallen and you have to change to a digital clock with delay, >>the TD should claim that "You lose.", even if your opponent does not notice the >>flag. Why? Because there is no time left, hence, the TD cannot place 0 seconds >>on the clock. >> >>KarinsDad
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.