An Argument Against Liberal Clock Substitution as a Method of Resolving 14H Claims

by Eric C. Johnson


Chess has a long history of rule evolution. The basic moves and powers of the pieces evolved over hundreds (if not thousands) of years. In this respect, chess is unlike many other board games in that the precise rules of play were not crafted at one time or by one set of persons as a well-defined whole, but instead emerged in bits and pieces over time.

But not all chess rules are subject to this type of long-term evolution. Some are the product of precise actions by various deliberative bodies.

For example, in response to requests by tournament organizers who wished to run shorter rated events, the USCF expanded its allowable time control rules to include the concept of "sudden death" games. A sudden death control is one in which the players must make all of their moves before time expires, regardless of length of game.

Rule changes often lead to additional rule modifications as unintended situations are exposed. The USCF's action in legalizing sudden death controls led to complaints that some players were playing on in grossly losing positions just to win games by time forfeit, something that was less common and frowned upon under the older rules.

In response, the USCF developed the "insufficient losing chances" rule language of 14H and 14I. It is the continuing evolution of this rule language, including the option to substitute a time delay clock in response to 14H claims, that serves as the basis for the current paper.


WHAT DOES THE RULEBOOK SAY?

First, let's review the language of the 14H and 14I rules as printed in the rulebook (4th edition):

14H. Claim of insufficient losing chances in sudden death.

14H1. Explanation. In a sudden death time control, a player with less than five
minutes of remaining time may stop the clock and ask the director to declare the game a draw on the grounds that the player has insufficient losing chances.

The draw shall be awarded if the director believes that a Class C player would have little chance to lose the position against a Master with both having ample time. The exact losing chances of any position cannot be calculated, but a director wishing a more
precise standard may consider "little" to mean less than 10 percent. A director unsure about whether a position meets the standard should temporarily defer a ruling by using option 14H4c or 14H4d.

14H2. Ratings of players irrelevant. The director should not consider the ratings of those playing in making the decision. A low-rated player who claims a draw vs. a Master should obtain the same ruling as a Master with the same position who claims a draw vs. a low-rated player. However, see 14H5, which may allow a player's ability to be of assistance.

14H3. Times on clocks irrelevant. The director should not consider the times on the clocks in making a decision. If the draw is awarded, this may save a player with a few seconds left from an otherwise inevitable time forfeit, but it is precisely the intention of this rule to protect players from losing on time when they are very unlikely to lose otherwise.

14H4. Resolution: The director has four possible ways to resolve the claim:

a. A director who believes the claim is clearly correct should declare
the game drawn.

b. A director who believes the claim is clearly incorrect should deny the
claim and subtract one minute from the claimant's remaining time.

c. A director who is uncertain regarding the validity of the claim may
temporarily deny it, make no adjustment of claimant's remaining time, and
watch the game with the intent of upholding the claim if the opponent is
making no progress.

d. A director uncertain regarding the validity of the claim also has the option of temporarily denying the claim, making no adjustment of claimant's remaining time, and inviting a later re-claim if the opponent is making no progress.

This option is particularly useful when the claimant's opponent has 
substantial time remaining and the director cannot commit to lengthy 
viewing of the game. The director should attempt to view the game on
occasion and may rule a draw if appropriate, even without a re-claim.
To resolve a "no-progress" re-claim, the director has the same four 
options listed above, 14H4a through 14H4d.

14H5. Conferring with players. A director who is unsure how to rule may confer
privately with either player or with both players separately regarding the player's 
plans. The director should be careful not to say anything which might assist the 
player if the game is resumed.


The USCF rulebook goes on (in section 14I) to list various positions which may or may not fall under 14H. The most important of these sections is the following:

14I2. Types of positions. In complex positions often neither side has a valid claim, while in simple positions both sides may have one. For instance, with much material on the board a Master may be down a piece without compensation but still have better than a small chance to beat a C player. But in endings such as described in 14I3, even a player behind in material should sometimes be awarded the draw.


Other examples listed include reduced material opposite color bishop endings (14I3, usually a draw under 14H), queen vs. queen or rook vs. rook (14I4, a draw under 14H), bishop or knight vs. rook, rook vs. rook and knight, queen vs. queen and bishop or knight (14I5, claim denied but watching for progress suggested under 14H), king vs. king plus rook pawn, king vs. king plus wrong rook pawn and bishop (14I6, a draw under 14H), rook vs. rook and bishop (14I7, claim denied and time penalty assessed).



GUIDANCE FROM THE CLOCK RULES PAMPHLET

In 1998, the USCF issued a helpful and well-received pamphlet that summarized the older 14H and 14I rules, as well as some newer rules concerning time delay clocks.

The intent of the pamphlet was to provide a quick and readable summary of the current rules so that TDs could apply them to local events. The language of the pamphlet was not meant to be encyclopedic, covering all possible situations and rule nuances, but was instead intended to stress the primary points of the rules.

This focus on the primary points of the rules was important because even the earlier rule changes had not been effectively communicated to the federation membership.

The overall format of the pamphlet was chronological, with important definitions coming first followed by an explanation and history of the 14H rule. Readers were presented with the original 14H language as it appears in the printed rulebook, precisely because this is the reference work they were most likely to consult during a live claim.

Once the foundation of 14H was discussed, the pamphlet went on to give the details of the newer time-delay rules.

For our present purpose, it will be helpful to review what the pamphlet says concerning 14H claims:




"The Insufficient Losing Chances Rule

Tournaments with sudden death time controls have become increasingly
popular. One reason for this is that these types of events allow several
games to be played in one day.

However, one side effect of sudden death time controls is that a player with a 
winning position may find that he or she does not have sufficient time remaining to actually win the game. In some extreme cases, the player may lose on time in a 
grossly winning position.

This situation strikes many players as unfair, because the game ought to be decided by moves made on the board. In response to this situation, the USCF created the insufficient losing chances rule..."

The pamphlet then goes on to summarize 14H1:

"14H1. In a sudden death time control, a player with less than five minutes
of remaining time may stop the clock and ask the director to declare the game
a draw on the grounds that the player has insufficient losing chances.

The draw shall be awarded if the director believes that a Class C player
would have little chance to lose the position against a Master with both having
ample time. The exact losing chances of any position cannot be calculated,
but a director wishing a more precise standard may consider "little" to mean
less than 10 percent."

The pamphlet then gives more advice based on the 14H rule language:

"Note that under the `insufficient losing chances' rule, the players' actual
ratings are irrelevant, as is the time remaining on the players' clocks. However,
the player making the claim must have less than five minutes remaining - 
otherwise the game continues.

Also, there is a subtle but distinct difference between insufficient losing
chances and actual winning chances. A player may be winning the game
but still have significant chances of losing.

Directors have several choices under the insufficient losing chances rule.
The director may decide:

1. The claim is clearly correct, and award a draw.

2. The claim is clearly incorrect, and deny the claim and subtract one 
minute from the claimant's remaining time.

3. The claim is too close to call, and ask the players to resume the game.
Under this option, the director may watch the game with the intent of 
upholding the claim if the opponent is making no progress. A director who
is watching a game after an insufficient losing chances claim may declare the
game drawn even if the original claimant's flag falls.

4. The claim is too close to call, and instruct the claimant to make a later
re-claim if the opponent is making no progress.

The clock pamphlet then gives some examples to flesh out these options, including a case of king, bishop, and wrong rook pawn vs. king (weaker side gains immediate 14H relief), rook vs. rook (either side gains immediate 14H relief), complex double rook ending with many pawns (claim denied and time penalty assessed), and reduced material opposite color bishop ending (watching is recommended).


TIME DELAY CLOCK SUBSTITUTION AS A FIFTH OPTION

Subsequent to the printing of the rulebook (4th edition), the USCF added a fifth option for directors faced with insufficient losing chances claims. The rules now allow a director to substitute a time delay clock as a way of resolving borderline 14H claims.

The clock pamphlet describes this option as:

"In addition to the options described under the section `The Insufficient Losing
Chances Rule,' the director may, at his discretion, replace the mechanical clock
with a digital clock with time delay feature.

If the TD chooses this option, the claimant gets half of his remaining time, up to
but not exceeding one minute. The opponent's time is not adjusted. The default
time delay of five seconds is used, and the game proceeds to a finish under the time delay rules. Either player may win, lose, or draw the game, and the 
game is over by normal means or 175 moves, whichever comes first."

This newest option is fast gaining ground as the preferred approach to 14H claims. However, the liberal application of this option presents special problems which are the primary focus of this paper.






THE SIX BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INSUFFICIENT LOSING CHANCES

>From this quick review of the original 14H and 14I rule language, several important principles can be formulated. These principles stem directly from the rules and will prove useful to our analysis later on.


PRINCIPLE ONE: The intent of 14H is to prevent players with simplified, clearly non-losing positions from losing due solely to clock considerations, and the appropriate remedy under 14H is a draw.

This principle stems directly from the rule language under 14H3, and is the foundation for all 14H claims. Players who reach simplified, clearly non-losing positions have recourse under the rules to the remedy of a draw.

In this regard, access to the remedy under 14H is no different than access to the remedies under 14C (3-fold repetition), 14D (insufficient material to continue), or 14F (50-move rule). Players may have very small amounts of time remaining on their clocks, and yet still avail themselves of relief under 14C, 14D, or 14F. In all of these cases, the appropriate remedy is a draw. The situation is no different under 14H.

Just as it is the intent of the rules that players who can repeat a position for the third time shall receive a draw (whether the position is winning or losing is irrelevant, as are the clock times), so too it is the intent of the rules that players who reach a valid 14H position (regardless of means or time remaining) shall receive the remedy of a draw if they so wish.

PRINCIPLE TWO: The objective nature of the position determines the outcome of 14H claims, not the relative strengths of the players involved in a particular game.

This principle stems directly from the rule language under 14H2, and is reinforced by the examples listed under 14I. More on this point later.

PRINCIPLE THREE: Two general categories of positions can be said to generate valid 14H claims. These include grossly winning positions (e.g., simplified positions where one side is up a large amount of material, such as K+R+N+3 pawns vs. K+N+3 pawns, where by virtue of possessing the large material advantage - in this case an extra rook - the claimant is unlikely to lose), as well as easily non-losing positions where the claimant is holding the materially weaker side of the draw (e.g., K vs. K+B+wrong rook pawn, as in 14I6).

This further division of 14H claim positions into grossly winning and easily drawing positions does not appear explicitly in the language of 14H or 14I. However, a moment's reflection will show that if a player has a simplified and grossly winning position, he also has extremely reduced losing chances.

The language in 14H1 informs us on this point. The language is "a player...may...ask the director to declare the game a draw on the grounds that the player has insufficient losing chances." One can have insufficient losing chances by holding a draw...or by winning.

It is certainly true that players can find the most appalling ways to lose games on occasion. However, the standard is not "zero" losing chances or "no theoretical losing chances." The standard is "insufficient" losing chances, which is a standard requiring the TD to judge the reasonableness of such losing chances or to collect data about the reasonableness of the claim.

PRINCIPLE FOUR: A winning or advantageous position is not sufficient grounds for a valid 14H claim, so long as sufficient complexity exists.

Here additional language from 14I2 informs us: "...For instance, with much material on the board a Master may be down a piece without compensation but still have better than a small chance to beat a C player." Thus, in a complex position a material advantage does not form the basis for a valid 14H claim. Indeed, the rule language specifically tells us that a material advantage may not be sufficient.

The clock pamphlet offers instructive language here, when it states: "...There is a subtle but distinct difference between insufficient losing chances and actual winning chances. A player may be winning the game but still have significant chances of losing."

The corollary here is that in a simplified position, the advantage of an extra piece (or more) greatly increases the chances that a valid 14H claim exists. Thus, K+R+N+3 pawns vs. K+N+3 pawns is *more likely* to be a valid 14H claim than K+R+R+Q+N+3 pawns vs. K+R+Q+N+3 pawns. The more material that leaves the board, the greater the impact of any extra material for the materially stronger side. Reduced complexity increases the chances that material advantage, by itself, produces a valid 14H claim.


PRINCIPLE FIVE: Borderline cases exist, where it may not be possible to immediately determine whether a valid 14H claim exists. In these circumstances, the director has recourse to a variety of data collection methods, including watching for progress and inviting a reclaim. Because player ratings and time on the clock are irrelevant to 14H claim resolution, it should be clear that the data collection refers to the position, not the players or their respective abilities.

Here the examples listed under 14I provide the foundation for this principle. For example, queen vs. queen and bishop (one of the examples under 14I5) is a case where the claim is denied but watching is recommended. Why? Partly because "the exact losing chances of any position cannot be calculated," and also because although some chances for continued play exist the position is greatly reduced in complexity.

The example of queen vs. queen and bishop as a borderline case highlights the inherent tension between "chances for error" and the likelihood of that error actually occurring. Thus, some data collection is required.

The example also informs us on the limits of such borderline cases under 14H. More on this later.


PRINCIPLE SIX: Some basic positions are so far removed from the set of valid 14H claim positions that the player should have his claim denied AND suffer a time penalty. In effect, the player "should know better" than to claim relief in these circumstances (e.g., the weaker side of rook plus bishop vs. rook, see 14I7.). 

This last principle is very important, because it explicitly states that some positions do not qualify for 14H relief of any kind (and that claims in such circumstances are denied and penalties enforced). We will return to this point later on.


ADDITIONAL PRINCIPLES FROM GENERAL USCF RULES

Some other basic principles can be added based on a general knowledge of USCF rules:

PRINCIPLE SEVEN: Claims generally cannot be withdrawn once made.

This principle is a basic part of USCF's body of rules, as the following examples demonstrate.

Example 1: A player makes a claim under 14C (3-fold repetition), only to find that he has a winning position. Can the player withdraw the claim?

The answer is no, as 14C7 shows us: "A player who makes a draw claim under 14C cannot withdraw it...." The rule goes on to state that the player who moves and presses the clock may find that his draw claim has been transformed into a draw offer, but this is entirely due to the fact that the player has violated the protocol for making a claim under 14C by playing the move on the board and pressing the clock - the proper procedure under 14C is to claim prior to making the move that repeats the position.

The general principle remains that claims, once properly initiated, cannot be withdrawn.

Example 2: A player offers the opponent a draw, only to realize that he has a winning position. Can the player withdraw the offer?

The answer is no, as 14B1 ("...the player who made the offer cannot withdraw it") and 14B3 ("...the offer may not be withdrawn") make clear.


PRINCIPLE EIGHT: Players have a right to expect that rules will be enforced fairly and properly, as indicated by the rulebook and all revisions. Valid claims will be upheld. Incorrect claims will be denied. Responsibility for all claim resolution rests with the TD. No special action is required on the part of the player(s) toward this end. 

This principle is self-explanatory...yet it will prove very helpful later on.



WHAT CLOCK SUBSTITUTION MEANS

At this point, it will be helpful to be more specific as to what it means to handle a 14H claim by means of a clock substitution.

Let us suppose that Player A makes a 14H claim, based on holding a material advantage in a reduced complexity position (e.g., K+R+N+3 pawns vs. K+N+3 pawns). His motivation for making the claim is that he has an estimated 10 seconds remaining in a G/30 time control, with the game being played under a mechanical clock.

His opponent has not responded to his numerous draw offers, choosing instead to play on in the hopes of winning on time.

How should the director rule?

Let us refer to the principles just formulated. Principle one states that the player should not lose on time in a simplified position he is unlikely to lose if he had ample time on the clock, and that the proper remedy is a draw.

Is a player likely to lose K+R+N+3 pawns vs. K+N+3 pawns? Barring unusual circumstances, such as the weaker side's pawns being well advanced, we would be safe to conclude that an extra rook is good protection against such an exceptional loss.

Principle two tells us that the position is what matters, not the ratings of the players or the time on the clocks. Whether Player A is a D-player or a grandmaster is of little relevance here, as the standard is whether the position is (objectively) hard to lose. In this case, it is so.

Principle three tells us that one type of non-losing position is a grossly winning position. Does an extra rook count as grossly winning? Here, under such reduced material conditions, the answer would seem to be yes.

Principle four tells us that, by itself, a material advantage is not sufficient grounds for a 14H claim...if the position is complex. But here the position is not complex.

Principle five gives guidance in the case of a borderline case. Exactly what counts as borderline might be up for discussion, but here, in the context of the other principles, the claimant's situation appears to be clear. 

Principle six refers to positions outside the scope of 14H. But our analysis shows us that the claimant's position *does* fall within 14H, and so principle six does not apply.

Principle seven tells us that claims cannot be withdrawn. Thus, Player A will have to live with the result of his claim. If the claim is upheld, the remedy will be a draw, and Player A will lose the chance to convert his winning position.

Principle eight tells us that the players have a right to expect the TD to enforce the rules fairly, and that they do not need to take special action to ensure that claims will be handled properly and in accordance with the rules. Thus, the opponent has a right to insist that the TD rule on Player A's claim...without fear of penalty.

Based on all available evidence - and the application of the principles - Player A's claim should be upheld and the game declared drawn.


WHAT ELSE COULD THE TD HAVE DONE?

The question arises as to what other options the TD had in the example just given (e.g., K+R+N+3 pawns vs. K+N+3 pawns).

Under the rules, proper 14H claims are supposed to be upheld immediately, and the remedy of a draw awarded.

But the rules also allow TDs who are uncertain about whether a particular position qualifies for 14H relief. to 1) watch for progress, 2) invite a reclaim, or 3) substitute a digital clock with time-delay.

In the given example, the claimant had very little time remaining (e.g., estimated 10 seconds). Thus, watching for progress or inviting a reclaim are not appropriate due to the small amount of time remaining. How about substituting a time-delay clock?

Some would argue that a clock substitution here would be OK, because the opponent, who is losing on the board, has the option of agreeing to the claim and so ending the game (e.g., game will be drawn). Only if the opponent is "stubborn" and insists on playing out his losing position will the clock substitution be made. Some opponents may choose to do this out of unfamiliarity with the mechanics of time-delay. Under those conditions, Player A will be able to win, lose, or draw the game by normal means....and so have the chance to "punish" the opponent for his unwillingness to face reality.

Is this fair? We will return to this point in a bit.




THE ROLE OF THE UNCOOPERATIVE OPPONENT

The argument has been advanced that liberal clock substitution is "fair" because a 14H claim can be viewed as a draw offer to the opponent. As such, any opponent who "declines" such an "offer" can be said to deserve the consequences of that decision, including a clock substitution where he can win, lose, or draw the game under the time delay rules.

What's more, this formulation (claim=draw offer) has been used at times as a pretext for attempts to void portions of the existing rules (e.g., In 1999, the rules committee attempted to collapse 14H4c "watching" and 14Hd "invite a reclaim" into the same rule, despite the clear and compelling language in the rulebook showing them to be distinct options with separate outcomes. Their attempt failed when it was shown that this move was outside their authority - only the delegates may remove existing rule options. The committee cannot "clarify away" existing rules.).

Although superficially attractive, this notion that a 14H claim is a "just a normal draw offer" obscures some subtle points. This interpretation (claim=draw offer) was initially proposed as a way to communicate the situation to the opponent (who often was confused about what a 14H claim means). But this metaphorical description has developed a life of its own, at times with disastrous consequences in terms of rules interpretation.

This position is most frequently advanced by those who view opponents as persons who deserve penalties for their uncooperative stance with regard to obvious claims, most especially 14H claims.

However, it is an important principle within USCF rules that the opponent is under no compulsion whatsoever to respond to claims by the player. Responding to (and resolving) claims is the TD's job, not the opponent.

For example:

A player claims a draw under 14C (3-fold repetition of position). The opponent may agree immediately, in which case the game is drawn without further administrative intervention. The opponent may disagree, in which case the TD is called over to verify the claim. The TD then takes appropriate steps to review the scoresheets and rule on the claim. If the player's claim is found to be correct, the game is drawn. The opponent never receives any penalty for insisting on TD intervention to confirm proper claims under 14C - it is *expected* that the TD will confirm such claims.

Another example:

A player claims a draw under 14D (insufficient material to continue). The opponent may agree immediately, in which case the game is drawn without further administrative intervention. The opponent may disagree, in which case the TD is called over to apply the rules and make the final determination. The opponent never receives any penalty for insisting on a TD ruling on 14D claims.

Another example:

A player claims a draw under 14F (50-move rule). The opponent may agree immediately, in which case the game is drawn without further action. The opponent may disagree, in which case the TD is called over to check the score of the game and determine whether a proper 14F situation has occurred. Again, the opponent never receives a penalty under 14F for insisting that the TD make the final determination. Indeed, under 14F, the opponent receives a time bonus if the player's claim is found to be incorrect.


The principle should be clear by this point - the opponent is NEVER penalized for not immediately agreeing to a claim by the player, even if such a claim is found to be correct. The opponent is never obligated to respond to the player's claim. The opponent has a right to ask for TD intervention to verify all claims, even trivial ones of checkmate and stalemate, as well as more complex ones of 3-fold repetition of position, insufficient material to continue, and 50-move rule draws. And the opponent has a reasonable expectation that incorrect claims will be turned down straight away.



ANOTHER 14H EXAMPLE

Let us give another example where a player is making a 14H claim, only this time let us change the parameters a bit.

Player A is making an insufficient losing chances claim in a complex ending (e.g., K+R+N+5 pawns vs. K+R+B+4 pawns). Let us assume that Player A has the materially stronger side here (an extra pawn), but the great complexity of the ending makes it unclear whether the material advantage matters or not.

Everything else is the same - our claiming player has approximately 10 seconds remaining in a G/30 time control, and a mechanical clock is being used.

How does the TD rule?

Consulting our list of principles, we see that by principle four, a material advantage does not, by itself, serve as sufficient foundation for a 14H claim. Just because the claimant has an extra pawn, it does not follow that he has an automatic right to a 14H remedy. The key is to have either a grossly winning or easily drawing position. A complex - but balanced - ending meets neither of these criteria.

Furthermore, principle six tells us that some positions are so far removed from being legitimate 14H claim positions, that the claim should be immediately denied and a time penalty enforced. In effect, the claimant "should know better" than to seek 14H relief in a complex position, because 14H relief is designed for grossly winning or easily drawing positions.

Finally, principle eight tells us that *both* players have a right to expect that the rules will be enforced fairly and properly...without any special action being required on their parts. Thus, if a position does not qualify for 14H relief, the opponent has a right to expect the claim to be denied.

Under these circumstances...where the claimant has a complex position falling outside of 14H...the proper TD decision is to deny the claim.

But is this likely to happen, given the new clock substitution rules?



THE HARM TO THE OPPONENT

Some TDs will ask what the harm to the opponent is, given the situation described in the current example (e.g., K+R+N+5 pawns vs. K+R+B+4 pawns), if instead of denying the claim a clock substitution is made.

The benefit to the TD is obvious - he gets an easy way to deal with Player A's claim under 14H.

These TDs will go a step further by stating that, because the opponent can always agree to a draw at the start of the substitution process, what is the harm?

The harm is shown by principle eight, under which the opponent has a reasonable expectation that inappropriate claims will be denied.

Instead, the clock substitution places the opponent in an uncomfortable spot. He can either 1) accept to a premature draw in a position with plenty of complex play, or 2) allow the opponent to receive the benefit of an additional time resource (e.g., time delay), under which the outcome of the game is now in doubt (i.e., both sides can either win, lose or draw).

The harm comes because at some stage of the preceding play, the opponent may have chosen to risk unclear complications (e.g., risky pawn sacrifice), certain in the knowledge that the game would remain complex enough to remain under the original mechanical clock rules.

The late switch to a open-ended time-delay time control....effectively penalizes the opponent for making that early decision.

Instead of reaping the benefit of a well-calculated risk in complex but slightly inferior position under finite time control, the opponent may now suffer the negative consequences of an open-ended time control.

It is important to keep in mind that the opponent here is not trying to win on time in a grossly losing position (e.g., K+N+P vs. K+Q+P, for example). Instead, the opponent has a balanced and complex position, and so has a reasonable expectation that the original time control would remain in place throughout the game (or that claims under 14H would be evaluated properly).


SHOULD ALL CLOCK SUBSTITUTION BE AVOIDED

Some may remain unconvinced that the opponent in the above example has truly been harmed. Is it proper, they might ask, for an opponent to try to win a complex position solely on time?

Again, we refer to our principles. Principle one states that 14H relief is to be provided for those positions where the player is unlikely to lose EXCEPT on time.

But complex, balanced endings are not such situations. Complex, balanced endings fall outside the scope of 14H.

Principle five offers us guidance here. Some number of borderline positions exist (e.g., queen vs. queen + bishop) where watching is appropriate. These are exactly the cases where the new option of clock substitution is most appropriate.

But principle six tells us there is a LIMIT to the range of such borderline cases. Cases such as rook vs. rook + bishop do not get 14H relief. Instead, they get a time penalty. They should not get clock substitution relief, precisely because the player "should know better." Why? Because the defending side faces grave difficulties in holding the game, as confirmed by tournament praxis. 

Such situations are clearly not "non-losing," and all that clock substitution does is offer the time-pressured defender an extra, undeserved resource to attempt to hold the game or to convert a small material advantage. Such TD intervention is clearly in violation of principle eight, under which the opponent can reasonably expect such incorrect claims to be denied.

In fact, we can formulate two new principles:

PRINCIPLE NINE: Absent a valid insufficient losing chances claim or a true borderline case under 14H/14I, an opponent has a reasonable expectation that a game started under a mechanical clock (and associated rules) will play to a finish under such original rules.

PRINCIPLE TEN: TDs have an obligation to resolve claims directly, not simply to find mechanisms for avoiding or indefinitely stalling claim resolution.





WHY DO DIRECTORS FAVOR LIBERAL CLOCK SUBSTITUTIONS? 

Some directors have expressed a preference for a very liberal clock substitution policy, using clock substitution in almost every case where a player makes a 14H claim. Why do they do this, when it should be clear by now that such a broad expansion of 14H is against the spirit, if not the letter, of the rules?

As written, 14H requires TDs to make a judgment about the losing chances inherent in a position at the time of a claim. Some TDs do not feel comfortable making these judgments, either due to a lack of basic chess skills or an unwillingness to acquire this knowledge.

This lack of basic chess knowledge makes these TDs fearful of resolving 14H claims, for fear of making a wrong decision (especially when higher-rated players are involved).

Other TDs object to the underlying principle of 14H....believing (falsely) that 14H is a way of "saving players" who should otherwise deserve to lose on time.

Yet another group of directors believes that time-delay rules are superior to standard mechanical clock rules, and that players should be encouraged to play under time-delay conditions whenever possible. Thus, these directors are pre-disposed to view clock substitution (wrongly) as a benign form of director intervention.

None of these reasons is particularly compelling. Lack of knowledge should never be considered sufficient reason for a TD to misapply the rules. Neither should the TD's personal feelings about the rules. And, as this paper has tried to make clear, directors who believe that liberal clock substitution is a benign decision that harms neither player do so without considering the full implications of expanding the reach of 14H.

Principle eight makes it clear: the players have a right to expect the rules to be enforced fairly and properly...without special action on their parts. The fact that clock substitution may make the TD's job *easier* is not sufficient reason for disregarding the players' reasonable expectation that all claims will be handled properly.


LEGITIMATE BORDERLINE CASES

Clock substitution is an appropriate and proper choice when the player makes a claim in a borderline position. It is *not* appropriate if the player makes a claim in an inappropriate position, as has been shown earlier.

Thus, it is more important than ever for TDs to have a firm understanding of what does...and what does not...constitute a borderline position.

For purposes of stimulating further rules debate, I offer the following 10 positions as examples where TDs would benefit from greater clarification, and ask that the rules committee offer such guidance. Which of these are borderline 14H cases...and which are outside the reach of 14H (and thus not appropriate for clock substitution)?

1. K+N+6 pawns (3 kingside/3 queenside) vs. K+B+6 pawns (3 kingside/3 queenside)

2. K+R+1 pawn vs. K+ R (with weaker side showing Philidor's drawing resource on board)

3. K+Q vs. K+R+R

4. K+R+3 pawns (all kingside) vs. K+R+3pawns (all kingside)

5. K+R+N+5 pawns vs. K+R+B+4 pawns

6. K+R+2 pawns (h-pawn and f-pawn) vs. K+R

7. K+R+R+Q+5 pawns vs. K+R+R+Q+5 pawns

8. K+R+N+Q+5 pawns vs. K+R+R+Q+4 pawns

9. K+R+1 pawn vs. K+R (stronger side has Lucena position on board)

10. K+ R+5 pawns vs. K+R+4 pawns


Many more positions are possible, but these should be sufficient to establish greater guidance on what types of positions do...and which do not...count as borderline positions where watching or clock substitution would be appropriate. Action by the rules committee is urgently needed.

Absent such guidance, there is a real risk that some TDs will utilize clock substitution on nearly all 14H claims (thus damaging the rights of the opponent).


SUMMARY

It has been the primary point of this paper that liberal clock substitution is misguided to the extent that it unnecessarily expands the number of 14H positions and places an unfair burden on the opponent to either accept a premature draw or face the penalty of a (potentially) unfavorable time control change.

If clock substitution is used as a measured response (similar to the director watching or inviting a reclaim in limited, borderline cases), it has a useful place as a TD tool. If clock substitution is heralded as the first response of a TD to any and all 14H claims, it leads to results and implications that conflict with the existing corpus of USCF rules.

END