From: fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage])
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Re: Tournament Report from Berkeley Quads last Saturday, 11/14...
Date: 20 Nov 92 03:41:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

Kenneth Sloan writes
> In article <1ehg31INNq33@agate.berkeley.edu> ding@wheatena.berkeley.edu (Howard  
Ding) writes:
> >
> >>Based solely on your description of the facts, I claim that the TD
> >>screwed up again.  There is nothing in the rules that says "TD watches
> >>play and forms an opinion on the skill of the opponents, or the likely
> >>outcome given their skill levels".  The rule talks about *positions*
> >>that are clearly drawn - *not* adjudications with arguments offered by
> >>the players.
> >>
> >The rules for sudden death CERTAINLY permit you to ask for an
> >adjudication (without score sheet).  I believe that the USCF catch
> >phrase is something like "in a position that a C-player could be
> >expected to draw easily against a grandmaster."  I agree that the TD should
> >_not_ have checked to see if _I_ could force the draw but should 
> >have followed the guideline, but this is a relatively minor point,
> >as an E player would draw the position (following) against God:
> >
> >8........
> >7...k....
> >6...P....
> >5...K....
> >
> >(either to move)
> >
> >
> 
> I know that I'll get into trouble by trying to counter your "belief" by
> actually citing the rule - but here goes:
> 
> Sudden-Death Rules
> ....
> 10. Miscellaneous
>     ...
>     D. In positions that are clearly drawn, such as positions 
>         with no pawns remaining for either side and with
>         greatly  simplified material (for example, king and
>         knight versus king and knight), the director may
>         intervene to declare the game a draw.  In these 
>         same positions either player may stop the clock and
>         ask the director for a draw.  ...
> 
> I can't find a reference to either C players or GM's.  Perhaps I've
> missed it.  Similarly, I can't find any reference to asking for an
> adjudication -  "adjudications" can go far beyond the scope of the rule
> cited above.  My point is (and was) that the TD should not be required to
> make such judgements.

This comes from CCA tournaments where this is the SOP for requesting draws in SD  
time controls.

> 
> Now...in my opinion, an E player has a very good chance of losing if
> given the weaker side of the position that you give above.  And, in my
> opinion, an E player can certainly lose the KRPKR ending that we started
> from (given *either* side!)  But my opinion is irrelevant - by my
> reading of the rule, neither position is "clearly drawn", especially in
> a time scramble.  In the KPK position, the *stronger* side can claim a draw
> under the "insufficient material" clause - but I wouldn't allow a draw
> for the weaker side under rule 10.D.

I would, however, especially since the players demonstrates knowledge of the  
technique.

> 
> Notice that the rule goes out of its way to specify "no pawns remaining".

Notice the use of the phrase "such as".
> 
> Since you are CERTAIN, you must have some rule in mind that I can't find
> - can you please cite the paragraph that CERTAINLY permits you to ask
> for an adjudication?
> -- 
> Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
> sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
> (205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station 
> (205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170

--
CONFIG.DAT not found.  Reboot universe?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess