From: hyatt@cis.uab.edu (Robert Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Tournament Report from Berkeley Quads last Saturday, 11/14...
Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:21:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.034120.5100@raven.alaska.edu> fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage]) writes:
>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.
>
>> 
>> 
>> 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?
>> -- 


It is simply rediculous to expect a TD to take part in such a scenario.  His
job is to handle pairings, rules disputes, etc.  It is NOT to watch every game
to see if either side is incapable of winning or losing.  If you play under
such rules, you deserve the type of tournament problems you are going to
have.  It is hard enough to get TD's nowadays, why make it worse by forcing
them to tell you when you aren't playing accurately enough to win or to draw?
This game isn't so complicated that USCF can't fix these problems.  Where are
all the rules committee members when these discussions are going on and why
aren't the rules simply "black and white"  I don't see the problem with
letting the clock decide the game regardless of material left.  If we get to
a K vs K game and I have less time than you, then we have played evenly yet
you used less time than me.  You are probably better.  It isn't perfect, but
it doesn't get the TD into the picture until a flag falls, and almost any
TD can handle that circumstance.....   :^)


-- 
!Robert Hyatt                    Computer and Information Sciences   !
!hyatt@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham !
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess