Appendix G Clock substitutions

[Roger de Coverly]

The recent Appendix G (10.2 as was) has a new clause enabling the arbiter to substitute a clock with a five second increment or delay as an alternative to declaring the game immediately drawn or watching the play to decide. A player making the "unable" claim is also making a draw offer, so it cannot be used as a means of trying to win when short of time. Despite the presence of digital clocks, I've only been at one Congress where it was announced that clock substitution could apply. The threat of substitution seemed to be enough to discourage any contested Appendix G claims.

So the question is as to whether any clock substitutions have been observed in action.

[Brian Towers]

The threat of substitution seemed to be enough to discourage any contested Appendix G claims.

It is my understanding that G.4 does not so much discourage G.5 (former 10.2) claims as pre-empt them. You may only go down the G.5 route if you have tried G.4 and been denied by the arbiter.

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger has not expressed himself perfectly.
G.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that a time delay or cumulative time of an extra five seconds be introduced for both players, if possible. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.

There is no suggestion the Arbiter can introduce a 5 second increment unless a player has requested it. This came as a big surprise to me, but it is what Bill Goichberg of the USCF wanted.

[Roger de Coverly]

Roger has not expressed himself perfectly.

There is no suggestion the Arbiter can introduce a 5 second increment unless a player has requested it. This came as a big surprise to me, but it is what Bill Goichberg of the USCF wanted.

I had not spotted that subtle point which gives the player the right to demand that "the arbiter decides".

No wonder it was difficult to formulate a rule "with no arbiter present". The pragmatic solution for a league is that if a digital clock is available, then you use a time rate such as 80 minutes with 10 second increments.

Another solution, not supported by clocks I suspect, is that the increment only applies when one of the players first hits five or two minutes remaining.

[Stewart Reuben]

>Another solution, not supported by clocks I suspect, is that the increment only applies when one of the players first hits five or two minutes remaining.<

Indeed not. But it would support the increment only after the first time control, say 90 minutes. It can also do so after 60 pushes, but I advise against that in the absence of an arbiter. 60 pushes is not the same as 60 moves, although it may prove to be. DGT clocks are the most versatile.

Anyway, if you have clocks which allow an increment, you should use them. The chess played is better. It is only in the absence of an adequate supply of digital clocks that quickplay finishes should be used.

Geurt Gijssen refers to the whole of G in the absence of an arbiter as the London League Rule. It is almost never used there though. It was a rule written for Britain. G4 came from the USCF and is a good addition to the Laws.

[Reg Clucas]

You may only go down the G.5 route if you have tried G.4 and been denied by the arbiter.

This aspect of G4 confuses me slightly, i.e. that the arbiter has to agree to the request that a 5 second increment be used. Why would an arbiter not agree to this?

[Stewart Reuben]

Reg Lucas >Why would an arbiter not agree to this?<
1. Lack of suitable clocks
2. Time before the next round too tight, although that is very unlikely
3. Lack of expertise in setting the clock
4 Failure to be acquainted with the Law

[Kevin Thurlow]

5. Too many other things to do

[Adam Raoof]

6. Anxious to eat lunch / dinner

[Roger de Coverly]

5. Too many other things to do

The context of this is that a player with under two minutes remaining has claimed a draw by "unable to win". If the arbiter is missing his or her lunch or evening meal, it is possible to immediately accept the claim thereby ending the game, but otherwise the game is going to require more attention and the presence of the arbiter than if an increment clock is quickly substituted.

[Martyn Harris]

Why would an arbiter not agree to this?

1. Lack of suitable clocks
2. Time before the next round too tight, although that is very unlikely
3. Lack of expertise in setting the clock
4 Failure to be acquainted with the Law

This seems to suggest that the player is entitled to claim increments. Does this mean that a player who has used most of his time surviving a middle game onslaught to reach an endgame 2 pawns down is then entitled to increments to see whether he can escape with a draw?

For some reason earlier discussions here had led me to believe that the difference between G5 and G4 was that under G5 a player effectively says "Please "Mr Arbiter Sir, call this a draw", whereas under G4 he says "Please Mr Arbiter Sir, give me some increments so that I can prove that this is a draw", and that under either scenario the arbiter is entitled to say "on your bike sunshine, no draw there". Consequently neither G4 nor G5 can be used with no arbiter present.

[Brian Towers]

Does this mean that a player who has used most of his time surviving a middle game onslaught to reach an endgame 2 pawns down is then entitled to increments to see whether he can escape with a draw?

Let's have a look, shall we?

G.4  If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request  that  a  time  delay  or  cumulative  time  of  an  extra  five  seconds  be introduced  for both players,  if possible.

So, yes. If you are so bad at the opening and middlegame that you end up in an endgame two pawns down, but you are such an endgame whiz that all you need is a 5 second increment to turn around a completely lost game, go to it! Let's see you beat an opponent who so far has beaten you all ends up.

It's really not going to make a difference, is it? On the other hand if you've squandered almost all of your time trying to win what looked like a positionally won game only to end up in a dead drawn endgame with say, a 20 minute to 2 minute clock disadvantage then a 5 second increment is likely all you need to demonstrate the draw. As long as you can keep moving you are never going to lose on time.

Note, by the way, that tricky little phrase:

or  cumulative  time  of  an  extra  five  seconds 

What that means is that clock type is no barrier to such a claim (Mr. Reuben, please note)!
Suppose you are using analogue clocks and have made 60 moves each. A "cumulative time of an extra 5 seconds" means an extra 5 minutes. If your opponent has bucket loads of time then he will still be recording and an accurate move will be available.

[Kevin Thurlow]

" If the arbiter is missing his or her lunch or evening meal, it is possible to immediately accept the claim thereby ending the game, but otherwise the game is going to require more attention and the presence of the arbiter than if an increment clock is quickly substituted."

I was thinking more of the scenario when there is a weekend event being played in three different rooms and there is only one arbiter. You don't have time to fiddle about with clocks for one board, when you are missing time-scrambles (etc.) elsewhere.

[Stewart Reuben]

To Brian Towers
You have misunderstood the rule - which basically I wrote. Or I have expressed it badly and you represent a large number of people who have been misled?
The extra 5 seconds per move is NOT retrospective. Are you seriously suggesting that an analogue clock be used and an extra 5 seconds per move be given mechanically, every move from then on?

[Roger de Coverly]

I was thinking more of the scenario when there is a weekend event being played in three different rooms and there is only one arbiter. You don't have time to fiddle about with clocks for one board, when you are missing time-scrambles (etc.) elsewhere.

Does it make any difference? Unless the arbiter gives an immediate judgement, they are tied to the board where the Appendix G claim has arisen. At least with a clock reset, they can leave the players to their own devices. If the claim had arisen with three minutes against two, it's not going to take long for a flag to fall or the game end naturally. If it's twenty minutes v two, the player with the time may well want to use it in search of a win.