Rule 10.2 (a) AGAIN then

[Paul Dargan]

K+R+N v's K+R didn't Polgar once lose this or come close to losing this against Kasparov?

[Michael Bennett]

Yes she did.

[Event "It (cat.19)"] [Site "Dos Hermanas (Spain)"] [Date "1996.??.??"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "7"] [Result "0-1"] [White "Judit Polgar"] [Black "Garry Kasparov"] [ECO "B82"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "180"] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f4 e6 7.Qf3 Qb6 8.a3 Nc6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.b3 Bb7 11.Bb2 d5 12.Bd3 c5 13.exd5 exd5 14.O-O-O O-O-O 15.Na4 Qc7 16.Bf5+ Kb8 17.Be5 Bd6 18.Qc3 d4 19.Bxd6 Qxd6 20.Qxc5 Qxf4+ 21.Kb1 Rd5 22.Rdf1 Qe5 23.Qc4 Rb5 24.Qxf7 Bd5 25.Qxg7 Rg8 26.Qh6 Bxb3 27.cxb3 Rxb3+ 28.Kc1 Qc7+ 29.Bc2 d3 30.Qf4 Rc8 31.Qxc7+ Rxc7 32.Rf2 Ne4 33.Rf8+ Ka7 34.Rf7 Rbb7 35.Rxc7 Rxc7 36.Rd1 Rxc2+ 37.Kb1 Rxg2 38.Rxd3 Rxh2 39.Rd7+ Kb8 40.Re7 Nd2+ 41.Kc1 Nb3+ 42.Kd1 h5 43.Re3 Nd4 44.Nc5 a5 45.Nb3 Nc6 46.Rc3 Kb7 47.Ke1 Kb6 48.Kf1 Rh4 49.Kg2 Nd4 50.Nxa5 Kxa5 51.Rc5+ Kb6 52.Re5 Kc6 53.Kg3 Rh1 54.Kg2 Kd6 55.Ra5 Rh4 56.Kg3 Rg4+ 57.Kh3 Ne2 58.Rxh5 Rg3+ 59.Kh4 Rxa3 60.Kg4 Ke6 61.Rb5 Rg3+ 62.Kh4 Rg1 63.Rg5 Rf1 64.Ra5 Kf6 65.Ra8 Rg1 66.Rf8+ Ke5 67.Re8+ Kf4 68.Rf8+ Ke4 69.Re8+ Kf3 70.Kh5 Ng3+ 71.Kh6 Nf5+ 72.Kh7 Kf4 73.Rb8 Rg7+ 74.Kh8 Rd7 75.Re8 Kg5 76.Re6 Nd4 77.Re1 Kf6 78.Rd1 Rd5 79.Ra1 Ne6 80.Ra6 Kf7 81.Ra7+ Kg6 82.Ra8 Rd7 83.Rb8 Rc7 84.Kg8 Rc5 85.Ra8 Rb5 86.Kh8 Rb7 87.Rc8 Nc7 88.Rg8+ Kh6 89.Rg1 Rb8+ 90.Rg8 Ne8 0-1

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes she did.

Move 79 appears to be the culprit with 79. .. Rf1+ the only move to draw.

[Martin Benjamin]

I just can’t see any convincing arguments for retaining guillotine finishes which will sometimes lead to 10.2 disputes.

There are two very obvious ones.

The first is that digital clocks are by no means universal.

The second is that Congresses with multiple rounds in a day have schedules to stick to. e2e4 use 30 second increments so lack of scoring isn't a problem, but about once every five or ten Congresses they have to postpone the next round because the pairings cannot be done because of a game in progress. If you use increments of less than 30 seconds, the tournament arbiters need to know how to stop games where the 50 move rule would apply under normal circumstances.

In e2e4, there's an (informal) rule, that players in a late finishing game can request a modest postponement of their game in the next round.

Roger - I don’t find these arguments “convincing”. I think both objections are easily overcome if there is sufficient will. I think that many supporters of quickplay finishes in preference to increments are guilty of the very same suspicion of change they criticise in those who wish to retain adjudication and adjournment.

10.2 is clear and entirely fair; arbiters making occasional mistakes is a poor reason to abandon them. I personally loathe increments, essentially you are in time pressure from move 1, and a game may actually not end until one of the players keels over dead, if the increment is too short to allow the recording of moves in order to claim a draw.

Paul – The fact that this subject is being debated at length for the umpteenth time with different opinions from lots of experienced players suggests to me that interpreting 10.2 is not clear, and I am sure you have seen enough 10.2 disputes. I personally loathe quickplay finishes which involve someone losing on time with overwhelming material advantage, or pieces rolling around the board in a flurry of moves and clock-bashing, or one player essentially shuffling his pieces to win on time while pretending it is a serious winning attempt. Surely increments must be better than that.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think both objections are easily overcome if there is sufficient will. I think that many supporters of quickplay finishes in preference to increments are guilty of the very same suspicion of change they criticise in those who wish to retain adjudication and adjournment.

If clubs don't have digital clocks, that's something of an impediment to their use. If Congresses want an absolute assurance that games will be completed inside a fixed time frame, then you cannot use increments in their standard 30 second form. e2e4 have demonstrated that there are no particular difficulties using the 90 30 move rate, other than restricting the event to two rounds a day and suffering the problem of a overrunning rounds every so often. 10 second increments have been used by some events but it remains unclear how you terminate a game if 50 moves and repetition claims aren't possible and neither is arbiter intervention by 10.2 .

The timetabling issue is a serious one. The 4NCL considered introducing the increment equivalent to its seven hour sessions, but player opinion rejected it. I don't think the rejection was because of the potential delay to the evening meal on the Saturday, but the complete mess a long game could cause to travel arrangements on the Sunday.

Outside of London and surrounding areas, Birmingham and Sussex, I would think that games completed in a single session are universal and players will have devised a pace of play they feel comfortable with. If you don't like clock bashing and your league has a single session time control like G/90, you can completely avoid time scrambles for yourself by playing quickly enough for the whole game.

In single session leagues, the debate has moved on to allow increment move rates, clocks permitting and devising suitable rules for their use.

[Martin Benjamin]

I don't want to pursue this ad nauseam, so I shall keep it brief, but most clubs and individuals could afford digital clocks if the desire was strong enough. I have taken digital clocks from my club to other clubs for away matches to counter this problem. I think it is used more often as an excuse to avoid change than it is raised as a principled objection. As for tournament rounds running over, make the time controls such that a minimum of 120 moves or even 150 moves are guaranteed to be completed within the round time, with 10 seconds per move increment guaranteeing at least an additional 30 moves in 10 minutes thereafter, which is hardly a disaster. I rarely have time for weekend chess, but I believe that rounds starting late are not unusual as things stand. If a watertight solution is needed, as a last resort in exceptional circumstances, allow the arbiter to impose a compulsory 2 minute blitz finish.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I rarely have time for weekend chess, but I believe that rounds starting late are not unusual as things stand. If a watertight solution is needed, as a last resort in exceptional circumstances, allow the arbiter to impose a compulsory 2 minute blitz finish.

The main problem with over-running is the pairings for the following round. Examples of over-running increment chess should be noted, and then set against the number of games that didn't over-run. I remember the entry forms for the London congresses organised by Tony Corfe and TCS some time ago had the claim that they had never had an increments game exceeding the allotted time slot, though that may have happened eventually. Sean, with his e2e4 tournaments will be able to give some statistics as well - certainly one game at Hinckley back in August 2012 did over-run (to the extent that the final round started late for the top half of the draw in the Open). Actual numbers can be ascertained here. I would say less than 10 versus hundreds (possibly over a thousand) that didn't over-run, but that is just a guess.

[Roger de Coverly]

The main problem with over-running is the pairings for the following round.

Up to a point, the players may self police this. A desire for lunch or respect for the other players can overcome the attractions of torturing someone in a drawn position for fifty moves. My record is 20 moves and about twenty minutes. In a position with R + 2 v R+ 1 all on the same side, the R+1 v R was a fairly obvious draw because the defending King was in the right place. So I spent 30 moves trying to fiddle something. I could have continued for 50 moves or longer if I had gone for the R + 1 v R. In the event I decided to accept the logic of the position and allow the pairings for the next round to be prepared.

At one of the e2e4 Wycombe Congresses, March 2012 probably, the last round in the Open was delayed because there was still a round 4 game in progress at the scheduled start time.

[Richard Bates]

Yes she did.

Move 79 appears to be the culprit with 79. .. Rf1+ the only move to draw.

Hmmm. Bit tougher than i thought, even though the King was cut off. Tricky pieces, knights! Note: to self - don't head for a corner...

[Chris Rice]

The main problem with over-running is the pairings for the following round.

Up to a point, the players may self police this. A desire for lunch or respect for the other players can overcome the attractions of torturing someone in a drawn position for fifty moves. My record is 20 moves and about twenty minutes. In a position with R + 2 v R+ 1 all on the same side, the R+1 v R was a fairly obvious draw because the defending King was in the right place. So I spent 30 moves trying to fiddle something. I could have continued for 50 moves or longer if I had gone for the R + 1 v R. In the event I decided to accept the logic of the position and allow the pairings for the next round to be prepared.

At one of the e2e4 Wycombe Congresses, March 2012 probably, the last round in the Open was delayed because there was still a round 4 game in progress at the scheduled start time.

If the occasional game was over running couldn't the pairings for the next round assume a draw/win? That's what they used to do in the good old days of adjournments.

[Roger de Coverly]

What I suspect to be the "Southend" position has been published at the Streatham blog.

http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... xviii.html

You may not want to regard it as conclusive, but the final position as quoted is a draw according to tablebases and if played with an increment between two GMs, it's difficult to see any other result, provided the defender had knowledge of what positions to avoid.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The main problem with over-running is the pairings for the following round.

Up to a point, the players may self police this.

Up to a point. Though if I was material up against a higher-rated player (or any player, really), in contention for a prize, or something like that, and I agreed a draw when a win was there to be found, that would be depressing. I would not want the 'pressure' of finishing before the next round is due to start, to affect my play, but it probably would! It can be worse for the defender. You obviously don't want to resign, but your opponent may not want to agree a draw! If they can't find the winning method, you have to just sit there!

[Thomas Rendle]

The fact the position is a tablebase draw is surely missing the point. Polgar lost R vs R+N. It's happened to lots of strong players. I lost it under time-pressure after a 7 hour game at the British Championship - maybe I should've just let my flag fall!

Should Black hold the draw? Probably. Would Black hold the draw at the end of a tiring game in the final round of a tough tournament under time-pressure? Who knows. Can a draw be correctly awarded? No.

[Roger de Coverly]

I lost it under time-pressure after a 7 hour game at the British Championship - maybe I should've just let my flag fall!

Assuming it was before the days of increments, then with two minutes remaining you offer a draw. When refused, you summon the arbiter to escalate to a 10.2 claim. Play will almost certainly continue with the arbiter observing. If your flag falls, the arbiter may still award a draw. The key point, which has been in the Laws of Chess since 1997 is that you have to claim. Before that, some interpretations, notably those of the BCF and British arbiters was that the "controller" could award the draw regardless.

Contrary to many posters, I don't think it correct for arbiters to award wins in positions that would be clearly drawn in normal play, whether with increments or adjournments. So I support the original decision and I don't think "might blunder due to tiredness" qualifies as a normal means of winning.

For the practical player attempting to win on time, when that is the only realistic way you are likely to win, I would think you have to keep it complex and risk the arbiter making judgements on the quality of your play. I don't think it is making progress to a win if you simplify from a moderately complex ending to one that is a theoretical draw.

[Michael Bennett]

The fact the position is a tablebase draw is surely missing the point. Polgar lost R vs R+N. It's happened to lots of strong players. I lost it under time-pressure after a 7 hour game at the British Championship - maybe I should've just let my flag fall!

Should Black hold the draw? Probably. Would Black hold the draw at the end of a tiring game in the final round of a tough tournament under time-pressure? Who knows. Can a draw be correctly awarded? No.

I totally agree with this.