Etiquette when reacting to draw offers

[Alex McFarlane]

Sorry my numbering may have been for the future Laws!!

I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation but other interpretations are available. I just don't believe that it is black and white.

[Alex Holowczak]

Sorry my numbering may have been for the future Laws!!

I did spend some time thinking about why

6.4 Before the start of the game the arbiter decides where the chess clock is placed.

was particularly relevant!

I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation but other interpretations are available. I just don't believe that it is black and white.

I don't think 6.2b comes into it, because 6.3 makes no mention of it. The only reason for 6.2b to exist, I think, is to make it clear that the player adds 15 minutes to his time, and his clock doesn't just go up to a maximum of 15, or something like that. (Assuming the QPF is 15 minutes, of course.)

The rules about the chessclock generally are a mess, with much confusion about what a clock, chessclock and other bits of it are. It needs to be completely rewritten, in my opinion. For example:

"‘Chess clock’ means a clock with two time displays"

and on the very next line

"‘Clock’ [...] means one of the two time displays"

So combining those, a chess clock means a time display with two time displays.

[Sean Hewitt]

And which rule actually says that?

6.3 Immediately after a flag falls, the requirements of article 6.2 a. must be checked.

...

6.2 a. When using a chess clock, each player must make a minimum number of moves or all moves in an allotted period of time and/or may be allocated an additional amount of time with each move. All these must be specified in advance.

I interpret these to mean that once a flag falls, you check the requirements of 6.2a, i.e. a player has made the number of moves in the allotted time period/time period plus increment. I.e. you check the time control has been met after the flag has fallen, rather than when you think you've made enough moves.

6.2 b. is nothing to do with the requirements of meeting the time control.

8.5. explains that the arbiters only stop play when a flag has fallen, and shouldn't dive in beforehand. If the clock takes it upon itself to add an hour to each clock, you could be stood there a while!

I agree with this. Perhaps more pertinently, there is no provision within the laws for adding the time for the next session at any point other than flag fall (such as when the requisite number of moves have been made).

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes, add the time when a flag falls, and not when you've made a certain number of moves, in accordance with the rules!

League rules as do Congress entry conditions often state explicitly that time is added after Black has played his xth move, which digital clocks are usually programmed to break. Alex H has clarified that leagues and Congresses using mechanical clocks are playing with the counter ON, even if the counter is the manual process of writing moves or ticks on a numbered score-sheet.

The entry form for Torbay for instance says

After Black's 36th move, or immediately after one flag has fallen, each clock will be turned back 30 minutes ....

[Roger de Coverly]

6.3 Immediately after a flag falls, the requirements of article 6.2 a. must be checked.

As an illustration of arbiters writing rules to be pedantic for the sake of it, there's little that beats this. The time control was reached by the players (which is what 6.2a is about) when they both agreed that the required number of moves had been made as illustrated by their records of the moves made in the game. This could be over an hour before the fall of the flag, depending on the speed of play.

Other solutions mean that during part of a game, those playing and watching have a misleading statement of the time remaining.

[Greg Breed]

The entry form for Torbay for instance says

After Black's 36th move, or immediately after one flag has fallen, each clock will be turned back 30 minutes ....

This is the bit i don't understand. After Black's 36th move you wind the clocks back 30 minutes. Why would you do this at any other point? If a player's flag has fallen before then they have lost. If it falls after then, why weren't the clocks turned back after Black's 36th move?

In every league and tournament i've ever played in (with standard analogue "chess clocks") we've always stopped the clocks after Blacks xth move, rewound the requisite number of minutes and restarted the game with white to move. Why cannot not be this simple?

[IM Jack Rudd]

The entry form for Torbay for instance says

After Black's 36th move, or immediately after one flag has fallen, each clock will be turned back 30 minutes ....

This is the bit i don't understand. After Black's 36th move you wind the clocks back 30 minutes. Why would you do this at any other point? If a player's flag has fallen before then they have lost. If it falls after then, why weren't the clocks turned back after Black's 36th move?

In every league and tournament i've ever played in (with standard analogue "chess clocks") we've always stopped the clocks after Blacks xth move, rewound the requisite number of minutes and restarted the game with white to move. Why cannot not be this simple?

Sometimes you don't know how many moves have been made at the point the flag falls. I've seen someone make a time-trouble blunder seven moves after the time-control move.

[Roger de Coverly]

In every league and tournament i've ever played in (with standard analogue "chess clocks") we've always stopped the clocks after Blacks xth move, rewound the requisite number of minutes and restarted the game with white to move. Why cannot not be this simple?

The reason they word it that way is probably to cover for the position when one or both players isn't scoring because of time pressure. In those circumstances, it may be necessary to reconstruct the game, so it's suggested that is done once the flag has fallen. There's an implied "and hasn't lost on time" in the Torbay wording, the omission of which can be confusing to beginners.

[Greg Breed]

[Sometimes you don't know how many moves have been made at the point the flag falls. I've seen someone make a time-trouble blunder seven moves after the time-control move.

The reason they word it that way is probably to cover for the position when one or both players isn't scoring because of time pressure. In those circumstances, it may be necessary to reconstruct the game, so it's suggested that is done once the flag has fallen. There's an implied "and hasn't lost on time" in the Torbay wording, the omission of which can be confusing to beginners.

Fair enough.

[Alex Holowczak]

The entry form for Torbay for instance says

After Black's 36th move, or immediately after one flag has fallen, each clock will be turned back 30 minutes ....

Before the FIDE Laws of Chess incorporated quickplay finishes, English congresses relied on their own wording, drawn up by the Chief Arbiter of the day. As a result, when referencing quickplay finishes, even today there remain references to the BCF rules of the day, even though the FIDE rules made them redundant when they came into force. One example is the MCCU referring to ECF Quickplay Finish rules, which never existed. (They reworded BCF for ECF in 2004, even though the BCF Rules lapsed 10 years or so previously.) The other mainstay of these rules is the congress entry form saying that clocks are turned back after black's nth move.

In every league and tournament i've ever played in (with standard analogue "chess clocks") we've always stopped the clocks after Blacks xth move, rewound the requisite number of minutes and restarted the game with white to move. Why cannot not be this simple?

This is because you've been doing what was the norm before FIDE introduced its own rules for quickplay finishes, and in the 15 years or so since, no one has bothered to communicate the change in what's expected.

The reason against what you do is that it involves stopping the game, and a distraction to both of you. Then the mental torture where you have to add 15 minutes to your clocks, which is a piece of addition that players have been known to get wrong. (They might have added 20, instead of 15. These things happen.)

White is entitled to make his move as soon as black has made his (say) 40th move. If black presses the clock, and then stops white from making his 41st by picking up the clock and starting to play around adding time to it, then he's preventing white from completing his move. These problems are specific to mechanical clocks, however, and don't exist with electronic clocks whether the move counter is on or not.

[Roger de Coverly]

The reason against what you do is that it involves stopping the game, and a distraction to both of you. Then the mental torture where you have to add 15 minutes to your clocks, which is a piece of addition that players have been known to get wrong. (They might have added 20, instead of 15. These things happen.)

That's basically an argument against the 30 etc./75 + 15 time control and in favour of the G/90 one. Even if you wait for one flag to fall, you still have to add fifteen minutes to the other one.

It's not particularly a distraction to add time when the time control has been reached, as that is always a natural break point. Particularly with mechanical clocks, it would be more of a distraction to have time added at some arbitrary move number.

The point remains. If arbiters are intent on forcing players to play with incorrect time displays for parts of the game, it would be better to scrap intermediate time controls.

[Alex Holowczak]

That's basically an argument against the 30 etc./75 + 15 time control and in favour of the G/90 one. Even if you wait for one flag to fall, you still have to add fifteen minutes to the other one.

[...]

The point remains. If arbiters are intent on forcing players to play with incorrect time displays for parts of the game, it would be better to scrap intermediate time controls.

I don't have any particular problem with that, in principle.

[Ian Thompson]

This is the bit i don't understand. After Black's 36th move you wind the clocks back 30 minutes. Why would you do this at any other point? If a player's flag has fallen before then they have lost. If it falls after then, why weren't the clocks turned back after Black's 36th move?

One good reason not to is if one player has lost count of the number of moves actually played. For example, White plays what he thinks is his 36th move, but is really his 35th move. Black replies to it. White then asks Black to agree that the clocks can be turned back. White has disturbed Black when Black may be short of time. Black is put in an awkward position, where there is no reason why he should tell White he thinks he has miscounted the number of moves, but how can he answer the question without telling White he's miscounted?

[David Gilbert]

It’s 10.00pm on a very cold evening at Golden Lane - and it’s started to snow outside. Inside the heating system hasn’t been working. When the two fan heaters were turned on full blast all the fuses blew. Almost everyone is wrapped in coats, many don hats and at least one player is wearing mittens embroidered with Christmas trees.

Not the highpoint of the League season. The match is already lost, but the final game has reached the adjournment. Player A’s team has lost the match. He has an extra pawn, but it's an opposite colour bishops ending. Player A makes a sealed move. Player B pops the envelope in his top pocket and the two players exchange contact details and set a provisional date for the resumption.

At last Player A comes to his senses about his winning chances and the prospect of venturing into London on another horrible night. “Actually” he says “would you like a draw?”

I suppose Player B could have accepted, or maybe produced his scoresheet and marked it with = and walked away without saying anything. The latter that might have been a bit rude? What he actually did was to say, “I’ll think about it”. Of course, he can’t now lose the game. He can go home and study the position for any missed tactics with a draw at least in the bag. A few days later Player B rings Player A and accepts his draw offer.

The moral of this tale is never offer your opponent a draw after the adjournment - he/she has the luxury of a couple of weeks before saying "yes" or "no". I wondered about the legality of accepting (or making) a draw offer by phone, or voicemail, or by e-mail, or text, or on Facebook, or Twitter - so long as the players are outside the playing venue (of course)! What do FIDE say about Twitter draw offers!! Hmmmmmm! No doubt Alex or Alex, or RdeC will clarify. I won't try to stop them.

[Roger de Coverly]

The moral of this tale is never offer your opponent a draw after the adjournment - he/she has the luxury of a couple of weeks before saying "yes" or "no". I wondered about the legality of accepting (or making) a draw offer by phone, or voicemail, or by e-mail, or text, or on Facebook, or Twitter - so long as the players are outside the playing venue (of course)! What do FIDE say about Twitter draw offers!! Hmmmmmm! No doubt Alex or Alex, or RdeC will clarify. I won't try to stop them.

I don't play in any competitions where adjudication or adjournment is a forced option. But in the days when adjournment was a normal part of tournament and league experience, it was commonplace for draws to be agreed without the players resuming. The books and reports about top tournaments, world championships and Candidate matches frequently refer to this. Whilst sometimes it would be the player's seconds who would make contact, there were no proscribed methods.

You are taking a marginal risk in offering a draw immediately after sealing a move, but it has the merit of resolving the issue immediately. If the position is unclear, opponents may well wish to analyse before accepting, this has to be accepted.