Rule 10.2 (a) AGAIN then

[Andrew Zigmond]

In a friendly match a few years back a player won on time in a position that was completely lost - his only piece other than his king was a rook's pawn that was going nowhere. I can't remember what the opponent had but as well as several pawns he had at least two pieces and possibly a rook. The win on time - which the opponent didn't query - was because the sole pawn was technically mating material. I personally thought that the player (a club colleague and friend of many years standing) was discourteous not to have already resigned that position. However under the laws of chess the result stood.

There will always come a point in a game where it is discourteous not to resign or accept a draw. However there is nothing in the laws of chess that obliges them to, hence my point about sportsmanlike behaviour vs what is correct.

[Ian Thompson]

It would be my expectation that if the position is "obviously" drawn, then the draw should be awarded. Equally the player "obviously" winning should be able to settle for a draw if they don't consider they have enough time to win. As a benchmark, ask what the result would be if a delay or increment clock were substituted.

The problem is that a lot of the time you wouldn't know - the answer would be that it's a draw with best play but whether or not the defender has the ability to draw it is unknown.

The Laws appear not to allow it but consulting the endgame tablebases as to whether the position is drawn or won with best play, would at least inform their decisions.

They might be informed, but not in a useful way - see my previous comment. What might be useful in "arbiter not present" claims, where there is plenty of time to make a decision, is to look in a large database at the actual results that have occured in previous games with similar positions. If the defender is nearly always successful in getting a draw there's a better case for awarding a draw than when it's a position that's often been won.

[Roger de Coverly]

In a friendly match a few years back a player won on time in a position that was completely lost - his only piece other than his king was a rook's pawn that was going nowhere. I can't remember what the opponent had but as well as several pawns he had at least two pieces and possibly a rook. The win on time - which the opponent didn't query - was because the sole pawn was technically mating material. I personally thought that the player (a club colleague and friend of many years standing) was discourteous not to have already resigned that position. However under the laws of chess the result stood.

If you play for a win when short of time, you risk losing unless you eliminate the last of your opponent's pieces or pawns. It would have been possible for the player with material to offer a draw with the flag still standing and if this is not accepted, escalate this to a 10.2 claim. The claim should be awarded without dispute.

[Adam Ashton]

what's correct often goes against what is sportsmanlike.

To my mind, this sentence is a total contradiction though quite revealing. What I hear from it is that you feel that the laws and their correct application as it stands, allow some situations where you disagree with the validity of the result (or that a majority of players would do this). If the correct result is derived from the laws, the result cannot be unsportsmanlike, by definition, whether a player feels aggrieved or not, surely. Could you give some concrete examples?

I'm afraid I can't agree with that thinking, it's hard to make a rule for everything and sometimes a little bit of integrity/common sense is required from the players. Monika Socko claiming a win with Knight vs Knight against Sabina Foiser a while back springs to mind. I imagine there must be a number of examples of people doing the same with two knights or other positions requiring selfmate. Not really about 10.2 but just to show you can be 'correct' and obviously unsportsmanlike.

[Roger de Coverly]

10.2 claims should only be allowed in positions where it is clearly impossible for the other player to win

The "not making progress" wording implies that it's possible to allow claims where progress could be made, but isn't being made. British arbiters are apt to be excessively willing to award draws on "no progress" grounds even where a player decides a change of plan is needed and repeats.

[Andrew Zigmond]

The FIDE laws of chess certainly used to state that the rule was not designed to protect players from poor clock handling.

[Roger de Coverly]

The FIDE laws of chess certainly used to state that the rule was not designed to protect players from poor clock handling.

Quickplay finishes were in use many years before the FIDE laws of chess caught up and I don't think the FIDE version ever cited poor clock handling. It's more than possible that local guidance did.

Even as late as 1993, the Laws of chess don't mention quick play finishes.
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Lex.Weaver/strate ... E_laws.txt

It was the 1997 edition that formalised them
http://www.chess-poster.com/english/law ... _chess.htm

No mention of poor clock handling and the wording is next to identical to the current Laws.

[Joey Stewart]

The only time I have EVER seen one of these claims successful was when the opponent said "I dont want a draw, I am going to beat you on time" in a position which was clearly drawn and he was just shuffling around.
More often then not, people use the rule as a get out of jail free card when they are short on time, but claim too early before they have proven their point that the opponent really has no winning chances.

[Clive Blackburn]

In a friendly match a few years back a player won on time in a position that was completely lost - his only piece other than his king was a rook's pawn that was going nowhere. I can't remember what the opponent had but as well as several pawns he had at least two pieces and possibly a rook. The win on time - which the opponent didn't query - was because the sole pawn was technically mating material. I personally thought that the player (a club colleague and friend of many years standing) was discourteous not to have already resigned that position. However under the laws of chess the result stood.

If you play for a win when short of time, you risk losing unless you eliminate the last of your opponent's pieces or pawns. It would have been possible for the player with material to offer a draw with the flag still standing and if this is not accepted, escalate this to a 10.2 claim. The claim should be awarded without dispute.

If I was the player who was winning comfortable on material but in danger of losing on the clock, my priority would be to capture the rook pawn (even at the cost of a piece). Only when I had thus secured the draw would I try to mate my opponent in the blitz finish.

[Reg Clucas]

If you play for a win when short of time, you risk losing unless you eliminate the last of your opponent's pieces or pawns.

I can vouch for this, in fact you sometimes need to eliminate your own pieces or pawns! I recently lost on time in the following position -
5KQ1/8/4P3/5n2/5k2/8/8/8
I have just played g8=Q, upon which my flag fell. At first sight you might think it should be a draw because Black has no mating material - however my remaining pawn on e6 scuppers this. Theoretically this pawn could underpromote (to e.g. a Rook) and it is then possible by a sequence of legal moves to reach a position where the position of the Rook allows the Black Knight to deliver smothered mate (e.g. W King on a8, Rook on b8, B King on a6, Knight on c7). Without the pawn it's a draw since no amount of co-operation from the White Queen will enable Black to deliver mate.

[E Michael White]

Even as late as 1993, the Laws of chess don't mention quick play finishes.

Not exactly correct Roger. The FIDE General Assembly approved Guillotine ( quick finish) rules in 1985. These were largely the same as at present except that automatic appeal rights existed. BCF arbiters were generally minded not to follow FIDE using their own local variations. These variations persist today in the minds of some players and arbiters.

[Andrew Zigmond]

If you play for a win when short of time, you risk losing unless you eliminate the last of your opponent's pieces or pawns.

I can vouch for this, in fact you sometimes need to eliminate your own pieces or pawns! I recently lost on time in the following position -
5KQ1/8/4P3/5n2/5k2/8/8/8
I have just played g8=Q, upon which my flag fell. At first sight you might think it should be a draw because Black has no mating material - however my remaining pawn on e6 scuppers this. Theoretically this pawn could underpromote (to e.g. a Rook) and it is then possible by a sequence of legal moves to reach a position where the position of the Rook allows the Black Knight to deliver smothered mate (e.g. W King on a8, Rook on b8, B King on a6, Knight on c7). Without the pawn it's a draw since no amount of co-operation from the White Queen will enable Black to deliver mate.

I believe Monica Socka's argument was that the laws of chess made no reference to forcing - an oversight in the rules.

[Roger de Coverly]

I believe Monica Socka's argument was that the laws of chess made no reference to forcing - an oversight in the rules.

They did clarify it that if a helpmate can be constructed then a loss on time stands.

Going back to the original question and noting Richard Bates' comment about the relative ease of drawing R v R+N, was the Southend decision the correct one? It's being semantic, but if you progress from a position that is drawn to a position that is drawn, that isn't making progress and the other part of 10.2 can be deemed to apply. Applying the proposed new definition of "normal means", is there any reasonable expectation that you can win with R+N against R+P other than on time or by your opponent making a very obvious error?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Going back to the original question and noting Richard Bates' comment about the relative ease of drawing R v R+N, was the Southend decision the correct one? It's being semantic, but if you progress from a position that is drawn to a position that is drawn, that isn't making progress and the other part of 10.2 can be deemed to apply. Applying the proposed new definition of "normal means", is there any reasonable expectation that you can win with R+N against R+P other than on time or by your opponent making a very obvious error?

Possibly the problem is that if you have the task of winning a pawn, it is possibly to be lax about that. If your opponent makes "progress" by pushing the pawn forward a bit over a series of moves, but you can still round it up later, does this count as lack of progress on your part? Contrast the position without the pawn. The player with the K+R can't really do anything constructive against the K+R+N except defend accurately.

[Roger de Coverly]

The player with the K+R can't really do anything constructive against the K+R+N except defend accurately.

I believe it was the player with K+R+P who claimed the draw. There can be positions where the presence of a pawn is bad for the defender because of the Zugswang possibilities. So you set up a "stalemate" that isn't on the way to checkmate. No such possibilities come immediately to mind in K+R+N v K+R+P, that's not to say an expert in chess compositions couldn't dream one up.