Rule 10.2 (a) AGAIN then

[Kevin Thurlow]

"A 10.2 claim is deemed a draw offer. No 10.2 claim has been made as the attempt was incorrect. Therefore no draw has been officially offered."

Not a legal draw offer perhaps, but the opponent can still accept it.

10.2 is a bit of a nightmare. I was an arbiter at one tournament and lurking near a board wondering why white wasn't making a 10.2 claim, which I would have given (and black said afterwards if he had been offered a draw he would have taken it) Then white lost on time and got very excited about being given a loss and accused his opponent of being unsporting for playing on, which was clearly nonsense, and then moaned at me as I wouldn't award the draw after the flag fall, and without him claiming. I moved on the next time-scramble, but emailed white the next day to see if he wanted clarification. Presumably, he had then either cooled down or been told he was an idiot, as he politely replied, saying "no problem".

[Roger de Coverly]

as I wouldn't award the draw after the flag fall, and without him claiming.

There were various rules in use of British events from the mid 1970s onwards. Some of them allowed the "controller" to award a draw even after flag fall and without a prior claim. That interpretation didn't make it to the formalised international version, but not every player knows that.

[Stewart Reuben]

Paul will find if he looks back, I was stating that a claim under 10.2 constitutes an offer of a draw, however badly made, and not Alex M. But I wasn't seeking to score points.

Christopher. Try this position: White Ke1, Qf1, Pd2 (edited from a previous error). Black kh1, qh3, ph2. The game is over as a draw, even if one flag falls after Qf1+. You can sprinkle extra queens on the board, such as Qf8, qg2 but the idea remains the same.
The game is over as there is no possible sequence of moves for either player to win. Many arbiters get that one wrong in exams. Bill Goichberg is President of the USCF, an IA and a 2300 player. He sat transfixed at seeing this position last year in a meeting in NY.

At the Evening Standard Congress, perhaps 1979, the late Andrew Law went off in a huff when his flag fell when he had king and rook against bare king. Prior to 1 January 1985 it was possible to win on time with a bare king according to FIDE Laws. I chased after him to explain he had NOT lost on time according to English quickplay finish rules. The event was not FIDE Rated.
Perhaps 1983 at the European Muscular Dystrophy Championship a player was trying to mate with king and rook against bare king. More than 40 moves had occurred without pawn move or capture, but the player was running perilously short of time. I advised him, in the presence of his opponent, to offer a draw. This he did and it was accepted. For him to have lost would have been a travesty.

[Tryfon Gavriel]

Hi all

Regarding the Southend controversy (which is a tournament I have fond memories playing in) - I recently posted about this also on reddit :

http://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/ ... 102_under/

Personally I agree with "Nosher" that I think 12.6 has been violated by Alexander Chernaiev

Because 10.2 is :

"10.2 If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls..."

The key point here is "Having the move"

That phrase "Having the move" maintains independence for not violating 12.6

Also technically according to Gawain's blog there is a pawn on the board. In terms of technical people who understand FEN strings, this means that if the pawn moves or is captured, then technically the 50-move draw rule is reset from zero. This also implies that there is an inherent ability in the position to "make progress" in terms of at least the 50-move draw rule.

Best wishes
Tryfon

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Christopher. Try this position: White Ke1, Qf1, Pe2. Black kh1, qh3, ph2. The game is over as a draw, even if one flag falls after Qf1+. You can sprinkle extra queens on the board, such as Qf8, qg2 but the idea remains the same.
The game is over as there is no possible sequence of moves for either player to win. Many arbiters get that one wrong in exams. Bill Goichberg is President of the USCF, an IA and a 2300 player. He sat transfixed at seeing this position last year in a meeting in NY.

8/8/8/8/8/7q/4P2p/4KQ1k b - - 0 1

Don't you mean White pawn on d2?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Going back to the events at Southend. Does anyone have any views on whether an Appeals Committee would have helped here? Do these still exist at events like Hastings and the British and other large congresses?

[Roger de Coverly]

This also implies that there is an inherent ability in the position to "make progress" in terms of at least the 50-move draw rule.

It's a marginally controversial, but if you interpret "make progress" as meaning "make progress towards a win", moving from one theoretically drawn position to another isn't really progress. Playing on in a drawn position in the hope of a blunder or time forfeit borders on being unsportsmanlike ,particularly if the strength and experience of your opponent is such that only severe time pressure is likely to induce a mistake.

The 50 move count would restart once the pawn is captured. In the presumed position where the flag fell, there's a defence .. Rh3 against the immediate attempt Rd5 and Nd3 to win the pawn.

[Chris Rice]

Going back to the events at Southend. Does anyone have any views on whether an Appeals Committee would have helped here? Do these still exist at events like Hastings and the British and other large congresses?

Does an Appeals Committee have to be constituted in a certain way? I remember playing in Belgium a couple of times years ago and they would routinely ask the players for three volunteers at the start of the tournament to form such a Committee.

[Stewart Reuben]

Christopher. Quite correct, the pawn should be on d2.

If the event is run according to the current Laws of Chess, then the Arbiter's decision is final, if it is a 10.2 claim. Thus no Appeal would be possible. But it wasn't a legal 10.2 claim, if what Gawain says is correct. Thus there could have been an appeal.

BUT with many British chess events, no Appeal Commitee is created, as in the manner described by Chris Rice. This despite the fact that the FIDE Tournament Rules require it. Thus, in this respect, events are better run in Belgium than in Britain.

King and rook's pawn against king. It starts off with the pawn on h2. Eventually it reaches h6. There is no doubt White is trying to win by normal means. There is no doubt he has made progress (albeit futile). There is no doubt that, with black's king blocking the pawn, White cannot win by normal means. It is a draw under a 10.2 claim, unless Black is very young, in which case you might instruct the players to play on. It could have taken 196 moves to reach this position after the start of the king + pawn v king endgame. If that had happened. I would have given a draw long before, applying 12.1 even without Black ever making any comment.

The new Laws will enable the arbiter to give more time, in the form of 5 seconds per move, either cumulative or delay. This has been so in the US for some years. I saw David Welch do a surprising variation on this in the National Schools' Final some years ago.

[Roger de Coverly]

Going back to the events at Southend. Does anyone have any views on whether an Appeals Committee would have helped here?

An arbiter's decision on a 10.2 claim is final. With the final position a theory draw, the draw ruling is defensible. The scope for protest would seem to be that there never was a valid 10.2 claim in the first place and the arbiter was incorrect to accept that the game was continuing under conditions of arbiter observation.

I haven't been concious of an elected Appeals Committee either at Hastings or the British. At the British there's some sort of set up where decisions can be reviewed by arbiters not involved in the original dispute. There's reference to an appeals committee in the really long thread about the 2010 Canterbury British and Major Open.

[Mick Norris]

BUT with many British chess events, no Appeal Commitee is created, as in the manner described by Chris Rice. This despite the fact that the FIDE Tournament Rules require it.

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... w=category from which

"10. Penalties, Appeals

(a) When there is a dispute, the CA or CO as appropriate should make every effort to resolve matters by reconciliation. It is possible that such means will fail and the dispute is such that penalties are appropriate but not specifically defined by the Laws or the tournament regulations. Then the CA or CO shall have discretionary power to impose penalties. He should seek to maintain discipline and offer other solutions which may placate the offended parties.
(b) In all events there shall be an Appeals Committee. The CO shall ensure that the Appeals Committee is elected or appointed before the start of the first round, usually at the drawing of lots. It is recommended that the Appeals Committee (AC) consist of a Chairman, at least two members and two reserve members. The Chairman, the members and reserve members shall, if possible, be from different federations. No member of the AC involved in the dispute shall rule in that dispute. Such a committee should have an odd number of voting members. Members of the Appeals Committee should not be younger than 21 years old.
(c). A player may appeal against any ruling made by the CA or CO or one of their assistants, provided the appeal is accompanied by a fee and submitted in written form not later than the deadline. Both fee and deadline shall be fixed in advance. The decisions of the Appeals Committee shall be final. The fee is returnable if the appeal is successful. It may also be returned if the appeal is unsuccessful but considered reasonable in the view of the committee."

Emphasis is mine - is that legal in the UK?

Also, does this apply to all FIDE rated tournaments, even blitz and rapidplay?

[Stewart Reuben]

Mike Norris >Members of the Appeals Committee should not be younger than 21 years old. is that legal in the UK?<

We may be unique in having no ageism regarding young arbiters. The youngest assistant I ever had was 6. We nominated Sophia Gorman (now Rohde) as an IA at the age of 17 and it was accepted. It wouldn't be now.

I don't think anybody has ever considered the matter of blitz and rapidplay FIDE Rated events. Certainly I haven't and I had a great deal to do with drafting that rule. It isn't practical for blitz usually and sometimes not for rapidplay, especially Swisses. For an important event I would have a second tier of opinion. If you don't intend having an Appeal Committee, you should state that the arbiter's decision is final.

[Paul McKeown]

Paul will find if he looks back, I was stating that a claim under 10.2 constitutes an offer of a draw, however badly made, and not Alex M.

Errr, I was agreeing with you?