Rule 10.2 (a) AGAIN then

[Roger de Coverly]

I agree that the right point to make the 10.2 claim is the point that the R+N v R arises on the board, so why was the claim made earlier?

I think the claim was made because the defending clock showed two minutes remaining. It's general advice that with an arbiter observing, you get the maximum observation period.

I'm inclined to agree that if White was looking to win on time, he should keep the pieces on. Even when the pawns are captured, it's K R B N v K R B. Examples of wins in this ending with same colour Bishops are few. Presuming that ending to be a draw arguably underpins the 10.2 claim.

[Martyn Harris]

A few years ago I found myself defending a standard drawn K v K+P ending, and my flag fell, so I lost. As the arbiter was watching I asked as a matter of interest what he would have done had I made a 10.2 claim, and he said he would have ruled against me as I could still go wrong. This is what I hoped he would say. I lost the game because I had not before my flag fell both reached a drawn position and shown by the moves I made that I knew how to draw it. I would not expect to be awarded a win if I reached a winning position before my flag fell, so why should I expect a draw simply for reaching a drawn position?

Unfortunately some arbiters do seem to go into adjudication mode and assume best play. I much prefer those who treat 'claim fails' as their default response, and only award draws when they are convinced that a draw is the only possible sensible outcome were the game to be continued without time pressure, with what 'should' happen not being a factor in their decision. (By sensible I'd include weak moves and blunders - chess players do make them and so they are part of normal chess, but exclude perverse moves such as those required for helpmates.)

[Roger de Coverly]

so why should I expect a draw simply for reaching a drawn position?

You should expect a draw because the alternative awards the opponent a win in a drawn position merely because he has more time. Mind you in Junior chess, some arbiters would award a draw against the player with more time even if they do have a winning position, insisting that they have to show a higher standard of play because the arbiter is watching.

[Reg Clucas]

Several people have referred to the issue of 'clock handling' in this discussion. I don't think this is always an appropriate argument in a quickplay finish, because however well you handle your clock, you are bound to run out of time at some point. So it becomes simply a matter of who has the most time left. It is particularly unfair to accuse a player of 'poor clock handling' in cases where there has been an intermediate time control which the player has successfully reached.

Of course, the FIDE increment proposal would solve this.

[James Toon]

The Central London League has almost finished its second season. There have been about 250 games since we started. I am the organiser and I am not aware of a single 10.2 claim. Sometimes players do have to live on the increment but they just get on with it and the game reaches a natural conclusion. A couple of players have lost on time, but that’s because they weren’t concentrating on the clock rather than trying and failing to decide on a move within 10 seconds.

Despite the advantages of an increment, it’s still not used much in league chess. The cost of digital clocks is a factor but it’s not conclusive since leagues can provide for them to be used where available. I suspect players and organisers are put off by the prospect of having to play on for a long time after the session has finished. But how often does this happen in practice? I’ve played nearly 50 games at G80 +10s and only one of them has gone beyond move 60 (the 90-minute watershed). I have seen some games go on up to 90 or 100 moves, but they’ve all finished somewhere between the 3 hour and 3½ hour mark. Having to play 60 moves in 90 minutes is a lot faster than most league time controls require. It would be useful to have more data on how many moves actually are made in games at this time limit – accepting of course that it wouldn’t be completely accurate because in a number of games players are able to stop recording before the end.

The other issue that needs more debate is just how, in practice, organisers should cope with those very long games. It hasn’t been a problem in the Central London League, partly because we haven’t seen any marathon games yet, partly because in the Pimlico venue, where most games are played, we’re not under pressure to get out at the end. Personally I’m inclined to think there might have to be a guillotine at some point. For example after 3½ hours play, maybe a 10-minute limit with no increment might be imposed. There would need to be an understanding that players would not invoke the 10.2 rule in these circumstances. That in itself assumes that the players don’t resort to the sort of behaviour for which the rule was introduced.

It’s not a perfect solution, but then weekday evening league chess carries its own limitations and players have to accept that.

[Alex McFarlane]

I have not commented on the Southend situation as I do not know what happened. I would not comment without knowledge in what appears to be a complex situation.

A few general points resulting from this thread.

In play with an arbiter present it may be advisable to claim early so that as much play as possible is witnessed by the arbiter. When no arbiter is present it is better to wait as long as possible before claiming as the game will end with the claim.
The reason for this advice is that the claimant really has to demonstrate by his play that he knows what he is doing to gain the draw. The more moves played the more likely the claim is to succeed. A minimum of one move per 30 seconds of the QPF should be seen as the very minimum requirement.

There was a match in the Glasgow League where a player the exchange up and in a strong position did not make a move in the last 13 minutes of a 15 minute QPF. His claim of a draw was rejected as he had not demonstrated he knew what to do. (Why he did this remains a mystery.)

I have frequently given losses where players have not made sufficient moves to justify their claim. I have also had positions which I am sure would have ended in draws with any increment where I have had to reject the claim because the claimant has not made sufficient moves to allow his opponent the opportunity to try every ‘trick’ to win or to demonstrate that the claimant himself will not go wrong (under normalish circumstances).

I saw an arbiter reject a claim for a draw in a rook pawn v wrong bishop ending because the king was not yet in position. The claimant refused to make the necessary half dozen or so moves needed to prove that he knew the theory arguing that it was a theoretical draw. The arbiter was perfectly correct.
A major problem is when a player arrives at the drawn position so late on that it is impossible to demonstrate the drawing technique. Here the outcome may be determined by the complexity of the position – the more complex the less likely the draw.

I probably shouldn’t say this but I have had one or two games where I have tried to talk the opponent in to agreeing the draw. Arguably it was the correct result but if the opponent didn’t agree then I have had to award the win because there was just about sufficient play left in the position for the player to go wrong.

The quality of the players does come into the equation. A position where two GMs would just agree a draw can often produce a win for either player at lesser levels.
In junior events I have often given a draw for K against K and Q. In these cases sufficient moves have had to be played and the bare K has to be able to defend. If the K wanders to the edge of the board then I would not dream of awarding a draw until the 50 move rule applies (repetition isn’t usually an option as the King is being chased by the queen all over the board).

[Roger de Coverly]

I am the organiser and I am not aware of a single 10.2 claim. Sometimes players do have to live on the increment but they just get on with it and the game reaches a natural conclusion.

Could you remind us of your rules? If increments are compulsory, you won't get a 10.2 claim because they aren't allowed.

You don't get formal 10.2 claims in quick-play leagues either, as given the existence of the rule, players concede draws in drawn positions or offer draws when completely winning and out of time.

For example after 3½ hours play, maybe a 10-minute limit with no increment might be imposed. There would need to be an understanding that players would not invoke the 10.2 rule in these circumstances.

The Surrey Border league came up with a form of words that reinstated 10.2 as a measure to stop infinite games. In effect it would apply at around move 120.

It's a problem in need of a solution. The idea that you play all moves in 90 minutes, but a 10 second increment kicks in when one player has five or two minutes left has a certain internal logic, but not one I think ever tested in practice.

[James Toon]

I am the organiser and I am not aware of a single 10.2 claim. Sometimes players do have to live on the increment but they just get on with it and the game reaches a natural conclusion.

Could you remind us of your rules? If increments are compulsory, you won't get a 10.2 claim because they aren't allowed.

You don't get formal 10.2 claims in quick-play leagues either, as given the existence of the rule, players concede draws in drawn positions or offer draws when completely winning and out of time.

The CLL uses increments where suitable digital clocks are available, otherwise it's a QPF. Most games use increments. The few that use a QPF have not given rise to 10.2 claims. However, the league hasn't been in operation for very long.

[Richard Bates]

I think that often the problem in these debates is that there is no clear agreement around the purpose of a quickplay finish. Because this is quite fundamental.

Originally clocks were introduced to regulate the pace of play such that most games were finished within a reasonable time period. Where playing conditions effectively imposed limits on length of playing sessions adjudications or adjournments were employed. The quickplay finish was introduced out of a distaste for the practice of adjudication, and because adjournments often weren't practical.

I think that the general dividing line on player "rights" when short of time stems from the difference people who see a quickplay finish in this context (effectively as an artificial method to accelerate the outcome of a game), and those who see the quickplay finish as a fundamental part of the sporting contest (which in extreme cases amounts basically, if necessary, to "he who moves quicker wins"). The former viewpoint will think in terms of "what would have been the result if a game was allowed to continue for ever?", the latter will place a higher emphasis on "clock handling" and will demand a higher threshold for the defender to pass to earn a draw.

Personally i dislike some people's interpretation of the term "clock handling". I think in the context of 10.2 claims it can only really have meaning in a relative sense - ie. how quickly has one moved, relative to one's opponent, because trying to use it in an absolute sense causes obvious problems when an identical claim could emerge on move 50, or move 150, or move 250. But then using the term relatively raises the question of the status of claims when both players are extremely short of time. Or even when the player looking for a win is the one short of time. One could argue logically that the player with the advantage, but short of time should have the right under the laws to claim a win...!

I think i generally agree with Roger on this (although it may not in anyway reflect the laws as they stand). I am comfortable with known fairly basic theoretically drawn positions being given draws, uncomfortable with any non-theoretically drawn position being awarded thus on the grounds of "no progress". Obviously preferable is solutions involving the use of increments.

[Eoin Devane]

10.2 has always seemed to me rather an artificial and undesirable rule. My view, which I accept is rather controversial, is that in a QPF the clock is just as much a part of the game as the queen is. If you run out of time then, unless you have already reached a position that is won or drawn according to the laws of chess, you should lose. No exceptions.

[Roger de Coverly]

If you run out of time then, unless you have already reached a position that is won or drawn according to the laws of chess, you should lose. No exceptions.

The problem is that QPF is competing against alternative means of finishing "long" games. Historically the alternatives were to play to a finish with infinite adjournments or abort the game with an adjudication. The development of digital clocks enabled increments to be added to the list.

It's not a new debate by any means. My first experience of the concept of playing to a finish in a semi-normal game was what was termed the Whitby speciality. This was a "mostly" social tournament with one hour each played in the evenings alongside the Whitby Open. I can recall playing one of my university colleagues in the last round of the final event in 1970 and agreeing a draw in a turgid position. Having adjourned to the bar, we discussed the idea that if play continued for ever, surely someone would eventually win on time. It was to counter this, that when weekend tournaments replaced adjudications with playing to the bitter end against the clock, that rules to prevent the player with more time winning only because they had more time were developed. Winning because you have more time is accepted in five minute chess but is out of place in a game that has already lasted six or seven hours.

[Eoin Devane]

The problem is that QPF is competing against alternative means of finishing "long" games. Historically the alternatives were to play to a finish with infinite adjournments or abort the game with an adjudication. The development of digital clocks enabled increments to be added to the list.

I agree. So if you want more "chess truth", where results are determined entirely based on the pieces on the board, then use adjournments, adjudications, or increments. But if you're using QPF, then I think the clock should be a proper part of the game.

Winning because you have more time is accepted in five minute chess but is out of place in a game that has already lasted six or seven hours.

It's not winning because you have more time, it's winning because you have completed your moves within the allocated time period whereas your opponent has not.

My opinion on this matter follows in part from a game I played a few years back in which I sidestepped a trade of rooks when my opponent had just one second left on his clock purely so that I would still have mating material left with which to win on time. I felt really bad about this and apologised to my opponent at the time, but thinking back on it I don't think I should have to feel bad about this sort of thing. I simply took advantage of my opponent's poor play on the clock to achieve a win; if instead I had taken advantage of an opponent's poor move by winning a queen or something I can't imagine that I would feel bad. Why should exploiting a clock mistake as opposed to a chess mistake be any different?

[Roger de Coverly]

It's not winning because you have more time, it's winning because you have completed your moves within the allocated time period whereas your opponent has not.

There are serious problems with this attitude. I once played an ICC game at 5 0 where we reached a position of opposite Bishops a pawn down with my opponent having a little more time. It wasn't a particularly difficult ending to draw since all you had to do was shuffle either the King or the Bishop. My unsporting opponent elected to continue. Using the ICC draw button I was able to draw eventually by virtue of the 50 move rule. It's not something I would want to try to do over the board, but it could be a relatively frequent occurrence were 10.2 or similar concepts not to exist.

It's worth remembering that QPFs have to stand for election, as it were, and that hardline interpretations are unlikely to gain support. The parallel thread about the abolition of adjudications and adjournments refers.

[Eoin Devane]

It's not winning because you have more time, it's winning because you have completed your moves within the allocated time period whereas your opponent has not.

There are serious problems with this attitude. I once played an ICC game at 5 0 where we reached a position of opposite Bishops a pawn down with my opponent having a little more time. It wasn't a particularly difficult ending to draw since all you had to do was shuffle either the King or the Bishop. My unsporting opponent elected to continue. Using the ICC draw button I was able to draw eventually by virtue of the 50 move rule. It's not something I would want to try to do over the board, but it could be a relatively frequent occurrence were 10.2 or similar concepts not to exist.

If you can invoke the 50 move rule at 5 0 time limits then you can surely do it in longer games over the board. I like the thought that draws should be achieved by means of one of the drawing rules contained in the laws of chess, rather than something that, to me, seems like some sort of artificial external interference. But then that's just the purist in me! In reality, what I object to is not 10.2 for situations such as this one, where it seems perfectly justified, but its use to try and adjudicate positions in which there is still play left. And worse the claims that happen that someone is not making any progress towards winning simply because they have decided to regroup their pieces or have initially embarked upon an incorrect plan.

[Roger de Coverly]

If you can invoke the 50 move rule at 5 0 time limits then you can surely do it in longer games over the board.

I would have thought it obvious that you cannot make enough moves or a claim without an arbiter or electronic arbiter monitoring the play. With a mouse, playing 50 moves in a minute is just about feasible, over the board it isn't.

but its use to try and adjudicate positions in which there is still play left.

"Still play left" is in the eye of the observer. If a game is a draw by theory, you expect GMs to know these things and also the drawing method so it can be an illusion that any real play remains. Equally you should be reluctant to have different evaluation standards depending on the strength of the players. I know the example of the Arkell ending of KRB v KR can be cited, but has he ever won this ending against a fellow GM?