Chess perfection - nearly there

[Roger de Coverly]

Well it shouldn’t be I think. How can you ever tell it’s really 50 moves unless you can replay the moves?

If really necessary, you would take a spare score-sheet and tick off moves. That presumes you have a record how you reached the position where the count of fifty moves without a pawn move or a piece capture started.

The standard rule is that once the time drops below 5 minutes, you may stop scoring and you don't have to resume if you push your time back above 5 minutes.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Well it shouldn’t be I think. How can you ever tell it’s really 50 moves unless you can replay the moves?

If really necessary, you would take a spare score-sheet and tick off moves. That presumes you have a record how you reached the position where the count of fifty moves without a pawn move or a piece capture started.

The standard rule is that once the time drops below 5 minutes, you may stop scoring and you don't have to resume if you push your time back above 5 minutes.

Yes but where’s the logic in that?

Also, I tick the moves and hand the scoresheet to the arbiter. You say it’s not fifty moves and I’ve added a few on the sly (which I have). How is the arbiter to know either way?

I just don’t like short increments. 30s makes perfect sense to me, though.

[Mick Norris]

I just don’t like short increments. 30s makes perfect sense to me, though.

I agree in theory, but it does make increments in evening chess difficult, and in county chess slightly problematic when you have a venue booked for a fixed time

[Ian Thompson]

As for the Tablebase thing, I had assumed Paul Dargan's original comment on this was a joke. Apparently not.

I had a game about 18 months ago where my opponent made a 10.2 draw claim. With there only being 6 pieces left on the board, several players in the match thought that the claim could be dealt with immediately by looking the position up in a tablebase as if it was being adjudicated. It seemed to be beyond the comprehension of most of them that a 10.2 claim is not an adjudication.

[Roger de Coverly]

It seemed to be beyond the comprehension of most of them that a 10.2 claim is not an adjudication.

Not an adjudication perhaps, but presuming no arbiter deemed present, the game ceased with the claim. Using a tablebase tells you whether the position can be won by normal means given correct defence. If that's a draw and the league don't uphold the claimant, then they are making a judgement on his chess skill that he would be unable in practice to defend it. It's easier for arbiters, then can just postpone their decision and start counting to fifty.

Conversely if the tablebase said the position could be won by normal means, would the decision-maker be contemptuous of the player's skill and not award a win?

[Jonathan Bryant]

If that's a draw and the league don't uphold the claimant, then they are making a judgement on his chess skill that he would be unable in practice to defend it.

No they’re not. They’re making a judgement that it isn’t guaranteed that he would defend it (and perhaps that the other guy was making no legitimate attempt to try to win). I suppose you might say that he hadn’t proved that he could defend it.


E.g. take this game position (See today’s CHESS TODAY for the analysis)


8/R7/3KPk2/8/8/8/8/1r6



Black has just played ... Kg7-f6. The position is now a tablebase draw. A successful 10.2 claim? I would say absolutely not (and I have checked with an arbiter about this and they say they wouldn’t agree to such a claim here).


However seven moves later

8/4P3/r2K2k1/8/8/8/5R2/8

when Black has demonstrated he knows how to draw this ending - get distance effectiveness then check away - then I would say a 10.2 would be totally fair enough.

[Roger de Coverly]

They’re making a judgement that it isn’t guaranteed that he would defend it (and perhaps that the other guy was making no legitimate attempt to try to win).

I would start with the viewpoint that you cannot win a drawn position against correct defence no matter how hard you try. So if you award a win in a position drawn by theory it's because of a contempt of the defender's knowledge and ability of how to defend it.

If you award a draw in a position won by theory, you are expressing a view that the attacker is unable or not trying to win it.

Perhaps the question is whether there should be an absolute standard or one which is flexible by grading and reputation.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I would start with the viewpoint that you cannot win a drawn position against correct defence no matter how hard you try.

You may very well start there. But the laws don’t.

And frankly I don’t think they ever should either. When 2700s can fail to play 'simple' rook and pawn positions properly when under pressure applying the concept of 'correct defence' to ordinary club chessers is absurd.



PS:

So if you award a win in a position drawn by theory it's because of a contempt of the defender's knowledge and ability of how to defend it.

No, I think not. You’re recognising the obvious: chess is very hard and 'theoretical draws' aren’t necessarily easy to play in practice. That’s assuming you even know in theory how you’re supposed to play - which often is not the case anyway.

[Stewart Reuben]

Obvious some forumites do not understand the 50 move rule, nor presumably the repetition one.
9.3
The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if:
a.
he writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, which shall result in the last 50 moves having been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or
b. the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

There is no suggestion that the player has to prove his claim. It is up to the arbiter to establish whether he believes the claim is correct. That is much easier when playing on a digital board of course. If no complete scoresheet exists and the arbiter hasn't observed the last 50 moves, he will probably reject the claim. R+N v R I have counted off on my fingers behind my back in preparation for such and eventuality. The Laws from 1 July go further and, after 75 moves without a pawn move or capture, the arbiter should declare the game drawn without any claim by a player. His word will be good enough.

Of course with no arbiter around, life is more difficult. But such games are not FIDE Rated.

[Paul Dargan]

I too had assumed that the comment upthread by Paul Dargan was intended 'tongue-in-cheek' ... maybe I should finally embrace modern technology and start using those 'smiley' things to make such things clearer.

Paul

[Jonathan Bryant]

There is no suggestion that the player has to prove his claim. ... If no complete scoresheet exists and the arbiter hasn't observed the last 50 moves, he will probably reject the claim.

So if the player can’t demonstrate it’s a draw it will likely be rejected? Im not sure I understand the practical distinction you're making here.

Of course with no arbiter around, life is more difficult.

This is usually the main problem. I asked Adam (Raoof) what would happen at Golders Green when they switch to 10s increments if I wanted to play R+p v R on forever and ever (a very likely possibility). He told me he’d count the moves himself which strikes me as a reasonable solution.

I take it you wouldn’t accept a 'ticked sheet of moves' presented by one player as 'evidence' if you hadn’t observed the 50 yourself?


Captains when there are no arbiters? Better than nothing but obviously not ideal.

These games may not be FIDE rated but the ones I’m thinking of are ECF graded so they’re not trivial. Although I admit I’m less bothered about rapidplay that standard play.

[Stewart Reuben]

There is a considerable practical difference. People think a complete scoresheet is required. This is not true, the arbiter must be reasonably convinced that the last 50 moves have taken place by each side without a capture or pawn move. I said that I count the moves and Adam has confirmed that he does the same. A player still needs to make the claim.
From 1 July 2014, after 75 moves the arbiter will step in.
One year in Gibraltar in blitz pairs with a 5 second increment, Mr Elamri wrote down the moves or ticked them when the situation was obviously like to arise. I then came along and declared the game drawn after 50 moves without either side claiming. This was to enable the next round to be played. We hadn't discussed the matter in advance. So it was clear, at least one Moroccan arbiters follows the same practice as Adam and me.
In some leagues the captains can act as quasi arbiters.

[Sean Hewitt]

They're making a judgement that it isn't guaranteed that he would defend it (and perhaps that the other guy was making no legitimate attempt to try to win).

I would start with the viewpoint that you cannot win a drawn position against correct defence no matter how hard you try. So if you award a win in a position drawn by theory it's because of a contempt of the defender's knowledge and ability of how to defend it.

I don't think that's the correct interpretation of the laws. Nor is a logical conclusion.

By way of an example, what would you expect an arbiter to decide if a player with a sole rook claimed a draw versus rook and bishop in a 'book' drawn position?

[Roger de Coverly]

By way of an example, what would you expect an arbiter to decide if a player with a sole rook claimed a draw versus rook and bishop in a 'book' drawn position?

That's the example I was thinking of. You ask for play to continue and start counting. If the claimant runs out of time and the position is still a draw, why would you award the win? The defender has played with sufficient accuracy no matter how much progress appears to have been made.

If it's a league game with no arbiter deemed present, is there much option other than to award a draw? Anything else is deciding the result by reference to the presumed skill levels of the players.

[Stewart Reuben]

The definition of 'normal means' in the glossary for the 2014 Laws.
normal means: G.5. Playing in a positive manner to try to win; or, having a position such that there is a realistic chance of winning the game other than just flag-fall.

Thus K + RP v K with the king blocking he queening square. DRAW provided the defendant was at least, perhaps 50 grade?
K + R v K + B. DRAW after such as 20 moves. I have won such an endgame and my opponent made no effort to claim a draw.
K + R v K + N. Win.

Is this perfectly satisfactory? No, but it is better than adjudication and presumably adjournment has been ruled out. It is better than such a K+R v K+R and the players just flailing around because one has 5 seconds extra on his clock.

Is an increment better? Yes, much, even if just 2 seconds per move.