Claiming a draw with less than 2 minutes on clock.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I don't really agree with the logic of awarding a win in a drawn position on the grounds of "might blunder".

Nor do I and nor has anybody else put forward that argument.

The 'burden of proof' is on the player who stops the clock and halts the game. If I do that against you and claim a draw there’s no requirement for you to prove anything.

Like it or not, blunders are a normal part of chess.

[Roger de Coverly]

Nor do I and nor has anybody else put forward that argument.

If you reach a position that can be looked up in a tablebase and award any other result than the theoretical one, the "might blunder" argument is being used.

[JustinHorton]

This was the position that Eduoard lost against Marin. It took a certain amount of ingenuity to lose the pawn, but even then it should be drawn easily enough.

But if a player of Eduoard's strength couldn't draw it, then maybe RvB is not so easy as people think.

[Jonathan Bryant]

No it isn’t Roger.

You’ll forgive me if I don’t go around and around with you on this. Ignoring the arguments that are actually being made doesn’t make your case true. Equally, you can say 'such and such is impossible' and continue to ignore the references that show such and such actually happening if you like.

Bottom line: in the situation as described by the original poster, the R side of KR v KB should be awarded a win.

You might not like it. Paul and Richard might be right when they say that the world would be a better place if it wasn’t the case. And yet it still is the case.


Whether the OP will actually get his point is another matter.

[Roger de Coverly]

Bottom line: in the situation as described by the original poster, the R side of KR v KB should be awarded a win.

The grounds presumably being that the Appendix G claim with no arbiter present wasn't made before the fall of the flag. If the claim had been made before the fall of the flag and the position is a tablebase draw, then the draw should be awarded. Anything else is the "might blunder" argument.

It's part of the compromise of having sudden death finishes as against perpetual adjournments that within reason you don't get different results.

I'm presuming the Benasque game was played with thirty second increments. It's an example that shows "might blunder" becoming "did blunder".

[JustinHorton]

I'm presuming the Benasque game was played with thirty second increments

Yeah I think so.

[Ian Thompson]

Nor do I and nor has anybody else put forward that argument.

If you reach a position that can be looked up in a tablebase and award any other result than the theoretical one, the "might blunder" argument is being used.

No it isn't. The rational being used to award a win is "defender hasn't yet demonstrated they know how to draw the position."

Take the position above (with White claiming a draw a pawn up, but about to lose their h-pawn). It's an easy draw if White knows that he must push his b-pawn as fast as possible, supported by his King. If he wastes a tempo or two, or pushes his b-pawn without his King it's lost. It's quite right that the draw claim should fail. White needs to play about 10 more moves to reach a clearly drawn position.

[Roger de Coverly]

The rational being used to award a win is "defender hasn't yet demonstrated they know how to draw the position."

Where in the Appendix G rules does it say that you have to demonstrate that you know how to draw the position?

The following shall apply when the competition is not supervised by an arbiter:

A player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.
He may claim on the basis:
that his opponent cannot win by normal means,

Also

and/or
that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.

It's a stronger claim that the position was as drawn ten or twenty moves earlier as it is now, but it isn't a necessary condition.

[Paul McKeown]

No it isn't. The rational being used to award a win is "defender hasn't yet demonstrated they know how to draw the position."

Not if the claim is that the position cannot be won by normal means.

That is what I would claim, and I would feel justified in making such a claim for the endgame KR-v-KB, as in my view it is simply impossible to win this by normal means. In the general case, my dog could draw that endgame, and I haven't taught my dog to play chess yet. And I would offer a draw with the rook against anyone graded above 150, except if I thought the position had a specific character that made the defence difficult or impossible. It's just basic knowledge.

[Ian Thompson]

The rational being used to award a win is "defender hasn't yet demonstrated they know how to draw the position."

Where in the Appendix G rules does it say that you have to demonstrate that you know how to draw the position?

The following shall apply when the competition is not supervised by an arbiter:

A player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.
He may claim on the basis:
that his opponent cannot win by normal means,

Demonstrating that you know how to draw the position is a pre-requisite to showing that your opponent cannot win by normal means. If you misplay a drawn position your opponent can win by normal means, so you have to demonstrate that you won't misplay it.

[Roger de Coverly]

Demonstrating that you know how to draw the position is a pre-requisite to showing that your opponent cannot win by normal means.

Where does it say that you have to show how the position should be played? You just have to make a claim. The claim can be accepted or declined, there isn't a requirement to submit analysis or have played any moves after you believe the position is a draw.

[Paul McKeown]

With respect to my CSC colleague, I would point out that if the endgame that was published on the Streatham blog had ended as a draw, then the article itself would never have been written. Man bites dog is a universal requirement of journalism.

[David Williams]

1. Playing in my local league, I have just under two minutes left, and reach K+B v K+R, with no immediate mate or other tactic available. I claim a draw on the grounds that my opponent cannot win by normal means. The game is over. The position is referred to an arbiter. Do I get my draw?

2. If so, what if I reach the same position with half an hour left? Is there any reason not to sit there for 28 minutes and then claim a draw?

[Paul McKeown]

1. Playing in my local league, I have just under two minutes left, and reach K+B v K+R, with no immediate mate or other tactic available. I claim a draw on the grounds that my opponent cannot win by normal means. The game is over. The position is referred to an arbiter. Do I get my draw?

2. If so, what if I reach the same position with half an hour left? Is there any reason not to sit there for 28 minutes and then claim a draw?

In both cases you would have had time to play the endgame out or at least in the first case to make some moves. Your draw claim would be rejected, because you were abusing the rule. In the case given in this thread, though, the player with the bishop had insufficient time remaining to make any moves. That is a different proposition.

But if your opponent requires you to play 50 moves before acquiescing to the inevitable draw, then you are entitled to draw your conclusions regarding their character.

[Ian Thompson]

1. Playing in my local league, I have just under two minutes left, and reach K+B v K+R, with no immediate mate or other tactic available. I claim a draw on the grounds that my opponent cannot win by normal means. The game is over. The position is referred to an arbiter. Do I get my draw?

No.

2. If so, what if I reach the same position with half an hour left? Is there any reason not to sit there for 28 minutes and then claim a draw?

Yes, because it's always going to be a subjective decision by the arbiter, so you can never be certain your claim will succeed. Why take that risk if you've got plenty of time to play the position and strengthen your claim that your opponent cannot win by normal means? (In the old BCF rules running your clock down in this way was expressly prohibited and would result in automatic rejection of a claim.)