Stewart was clearly referring to Adam's post about using increments. With those conditions III.5 or III.6 would be redundant.NickFaulks wrote:Then we could have all the fun of Guideline III.5.
As if defending Stewart wasn't bad enough( ) I also have to agree to some extent with Roger!
When I do arbiter courses and this is discussed I often refer to an example from a junior international match where I knew the decision the arbiter was going to make but I did not know what my decision would have been if I was the arbiter. I may well have agreed but being able to calculate a few obvious but extra moves ahead meant the decision was much less clear.
With Mike's example I advise arbiters to consider how the player with king is defending. If he keeps the king in the centre then it is drawn but if the king goes to the edge then he risks losing before 50 moves have been played.