English Chess Forum

Well you have a chance of a draw if you could shuffle your king and hit the clock faster than your opponent. Like you, I think such competitions should be confined to bullet chess on the ICC and elsewhere.

If the idea that flag fall in the final period of play ends the game regardless were to catch hold, I would propose for a three hour game that the move rate be 90 moves in 90 minutes followed by adjudication That way you know how to allocate your time and you win or draw if you can reach 90 moves with a decent position.

I've also found actual 10.2s pretty rare. Implied 10.2s are more frequent - that is where players accept or offer draws because 10.2 existed and <2 minutes was approaching.



Can't be proved - no scoring. In any case you might run out of time well before 50

The start-end position is clearly a draw as it stood.

What would your view have been if in those dozen moves your oppo had forced the pawn to f3 when your flag fell and the position was still drawn ? I can guarantee that some arbiters will give it a draw and some a win. This type of arbiter inconsistency and aparently unclear rules gets the game a bad name.

You would have to play loads of moves before you could claim either, and you would also have to be recording the moves thus wasting even more time. How much time are you expected to keep in reverse for such an occurance?

Or how about this position? White Bc4, Pawns h3,h2, King h1, black King h8. White could keep this one going for 500 moves before Black could claim a draw. You'd have to rewrite endgame theory, bishop and wrong rooks pawn is a win, provided you have more time than your opponent!

What's missing is an attempt by the arbitering community to build any sort of case history. For example positions where they awarded an immediate draw, positions where they awarded a later draw, positions where flag fall won etc. You might at least get a concensus on "clearly drawn" and "clearly winning but offered a draw"

Tricky one! I would be inclined to give a win, depending on how much black had been faffing around. If black has headed straight for the position Kf2 vs Pf3Ke4 where white can go wrong and white's flag falls before he can prove he knows how to draw by playing Kf1, then black deserves the win. But if white doesn't get the chance to prove he knows how to draw because black spends twenty moves getting the pawn to f3, then white deserves the draw. Where the dividing line is, I don't know.

I've had K+R v K+R+P four times, twice on each side. Three of these arbiters have arbited at the BCF championships and two of these were very senior UK arbiters. All the positions were book draws; I knew that as did my oppos. One was awarded a loss for me another a win and 2 draws !

The worse case was when I had a clear draw with my rook defending on the third his pawn on the 5th etc, doing everything that Fine says I should and the arbiter penalised me 3 minutes for a trivial claim as he thought it was winning for my oppo. Fortunately in the seconds left I was able to exchange rooks and win his pawn, when even that arbiter conceded 2 lone kings as a draw.

The first arbiter to give me a loss in the position in the King and pawn ending when I am about play Kf1 will not be doing a lot of arbiting again.

Nonetheless, the principle is a difficult one - and I have been fortunate in that I have never had to go through a 10.2 claim. I did once agree a draw in a county match with R and N against R - and got told off. Not I hasten to add by the esteemed Mr Philpott.

So Alex, with your flag hanging, how are you going to record your moves in order to claim a 50-move rule draw ... ?

Reading the thread I now see the situation more clearly.

If you take Alex's absolutist view that you have your time and that is it, then with 5 minutes left you have to decide 'can I win in 5 minutes'. If not, you offer the draw then (not with only 2 minutes left). Your opponent then has to weigh up their options, butwill probably accept the draw offer. With the present implementation the slower player who gets short of time has two bites of the cherry - to win on position on else get a draw anyway from 10.2. (ps They may have a third option of eliminating all their opponents pieces; you should easily be able to draw with K+2R vs K +P, just sac a rook for the pawn).

We had a recent case where our player was ahead on material in a blocked position but very short of time. His opponent then started making reckless sacrifices, first a couple of pawns then the exchange. He was clearly 'trying' (but failing) to make progress, but our player ran out of time. There was a dispute which fortunately was amicably agreed once the match did not depend on it.

The problem for team matches with no arbiter is that often the two teams (and players) have a different view of what should be a draw, so they then behave differently when down to only 5 minutes. As has already been indicated, many players think that 10.2 will save them when they lose on time when ahead on material. Having clearer guidance and examples would mean that there was greater consensus and therefore less disputes. Personally I feel that if you are playing quick play finish then you know that you must make all your moves, and if you think you can't win in the time left you should offer a draw with 5 minutes left.

Is the clock there to rule or to guide? If to rule, then don't run out of time. If to guide, then you need adjudication.

Finally, if you can't cope with playing very quickly at the end then you need to make sure you don't use up as much time earlier in the game.

Can't you just put a mark, rather than write the actual move down? An arbiter would probably be present, so he can verify that the fifty moves were made.

_________________
February 16-17: 2013 BUCA Team Championship
April 20: 2013 British Blitz Championship
July 27-August 10: 100th British Chess Championships

With rule 10.2, you can't make a decision either. Rather than an artificial ending (arbiters not sure what to do), at least the clock provides a method of determining the result without interference from an arbiter.

_________________
February 16-17: 2013 BUCA Team Championship
April 20: 2013 British Blitz Championship
July 27-August 10: 100th British Chess Championships

Alex, supposing your idea of "all moves in x minutes" without any draw claim allowances whatsoever were adpoted, what would be your view on a situation where a player plays on and on and on in a totally drawn position simply to win on time? For example - an opposite coloured Bishop ending where a player (the one who was trying to win on time) was just shuffling around, he may also have half a dozen or more meaningless pawn moves/sacrifices he could make without changing the objective assessment of the positon - giving him potentially several hundred moves or more to play with to attempt to flag his opponent?

I've met this sort of approach on ICC. I was able to draw the mouse clicking contest because ICC counts the moves and allows 50 move claims which would not be an option OTB. You basically think your opponent is a complete ****.

Perhaps all chess should be played at a speed limit of one minute each? After all is it really desirable for a technicality like checkmate to decide the game when the real purpose is to determine who can make their moves quicker?

I think it's completely appropriate to rescue a draw from a game in which you were outplayed.

After all, the game of chess definitely needs more draws.

_________________
Chess Amateur.