English Chess Forum

A home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:12 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 1030
John Upham wrote:
player should be allowed to attempt to win even if they have a worse position.
This is not what it says in the rules. It says if a player is making no attempt to win normally the game is a draw. Potentially winning with the sort of moves a mediocre 8 year old might play is not winning normally. Over the years arbiters have brought the level down to the level of 8 year olds ie 80 ECF (old grades) which is about the level of many ECF arbiters, to avoid deciding whether difficult positions can be won normally. I dont think arbiters would claim to be experts but the result is not a good advert for the game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:34 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Posts: 11339
Ian Thompson wrote:

If your opponent makes a 10.2 draw claim you do not have the choice of whether you accept it or not. .


Are you quite sure about that? Last time we had a debate on 10.2, I suggested that it was good manners at the very least to make the draw offer first before escalating it into a 10.2 claim. Various people commented that it was not strictly necessary as a 10.2 claim was also a draw offer .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Posts: 1092
Location: Fleet, Hampshire
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Ian Thompson wrote:

If your opponent makes a 10.2 draw claim you do not have the choice of whether you accept it or not. .


Are you quite sure about that? Last time we had a debate on 10.2, I suggested that it was good manners at the very least to make the draw offer first before escalating it into a 10.2 claim. Various people commented that it was not strictly necessary as a 10.2 claim was also a draw offer .


Well I read 10.2 before my previous posting, and it says nothing about a 10.2 claim also being an offer of a draw. I was wrong. It does say that its also a draw offer in 9.1 a. (3).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm
Posts: 1251
"But even if you are a brilliant arbiter and brilliant chessplayer, deciding whether someone has "made progress" can be rather difficult...

There is no doubt that draw claims made by the "inferior" side are difficult to judge. Most of this thread has been about whether claims by the "superior" side should be allowed without further ado."

But not all. I would think it usual (and much more entertaining) to ask the players to carry on, unless the "superior" side is claiming the draw and is very superior. There are plenty of games where someone is material down and they still win! After all, people do sacrifice material just for "play" and to encourage the opponent to use up time. That is entirely legitimate. What I would not want is someone deliberately running his time down so he could claim a draw under 10.2 when it's say R+6 each.

When I get asked about 10.2 claims, the first thing I do is ask the opponent what (s)he thinks. It has been known to save time. Offering a draw first is sensible (unless you offered one recently of course).

_________________
"You are unable to use it (forum) without rancour, unable to refrain from raising old grudges and continually bring it to the point where its owner has to remove posts which could be construed as defamatory of public figures." - P McKeown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:23 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Posts: 11339
Kevin Thurlow wrote:
" unless the "superior" side is claiming the draw and is very superior. .


My pet example is rook and pawn endings. Let's presume that the defender doesn't have a passed pawn. I hope you would declare R+P v R an instant draw if offered by the player with the pawn provided there wasn't a forced mate on the board!

What about R+2 v R+1 or R+3 v R+2? I'd probably agree that R+6 v R+5 is potentially too complex to rule on but the superior side can simply set up a position with all pawns defended, the King safe, the enemy king cut off and the rook (or king) as near to the clock as possible. You only lose these positions (R+6 v R+5) by trying too hard to win.

Kevin Thurlow wrote:
What I would not want is someone deliberately running his time down so he could claim a draw under 10.2 when it's say R+6 each.


I think players would agree with you on that. It might not be shared by all arbiters though. A 4NCL game was ruled drawn despite a loss on time some years ago through insufficient progress mostly because the defender hardly played any moves !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:17 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Posts: 3469
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
I fear I am missing the point in all this. 10.2 is not about the adjudication of a position but the moves leading up to the draw claim.

A 10.2 claim has no point unless the arbiter has been watching for progress or continues to watch for progress.

A player who is objectively worse may continue to play for a win as long they are not trying to win on time by shuffling.

Indeed, trying to make progress includes making ones position worse!

This was rammed home at an arbiters training course I recently attended run by David Welch.

I am not sure if I can spell this out any more clearly.

_________________
Chess Images: http://johnupham.smugmug.com/Chess
IT Manager for the British Chess Magazine: http://www.britishchessmagazine.co.uk
Twitter: @jeupham
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/john.upham


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 1030
John Upham wrote:
I fear I am missing the point in all this. 10.2 is not about the adjudication of a position but the moves leading up to the draw claim.

A 10.2 claim has no point unless the arbiter has been watching for progress or continues to watch for progress.

A player who is objectively worse may continue to play for a win as long they are not trying to win on time by shuffling.

Indeed, trying to make progress includes making ones position worse!

This was rammed home at an arbiters training course I recently attended run by David Welch.

I am not sure if I can spell this out any more clearly.


FIDE Rules state - "if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means" the arbiter declares a draw. He needs to adjudicate in that sense whether or not he was watching.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:21 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Posts: 11339
E Michael White wrote:
FIDE Rules state - "if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means" the arbiter declares a draw. He needs to adjudicate in that sense whether or not he was watching.


Here's the whole of 10.2 lifted from http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/ ... ew=article

Quote:
10.2


If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b)


a.


If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.


b.


If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.


c.


If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes time.


d.


The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to (a), (b) and (c).


The arbiter is quite at liberty to declare the game drawn on first sight of the position without having seen any of the previous play and you would hope he or she would have sufficient chess knowledge that, for example, R+1 cannot win "normally" against R+2 with no passed pawns to declare such a game drawn without more ado.

Quote:
If the arbiter agrees .... then he shall declare the game drawn.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:27 pm
Posts: 2033
Roger de Coverly wrote:

Quote:
10.2

If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b)

a.

If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.

b.

If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.

c.

If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes time.

d.

The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to (a), (b) and (c).


The arbiter is quite at liberty to declare the game drawn on first sight of the position without having seen any of the previous play and you would hope he or she would have sufficient chess knowledge that, for example, R+1 cannot win "normally" against R+2 with no passed pawns to declare such a game drawn without more ado.

Quote:
If the arbiter agrees .... then he shall declare the game drawn.


My impression is that the wording is somewhat inadequate for circumstances where a player is claiming "no effort" (as opposed to "not possible"). This seems to rely on an arbiter having been observing the game previously, which may not be the case. I am thinking of circumstances where one player is superior, but arguably not trying to win due to both players being very short of time. Should the defending player wish to make a claim, it seems to me under the wording that he cannot do so without allowing his opponent to receive an extra two minutes due to the arbiter postponing his decision. (b) At which point the superior player might now judge that he has enough time to start properly trying to win!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 7:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Posts: 2298
Location: Bideford
Postponing the decision does not lead to an award of 2 extra minutes; it is only immediate rejection of the claim that does this.

_________________
http://westcountrychess.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:27 pm
Posts: 2033
IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Postponing the decision does not lead to an award of 2 extra minutes; it is only immediate rejection of the claim that does this.


What does this mean then?

Quote:
b.

If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Posts: 2298
Location: Bideford
Ah yes, good spot. It's not an automatic award of two extra minutes in the way that a rejected claim is; it's at the discretion of the arbiter.

ETA: As an arbiter, I've dealt with very few 10.2 claims, and none of them have involved a claim of "making no effort to win".

_________________
http://westcountrychess.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:27 pm
Posts: 2033
IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Ah yes, good spot. It's not an automatic award of two extra minutes in the way that a rejected claim is; it's at the discretion of the arbiter.


And so in what circumstances could one expect such discretion to be employed? Is the purpose of the extra two minutes to compensate for the disturbance caused by the claim or to allow the player (if necessary) the time to demonstrate that s/he is trying to win? In the circumstances of both players being very short of time, the question of the opponent being given extra time is clearly a material factor to whether to make a claim.

There is also a related question of whether one is allowed to stop the clock to summon an arbiter to watch, without formally making a claim until a subsequent moment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Posts: 2298
Location: Bideford
Richard Bates wrote:
IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Ah yes, good spot. It's not an automatic award of two extra minutes in the way that a rejected claim is; it's at the discretion of the arbiter.


And so in what circumstances could one expect such discretion to be employed? Is the purpose of the extra two minutes to compensate for the disturbance caused by the claim or to allow the player (if necessary) the time to demonstrate that s/he is trying to win? In the circumstances of both players being very short of time, the question of the opponent being given extra time is clearly a material factor to whether to make a claim.

I believe it's to allow the player to demonstrate that s/he is trying to win. If you are claiming on the grounds your opponent has no practical winning chances, this can only be to your favour: you get more moves to demonstrate the position is dead. If you are claiming he's making no effort to win, it's a trickier call.

Quote:
There is also a related question of whether one is allowed to stop the clock to summon an arbiter to watch, without formally making a claim until a subsequent moment.


You're certainly allowed to ask an arbiter to watch; I'm not sure about stopping the clock to do so.

_________________
http://westcountrychess.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:52 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Posts: 11339
IM Jack Rudd wrote:
ETA: As an arbiter, I've dealt with very few 10.2 claims, and none of them have involved a claim of "making no effort to win".


Presumably most players are aware that an attempt to win on time just by shuffling pieces can be countered by a 10.2 claim.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group