What is the result if his flag falls

Technical questions regarding Openings, Middlegames, Endings etc.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: What is the result if his flag falls

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Dec 14, 2010 8:58 am

David Sedgwick wrote:My response to your latest remarks is that clear cases of a player making no attempt to win by normal means are very rare
Personally I think that the no attempt clause needs to be reworded or guidance introduced to the effect that it's only intended to apply in circumstances where threefold repetition or fifty moves would otherwise come into play. In particular the normal "trying to find a plan" approach to difficult positions is excluded. At move rates with infinite time such as increment, you have an infinite number of moves (subject to repetitions and fifty) to attempt to win. If you struggle to deliver mate with Bishop and Knight, you have fifty moves to work it out. Even more so, if you have a difficult ending with an edge, it is wrong that you should be denied an attempt to win just because your opponent is short of time and you try one plan, and then change your mind.

So I would like to see able to win by normal means promoted in importance, so that if a position can be won, it doesn't matter how badly you set about trying to win it. Also I would like it to be clear that a totally losing position with little or no counterplay cannot be won by normal means.

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1757
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: What is the result if his flag falls

Post by Alex McFarlane » Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:06 am

When deciding 10.2 claims a useful rule of thumb for the arbiter is - "If you have to think about it, then give a loss".

This, of course, is a simplification but a good principle to go by.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: What is the result if his flag falls

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:26 am

Alex McFarlane wrote:When deciding 10.2 claims a useful rule of thumb for the arbiter is - "If you have to think about it, then give a loss".
Arbiters may not see all the positions where 10.2 is implicit.

An example

Player A is probably /completely/totally winning but short of time.
Player A offers a draw.
Player B accepts based on the position on the board.
Arbiters wouldn't see these positions.

or

Player B declines hoping to win on time. The standard of the players is such that this is the only hope.
Player A upgrades the draw offer to a 10.2 claim.

Are you saying that A loses if the position looks difficult?

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: What is the result if his flag falls

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:21 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alex McFarlane wrote:When deciding 10.2 claims a useful rule of thumb for the arbiter is - "If you have to think about it, then give a loss".
Arbiters may not see all the positions where 10.2 is implicit.

An example

Player A is probably /completely/totally winning but short of time.
Player A offers a draw.
Player B accepts based on the position on the board.
Arbiters wouldn't see these positions.

or

Player B declines hoping to win on time. The standard of the players is such that this is the only hope.
Player A upgrades the draw offer to a 10.2 claim.

Are you saying that A loses if the position looks difficult?
One piece of advice: a 10.2 claim is also a draw offer. So you've no need to ask one independently of the claim. You might as well just make the claim. An arbiter will ask whether your opponent accepts the draw offer. If he agrees, he won't bother asking you to play on!

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1757
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: What is the result if his flag falls

Post by Alex McFarlane » Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:12 am

If the game is clearly won then there is no problem in the arbiter awarding the draw though it would be more normal to ask the opponent if he agrees to the draw. If the opponent declines the offer then the arbiter is liklely to say "Play on". This gives the player a chance to win the game. In a clearly won game the arbiter would award the draw after the flag has fallen. The opponent may himself offer a draw at any point after this. If this is declined then the player loses the 'protection' he had and will be given a loss at flag fall.

If a position is so complicated - counter play possible etc - then the arbiter would not decline the draw claim but would order play to continue. The player, in his remaining time, must demonstrate that he knows how to hold the position. If he fails to do so then he loses. I have had a number of claims which I have rejected as the player was (only) a few moves short of demonstrating that he could hold the position.

Whilst my own endgame is reasonable, I have been known to consult strong players on the position before a claim is made, to clarify things in my own mind.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: What is the result if his flag falls

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:34 am

Alex McFarlane wrote: If the opponent declines the offer then the arbiter is liklely to say "Play on". This gives the player a chance to win the game. In a clearly won game the arbiter would award the draw after the flag has fallen. .
That gives a gambling option. If you are winning but short of time, you risk losing. So you make a 10.2 claim. You gamble that your opponent will not accept the draw (even if only able to win on time), nor will the arbiter rule it. You then have a one-way bet that you win if you deliver mate and draw if you run out of time.
Alex McFarlane wrote:The opponent may himself offer a draw at any point after this. If this is declined then the player loses the 'protection' he had and will be given a loss at flag fall.
This I suppose gets the opponent out of the one-way bet and returns it to - lose if you get mated, win if the opponent's flag falls (and draw if you have a lone king).

None of this is possible in no arbiter present scenarios.

Ian Kingston
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
Location: Sutton Coldfield
Contact:

Re: What is the result if his flag falls

Post by Ian Kingston » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:56 pm

Here's a 'no arbiter' scenario, which I witnessed in a league match a couple of weeks ago. Both players were about 150 standard.

White: 25 minutes; Kb3, Pb2
Black: < 1 minute; Kb6
Black to move.

If Black had stopped the clocks and made a 10.2 claim in this position, what should the decision have been?

If Black had played ...Kb5 and then made the claim, what should the decision have been?

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: What is the result if his flag falls

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:30 pm

Ian Kingston wrote:Here's a 'no arbiter' scenario, which I witnessed in a league match a couple of weeks ago. Both players were about 150 standard.

White: 25 minutes; Kb3, Pb2
Black: < 1 minute; Kb6
Black to move.

If Black had stopped the clocks and made a 10.2 claim in this position, what should the decision have been?

If Black had played ...Kb5 and then made the claim, what should the decision have been?
Important bit of 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.

So if he played Kb5, and immediately claimed, then I think the claim would fail on those grounds.

White's scoresheet would prove invaluable here. If the preceding moves showed that white didn't know what he was doing, then the claim would be accepted. Otherwise, black might need to show a bit more than just Kb5. You have to allow yourself time to prove you know how to draw from the position that arises.

If white plays Ka3 Ka5 Kb3 Kb5 Kc3 Kc5 then you could be pretty sure a 10.2 claim would succeed (not trying to make progress).

Kc3 Kc5 b4 Kb5 Kb3 Kb6 might need to be shown to secure a successful claim by virtue that he isn't showing he can win by normal means (but is clearly making progress).

Ian Kingston
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
Location: Sutton Coldfield
Contact:

Re: What is the result if his flag falls

Post by Ian Kingston » Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:43 pm

Thanks Alex. You're right about the second part of course.

The position had only just arisen as the result of a series of exchanges. Both players had been playing normally - there was no question of White having been aimlessly shuffling about. White had an up-to-date and legible scoresheet which could be referred to.

In answer to (a), therefore, are you saying that Black has not demonstrated that he knows how to draw the position and that therefore the claim should be rejected?

David Williams
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:37 pm

Re: What is the result if his flag falls

Post by David Williams » Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:23 pm

Suppose you had to win that game to save your life, and clocks were not at issue. What would you do? I think I'd allow the position to be repeated a couple of times just in case my opponent did something stupid before I pushed the pawn. I'd try a few more repetitions (just in case) as I slowly advanced, until everything hung on him making the right retreat to the back rank. And then I'd repeat king moves endlessly until he claimed a draw by repetition rather than push the pawn to the seventh and stalemate him. That, to a non-arbiter, is trying to win by normal means even if the chance of success is not high. I really don't see how anyone could say I was making no effort to win.

So the question would be whether it was possible to win by normal means. To a layman, I would say it was, at least until the king has made the correct retreat to the back rank, possibly until the pawn has moved to the seventh, and arguably until the checked king has moved in front of the pawn.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: What is the result if his flag falls

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:00 pm

Ian Kingston wrote:Thanks Alex. You're right about the second part of course.

The position had only just arisen as the result of a series of exchanges. Both players had been playing normally - there was no question of White having been aimlessly shuffling about. White had an up-to-date and legible scoresheet which could be referred to.

In answer to (a), therefore, are you saying that Black has not demonstrated that he knows how to draw the position and that therefore the claim should be rejected?
Assuming black claimed when it's black's move (not when it's white's move!), that's what I would have ruled if it were an arbiterless situation.

You're not claiming that the position is a theoretical draw with best play. You're claiming, in effect, that you know how to theoretically draw it with best play. If you show that, then your opponent cannot win by normal means, so it will be a draw. To show that, you need more evidence, in my opinion, than just Kb5.

Ian Kingston
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
Location: Sutton Coldfield
Contact:

Re: What is the result if his flag falls

Post by Ian Kingston » Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:26 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Ian Kingston wrote:Thanks Alex. You're right about the second part of course.

The position had only just arisen as the result of a series of exchanges. Both players had been playing normally - there was no question of White having been aimlessly shuffling about. White had an up-to-date and legible scoresheet which could be referred to.

In answer to (a), therefore, are you saying that Black has not demonstrated that he knows how to draw the position and that therefore the claim should be rejected?
Assuming black claimed when it's black's move (not when it's white's move!), that's what I would have ruled if it were an arbiterless situation.

You're not claiming that the position is a theoretical draw with best play. You're claiming, in effect, that you know how to theoretically draw it with best play. If you show that, then your opponent cannot win by normal means, so it will be a draw. To show that, you need more evidence, in my opinion, than just Kb5.
That's what I hoped you'd say, for two reasons. One was Roger de Coverly's post in which he said:
Roger de Coverly wrote:I would hope that a 10.2 claim with a lone king against a king and two knights would succeed. The position cannot be won by normal means on the grounds that it's a draw. The same should apply to a drawn King and pawn v King position.
[Emphasis added]

In the absence of an arbiter, I think there should be a presumption that the stronger side would have been allowed to try to win if an arbiter had been present. If he has been trying to win and the weaker side has demonstrated the correct defence (verified by the scoresheet), then the claim could be upheld.

The second reason is that in the game in question what Black actually played was ...Ka5??, and White went on to win. In the post mortem it transpired that Black had no idea how to defend - it wasn't a time trouble blunder but a lack of endgame knowledge that led to his defeat. This, in my view, fully justifies denying the claim.

E Michael White
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: What is the result if his flag falls

Post by E Michael White » Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:54 pm

This thread seems to have a 10.2 offshoot
Alex McFarlane wrote:When deciding 10.2 claims a useful rule of thumb for the arbiter is - "If you have to think about it, then give a loss".
This, of course, is a simplification but a good principle to go by.
This is one thing an arbiter cannot do. Under a 10.2 an arbiter may declare a draw or disallow the 10.2 claim and leave the result to be determined by the normal rules; he cannot directly award a loss.

Returning to the main subject:-
GraemeTelBuckley wrote:
David Sedgwick wrote:
GraemeTelBuckley wrote:1.I grew up believing that K+N was not mating material but now I believe it is if you are v K+N (or something similar).
2.It follows that I grew up believing that K+2N was not a win v K if K flag fell but if you had K+2N v K+P then you win if K+P flag falls.
The point seems to me that I grew up believing that mating material was meant to be you could force mate with a move to go, so K+P was always a win if opponent's flag fell because you can promote to a queen and force mate. K+2N was not a win because you cannot force mate.
I am interested to know when this rule changed or did I grow up misunderstanding something?
Okay, I hope everyone is with me so far.
3. What about K+B v K+R+P and K+R+P flag falls, does K+B win on time because of underpromotion and helpmate?
Does it depend on the type of tournament? (e.g. standard play, rapid, British, International...)

All of the above assumes no draw offers have been made.
I'm not sure I am still with you, but the Laws have been changed in this regard since the 1980s. I can't recall exactly when.
Let me try to be clear.
In (1), what I now believe to be the case is that K+N can win on time v the whole army (because of the helpmate idea). The player with the whole army may not be aware that by not offering a draw they risk losing on time because they may overlook the helpmate idea and the change of the rules in the 80s or whenever, so they may think (incorrectly) that flagfall = draw.
In (2), if you have the lone K and just a few seconds, then you will inevitably lose on time. A draw offer does not help you unless you have enough time to make lots of moves. Before the rule change in the 80s, I believe that your flag could fall but you would have been given a draw because 2N+K was not mating material then but it is now.

Am I right about the above?

And point (3) has been answered by two people (thank you) but I am still wondering if there are any other exceptions (other than those in the MCCU rules).
Graham your memory is not playing tricks on you.. If you came away with the view that K+2N v K was insufficient for a win after a flag fall you probably formed that view after a tournament using earlier FIDE rapid rules after 1985, BCF Rapid rules at some time after 1995 or FIDE Blitz rules during the period 1997 – 2001. Alternatively it may have been a tournament which used their own rules.

Without going fully into the history, most of what you say about rules employed during 1980 – 2000 is correct. It was often not clear to players and arbiters what the correct rule versions were and which rules were being used in tournaments. It was a bad time to learn the rules. The internet was not readily available during most of that period and printed copies of rules were not widely circulated; those that were, were often out of date.

During that period the 4 main situations for flag fall as covered by the FIDE rules ie. Longplay intermediate time control, QPF, Rapidplay and Blitz often had different conclusions. This was further confused by BCF rules for Rapidplay, QFP and Blitz existing concurrently with the FIDE rules and often differed as regards flag fall from the FIDE rules. During that time all 7 versions were revised at least 2 or 3 times often altering the flag fall rule.

There were further complications as some adult Rapidplays were played under Blitz rules, some junior Rapidplays played under QPF rules and the WCU had a slightly different view on the then 10.2 rule. In addition Leagues often wrote their own QPF rules based on Blitz rules and Tournaments often used new BCF rules before the official release date (, as described here on the CAA website ). (This document also contains some Arbiter 10.2 views). There were also some rules for bullet chess and 5 minute chess (which should really have been the same as Blitz rules). I cant remember much about the last two rulesets, which may not have been official rules, so wont comment. If you played in a Rapidplay in early 1995 the rules used could have been one of 4 sets : FIDE rules, BCF Rapid rules , the proposed new BCF Rapid rules or Blitz rules.

It is astonishing that it took almost 20 years for the rules to be revised to where we are now which is that if an opponents flag falls a player wins unless there is no legal continuation of moves resulting in a checkmate position in favour of the player, including by helpmate if necessary. This doesn’t apply if an arbiter observing a 10.2 claim decides a draw is appropriate when the flag falls.

I think the rules could be better worded to replace the misleading term “mating material” as the pieces themselves may be incapable of mating in any legal way due to their placement.
POS1.jpg
POS1.jpg (22.71 KiB) Viewed 1407 times
In this comical “whole army” v K+N after a W flag fall, with W to move, B wins but only draws if the BN were instead on a1.
Last edited by E Michael White on Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Michele Clack
Posts: 437
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:38 pm
Location: Worcestershire

Re: What is the result if his flag falls

Post by Michele Clack » Tue Dec 14, 2010 5:06 pm

In a way this 10.2 rule is beginning to sound to me like adjudication by another name.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: What is the result if his flag falls

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:44 pm

E Michael White wrote:This thread seems to have a 10.2 offshoot
Alex McFarlane wrote:When deciding 10.2 claims a useful rule of thumb for the arbiter is - "If you have to think about it, then give a loss".
This, of course, is a simplification but a good principle to go by.
This I one thing an arbiter cannot do. Under a 10.2 an arbiter may declare a draw or disallow the 10.2 claim and leave the result to be determined by the normal rules; he cannot directly award a loss.
Alex meant this in a situation where the flag has fallen, and the players look to you for a decision. If you have to think about whether it's a draw or not, then chances are that it isn't.
michele clack wrote:In a way this 10.2 rule is beginning to sound to me like adjudication by another name.
I hope you haven't got that impression from this thread! A 10.2 decision is absolutely, positively, not, under any circumstances, an adjudication.

An adjudication decides who would have won (or a draw) if the game continued.

A 10.2 decision focuses on whether could, or was trying to, win the game had his opponent not ran out of time before he could deliver the checkmate.

Post Reply