What is the result if his flag falls

[Alex Holowczak]

Sean did indeed play in the aforementioned MCCU county match this afternoon. (Leicestershire won by the way.)

Anyway, I'm going to propose (if I may, not sure...) that the MCCU rewords those rules at its next AGM. It looks like one of those rules that was written in 1985, but no one has ever got around to updating it. For what it's worth, I don't think the rules need to mention anything about which quickplay rules they're played under. There is only one set of rules, so it should be pretty obvious which rules are being used.

I think the Irish Chess Union still uses those quickplay rules...

Just play on trying to mate until the digits read 00:01, and claim under 10.2. Can you do that?

Yes. It doesn't mean the claim is going to succeed though.

[Mick Norris]

Anyway, I'm going to propose (if I may, not sure...) that the MCCU rewords those rules at its next AGM.

Alex, your county can propose the rule, as it is part of the MCCU or, even better, you can get the county match controller to propose it, but you can't do so as an individual

[E Michael White]

It looks like one of those rules that was written in 1985, but no one has ever got around to updating it.

It must have been altered since 2005 as the ECF(Chess) didnt exist before then. I expect what happened is that someone went through replacing BCF with ECF without doing any further checking.

The Birmingham and Warwickshire areas always had a leaning towards using previous versions of rules if they were happy with them. For many years the Leamington Rapidplay posted on the walls at their tournament their own quickfinish rules which were the BCF QPF rules and not the FIDE rules. Whilst this is probably allowed as far as grading games is concerned it might make life difficult for local players, who play in a tournament in a different region, when they find the rules they grew up with dont apply.

[Alex Holowczak]

Anyway, I'm going to propose (if I may, not sure...) that the MCCU rewords those rules at its next AGM.

Alex, your county can propose the rule, as it is part of the MCCU or, even better, you can get the county match controller to propose it, but you can't do so as an individual

It's not altogether clear which is my county. I do admin work for one, but play for another... Thanks though. I'll just contact both!

It looks like one of those rules that was written in 1985, but no one has ever got around to updating it.

It must have been altered since 2005 as the ECF(Chess) didnt exist before then. I expect what happened is that someone went through replacing BCF with ECF without doing any further checking.

Yes, agreed - fair enough.

The Birmingham and Warwickshire areas always had a leaning towards using previous versions of rules if they were happy with them. For many years the Leamington Rapidplay posted on the walls at their tournament their own quickfinish rules which were the BCF QPF rules and not the FIDE rules. Whilst this is probably allowed as far as grading games is concerned it might make life difficult for local players, who play in a tournament in a different region, when they find the rules they grew up with dont apply.

That surprises me if Dave Thomas was doing the arbiting at them (which chances are, he was). What I think will have happened is that a keen organiser (who perhaps wasn't up to seed with these things), who had organised the event since 1990-something, and just repeated the task each year. Having controlled sections at the Warwickshire Open and Birmingham Rapidplay over the last 12 months, I know that such things no longer exist.

[GraemeTelBuckley]

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 ineveitably 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).

[David Williams]

Just play on trying to mate until the digits read 00:01, and claim under 10.2. Can you do that?

Yes. It doesn't mean the claim is going to succeed though.

Can you clarify this?

Suppose A is winning and B has no counterplay, but A has only a minute on his clock. B offers a draw, which A refuses. Does this refusal mean A forfeits the right to make a 10.2 claim? If he offers a draw and B refuses, the game must be played out (unless B later offers a draw).

[Roger de Coverly]

In (2), if you have the lone K and just a few seconds, then you will ineveitably lose on time. A draw offer does not help you unless you have enough time to make lots of moves

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. Arbiters of events where players cannot be assumed to know these things have difficult calls to make. It would be best to have special rules for events with really weak players.

Is there an unpublished arbiter's interpretation that the amount of time remaining on the clock matters? So if you claim with 119 seconds remaining, you get the draw, but at 2 seconds, you don't.

Suppose A is winning and B has no counterplay, but A has only a minute on his clock. B offers a draw, which A refuses. Does this refusal mean A forfeits the right to make a 10.2 claim? If he offers a draw and B refuses, the game must be played out (unless B later offers a draw).

I don't think so. If you offer a draw in a winning position where your opponent has no counterplay and it is declined, this has always seemed to me that it's a clear demonstration both that your opponent is unable to win by normal means (as witnessed by the position on the board) and isn't attempting to win by normal means ( only on time as demonstrated by declining a draw in a hopeless position).

Alex H is suggesting (I think) that there may be arbiters who would take the clock position into account, that a position where they would award a draw either immediately or after watching a few moves if the claimant had a minute or more remaining would be one where they might be reluctant to allow the draw at 0.01.

[Alex Holowczak]

Just play on trying to mate until the digits read 00:01, and claim under 10.2. Can you do that?

Yes. It doesn't mean the claim is going to succeed though.

Can you clarify this?

Suppose A is winning and B has no counterplay, but A has only a minute on his clock. B offers a draw, which A refuses. Does this refusal mean A forfeits the right to make a 10.2 claim? If he offers a draw and B refuses, the game must be played out (unless B later offers a draw).

Alex H is suggesting (I think) that there may be arbiters who would take the clock position into account, that a position where they would award a draw either immediately or after watching a few moves if the claimant had a minute or more remaining would be one where they might be reluctant to allow the draw at 0.01.

Alex H meant that you can claim with 0.01 on your clock. Then you can send off your scoresheets and perhaps a copy of the position in an envelope (why not use an adjournment envelope?), and then your league's rules committee will make their decision. It's not guaranteed to succeed though, in that, they might still decline your claim and award a loss.

In my limited experience of this sort of claim (2 games), on both occasions, the claimant only sent a copy of the position, and not the scoresheets. Your claim has far more grounds to succeed if a copy of the scoresheet is sent too.

A 10.2 claim in an arbiterless situation is far less likely to be accepted than with an arbiter present. An arbiter would, over-the-board, usually say play on and defer his decision. Of course, with no arbiter present, you lose that option!

[David Sedgwick]

Alex McFarlane wrote an excellent article about this sort of issue in the November British Chess Magazine. For copyright reasons I'd better not quote from it here.

However, I can paraphrase the key advice:

a) Where there is an arbiter present, you should claim the draw as early in your last two minutes as possible. If the arbiter asks you to continue play, you have then given yourself the maximum amount of time to demonstrate the validity of your claim.

b) Where there is no arbiter present, you should claim the draw as late as possible. That is because play ceases when the claim is made and you want to have the maximum amount of evidence available for the arbiter who will be called upon to consider your claim.

A number of years ago - I think it was in the early 1990s - the decisive game in a National Club match came down to a position where each side had a king, a bishop (same colour) and a pawn. The captain of the side which only needed a draw virtually ordered his player to cease play and claim. The other side could have protested about the intervention, but they didn't, perhaps realising that they had just been given their only possible chance. Had three of four more accurate moves been made, the draw would have been incontrovertible, but in the absence of those moves the claim was rejected.

[GraemeTelBuckley]

In (2), if you have the lone K and just a few seconds, then you will ineveitably lose on time. A draw offer does not help you unless you have enough time to make lots of moves

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. Arbiters of events where players cannot be assumed to know these things have difficult calls to make. It would be best to have special rules for events with really weak players... ...

Thanks Roger. That makes things more clear to me.

[David Williams]

Alex McFarlane wrote an excellent article about this sort of issue in the November British Chess Magazine. For copyright reasons I'd better not quote from it here.

However, I can paraphrase the key advice:

a) Where there is an arbiter present, you should claim the draw as early in your last two minutes as possible. If the arbiter asks you to continue play, you have then given yourself the maximum amount of time to demonstrate the validity of your claim.

b) Where there is no arbiter present, you should claim the draw as late as possible. That is because play ceases when the claim is made and you want to have the maximum amount of evidence available for the arbiter who will be called upon to consider your claim.

As so often, I read this last night and it made perfect sense - and now I read it again and it doesn't.

If the arbiter asks you to continue, it's not for the claimant to demonstrate the validity of the claim. It's for his opponent to demonstrate its invalidity, by trying to win by normal means. Suppose I'm the exchange down and behind on the clock. My opponent probes and prods to no real effect and runs my clock down to two minutes. I claim under 10.2. The arbiter postpones his decision, and my opponent gives the exchange back, leaving level material, a whole lot of different considerations and chances for both sides. That to me is trying to win by normal means and I'd expect the arbiter to reject the claim, whereupon I'd lose on time. I'd be left wishing I'd delayed my claim till I only had a couple of seconds left, when he wouldn't get the chance to make the sacrifice. I can't see anything in the rules that suggests that the timing of the claim has any impact on the arbiter's decision.

[Roger de Coverly]

Alex McFarlane wrote an excellent article about this sort of issue in the November British Chess Magazine. For copyright reasons I'd better not quote from it here.

I didn't think his examples were particularly well chosen. In one of them, he had a position with a Black King on h5, a Black pawn on h4, a Black Bishop on d6 and a solitary White king on f2. I'm sure many players would feel insulted to be asked to play on as White. Perhaps he's saying that you shouldn't assume arbiters have any chess knowledge whatsoever and therefore you need to window-dress the position by parking the king on h1 before making the draw claim.

In his next example, the position is more complex. There are Black pawns on a4,b3,c4,d5,e6,f7,g6,h5. The White chain runs a3,b2,c3,d4,e5,f4,g5,h4. The White king is on e3 and the Black king on e7. White being a piece up has a Knight on g3 and a Bishop on e2. Black has a Knight on c6. For what it's worth, I would think White has a winning game with the threat of a piece for two pawns sacrifice on h5. It's suggested that because Black has the possible cheapo idea of Na7 to b5 x a3 giving a passed b pawn that the draw shouldn't be awarded. To my mind this is tantamount to adjudicating the 10.2 position, which is something arbiters seem very much against.

A third example was KRB v KR which we've seen a lot of recently. I suspect that the defender should be awarded a loss unless someone has counted lots of moves. I suppose if you had a move count and you checked the theory status of the final position (again something arbiters don't like doing), then you could award a draw provided move count plus distance to mate exceeded fifty.

Most of the article is discussing what should happen with no arbiter present. The practical advice, not given in the article, is to do what Leonard Barden suggested with regard to adjudication, which is that you aim to set up a position which looks impressive. So you claim in the wrong rook pawn ending with the King on g2 or h1.

In both cases, the player with the Black pieces would realistically only have been able to win on time if the players have any minimal skill level. Perhaps it all hinges on what normal means as in the opponent cannot win by normal means. Personally I don't think a totally drawn or almost lost position is one that can be won normally.

[David Sedgwick]

Alex McFarlane wrote an excellent article about this sort of issue in the November British Chess Magazine. For copyright reasons I'd better not quote from it here.

However, I can paraphrase the key advice:

a) Where there is an arbiter present, you should claim the draw as early in your last two minutes as possible. If the arbiter asks you to continue play, you have then given yourself the maximum amount of time to demonstrate the validity of your claim.

b) Where there is no arbiter present, you should claim the draw as late as possible. That is because play ceases when the claim is made and you want to have the maximum amount of evidence available for the arbiter who will be called upon to consider your claim.

As so often, I read this last night and it made perfect sense - and now I read it again and it doesn't.

If the arbiter asks you to continue, it's not for the claimant to demonstrate the validity of the claim. It's for his opponent to demonstrate its invalidity, by trying to win by normal means. Suppose I'm the exchange down and behind on the clock. My opponent probes and prods to no real effect and runs my clock down to two minutes. I claim under 10.2. The arbiter postpones his decision, and my opponent gives the exchange back, leaving level material, a whole lot of different considerations and chances for both sides. That to me is trying to win by normal means and I'd expect the arbiter to reject the claim, whereupon I'd lose on time. I'd be left wishing I'd delayed my claim till I only had a couple of seconds left, when he wouldn't get the chance to make the sacrifice. I can't see anything in the rules that suggests that the timing of the claim has any impact on the arbiter's decision.

Perhaps my choice of wording - "demonstrate the validity of the claim" - was less than perfect. You have to satisfy the arbiter that your opponent is making no effort to win by normal means or that it is not possible to do so.

If you delay your claim until you have only two seconds left and the arbiter requests that play continue, it's unlikely that you'll be able so to satisfy the arbiter in the two seconds left to you.

With regard to your last sentence, I wasn't suggesting it was a matter of the Laws. I was suggesting that the sensible practical approach as a player differs in the two situations (arbiter present and no arbiter present).

[David Williams]

I've no experience of this situation, so perhaps I'm getting the wrong end of the stick.

The rule says that if the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means then he shall declare the game drawn. If he disagrees, presumably he rejects the claim. So he would only postpone his decision if he is in doubt. If the opponent suddenly springs into action only after the claim is made, and after successfully driving the claimant's clock down to under two minutes, some might say that was evidence that he wasn't trying to win by normal means when the claim was made . . .

It does seem wrong to me that someone with winning chances and ahead on time can do very little until his opponent has under two minutes left (in the expectation that the arbiter will postpone a decision) and only then start trying to win by normal means.

[David Sedgwick]

Law 10.2 is indeed far from ideal, which is why I've previously commented that where possible I favour the use of small increments in the concluding phase of a game (or throughout).

My response to your latest remarks is that clear cut cases of a player making no attempt to win by normal means are very rare. In practice I postpone my decision on a 10.2 claim about 85%-90% of the time and most of the immediate draws I do award are under the "not possible" provision. I think most other arbiters would say the same.

To revert to your original example, I think that a player is entitled to try and make the advantage of the exchange tell for quite some time before deciding on the alternative approach of returning the extra material. The onus is on you, the opponent, to ensure you've left yourself enough time to defend a difficult position.