Rule 10A

[Paul McKeown]

No - the building closes. If they haven't sealed their move by then, they lose????

When playing for Maidenhead I once had to take the board and set outside put it on a car bonnet for my opponent to seal his move.

At that I think it is about time I gave up altogether. If chess players can be that foolish, then what's the flipping point? I presume there were no extenuating circumstances for such a farce?

[Neill Cooper]

When playing for Maidenhead I once had to take the board and set outside put it on a car bonnet for my opponent to seal his move.

At that I think it is about time I gave up altogether. If chess players can be that foolish, then what's the flipping point? I presume there were no extenuating circumstances for such a farce?

None.The caretaker closed the library at 10.30, we probably started at 7.30 and finished at 10.15 or so, but I'd left him an awkward choice (which he got wrong). This was a long time ago - pre 1985.

[Roger de Coverly]

The question is whether the defender has demonstrated that they know how to draw the position.

I think an arbiter awarding a win in a position that was a draw by tablebase would be bringing the game into disrepute particularly if the players had already played out a number of moves in the ending. Arbiters don't (or shouldn't) award a win in drawn king and pawn endings so should more complex draws be any different? The use of a tablebase means that no chess judgement is needed to assess the position.

The actual phrase in the laws is

or that it is not possible to win by normal means,

[Roger de Coverly]

When playing for Maidenhead I once had to take the board and set outside put it on a car bonnet for my opponent to seal his move.

A number of Berks people tell similar stories. Where a venue has a strict closing regime, I think you have to rule out increments. If you play in a Community Centre or equivalent with a bar that has an eleven-ish closing time, you're usually OK to stay in the room until about half past eleven.

There were fights to get the adjournment option introduced into leagues in the first place. The initial motivation was to thwart adjudication-sitters. Quickplay finishes were not yet on the table. Oddly the "not enough time for sealed move" argument was never used in favour of adjudications.

In fact, when playing at Maidenhead in the library, I used to tell Bourne End players to treat the game as having two halves, there was no need to do anything rash to make something happen in the first 30 moves because it was not far to travel for the adjournment.

[Roger de Coverly]

If you don't record, then the defender has no recourse to the draw by 50 move rule,

If you are prepared to let the (digital) clock lend a hand, there is a solution to this. You make sure that the clock's move counter is switched on. At the potential start of a 50 move session, you consult the clock to find out what move number the clock believes it is. On a potential 50 move claim, you consult the clock again to find how times it has been pressed since the last look.

If anyone wants to see a game with a successful defence to KRB KR, then look at Hodgson v Agdelstein from Hastings 1992. This was played back in the days of adjournments though.

[Ian Thompson]

I think an arbiter awarding a win in a position that was a draw by tablebase would be bringing the game into disrepute particularly if the players had already played out a number of moves in the ending. Arbiters don't (or shouldn't) award a win in drawn king and pawn endings so should more complex draws be any different? The use of a tablebase means that no chess judgement is needed to assess the position.

The actual phrase in the laws is

or that it is not possible to win by normal means,

It's NOT an adjudication. The arbiter is making a subjective judgement on the likely result of the game had it continued. Drawn king and pawn endings should not necessarily be given as draws. It depends on how straightforward the draw is.

If it was adjudication by tablebase where possible, you would end up with some bizarre decisions. For example, White King on e2, Queen on e3. Black King on b5, Queen on d6. White to play. If White has a pawn on:

1. f2 its a win
2. f3 its a draw
3. f4 its a draw
4. f5 its a win

The correct decision in all these positions, with no arbiter present, and no up-to-date scoresheet, is a win for White. The drawn positions are not sufficiently clear-cut to give a draw.

If you play games with quickplay finishes you have to accept that if you make a 10.2 claim without an up-to-date scoresheet, with no arbiter present, the chances of success are slim in all but very simple positions.

[Roger de Coverly]

If you play games with quickplay finishes you have to accept that if you make a 10.2 claim without an up-to-date scoresheet, with no arbiter present, the chances of success are slim in all but very simple positions

If arbiters are going to make decisions which are against the facts of a position, why don't we go back to adjudications? So play 90 moves in 90 minutes, use the counter on a digital clock to check how many moves have been played. When one flag falls, you lose unless at least 90 moves have been played. In that event the game is adjudicated properly not based on some arbiter's dubious opinions as to the likely outcome and awarding wins in drawn positions.

Support for quick play finishes is conditional on sensible 10.2 outcomes.

[Ian Thompson]

If arbiters are going to make decisions which are against the facts of a position, why don't we go back to adjudications? So play 90 moves in 90 minutes, use the counter on a digital clock to check how many moves have been played. When one flag falls, you lose unless at least 90 moves have been played. In that event the game is adjudicated properly not based on some arbiter's dubious opinions as to the likely outcome and awarding wins in drawn positions.

The fundamental question is whether or not you agree that the position on the board is more important than the clock times. 10.2 says it is, so it allows you to claim a draw when you would otherwise lose on time. What you suggest would mean that a player with a clearly winning position cannot claim a draw because they don't have time to win it, so its a completely different rule.

The concept of a "proper adjudication" is wishful thinking. It might be based on a more thorough analysis of the position than a 10.2 decision, but, except for clear-cut positions, its still just somebody's opinion, which may not be right.

Support for quick play finishes is conditional on sensible 10.2 outcomes.

I think the USCF interpretation of this rule is reasonable - "The draw shall be awarded if the director believes that a Class C (1400-1599 elo) player would have little chance (<10% according to some sources) to lose the position against a Master (2200-2399 elo) with both players having ample time".

The R+B v R ending would clearly fail this test because my database says it results in a win about half the time, as would the drawn Q+P endings I quoted because they require accurate defence to draw, which a Class C player would be unlikely to be capable of.

[Roger de Coverly]

The fundamental question is whether or not you agree that the position on the board is more important than the clock times. 10.2 says it is, so it allows you to claim a draw when you would otherwise lose on time. What you suggest would mean that a player with a clearly winning position cannot claim a draw because they don't have time to win it, so its a completely different rule.

I agree that would be the consequence. It has the merit of clarity. In any event I have found it very difficult to get sense out of arbiters as to when the player with an advantage can offer a draw and claim it under 10.2 if refused.

The concept of a "proper adjudication" is wishful thinking.

Not with a tablebase, it isn't - it's absolute. So if you reach RBK v RK and it's drawn that's the result. Not as you would advocate a win for the RB.

The R+B v R ending would clearly fail this test because my database says it results in a win about half the time, as would the drawn Q+P endings I quoted because they require accurate defence to draw, which a Class C player would be unlikely to be capable of.

If it's on a tablebase, there's a unique solution. Probability assertions using the database aren't needed.

[Roger de Coverly]

Games with increments need a guillotine, otherwise they are unworkable, particularly if one player is willing to abuse the good nature of his opponent and drag the whole affair out beyond the point that it is completely clearly drawn.

This whole 10 second a move thing needs a lot more thought. The morning events at Gibraltar 2011 will be using it - how will they cope there with infinite games?

I thought of a plausible gamesmanship scenario with the new Thames Valley rule. Suppose a player reaches KBN v K without being too sure how to win it. Under the increment rules you could faff about until the "venue is closed" adjudication. You could probably do the same under the Border league 10.2 rule as it's difficult for the opponent to claim lack of progress without a score.

[Ian Thompson]

In any event I have found it very difficult to get sense out of arbiters as to when the player with an advantage can offer a draw and claim it under 10.2 if refused.

I'm not surprised. The best I've heard is that the benefit of any doubt should be given to the opponent of the claimant, so a claim in anything other than a clear-cut position will fail.

Not with a tablebase, it isn't - it's absolute. So if you reach RBK v RK and it's drawn that's the result. Not as you would advocate a win for the RB.

But what proportion of 10.2 claims will be covered by tablebases? A tiny number, I would think. So what do you do about the vast majority that aren't?

[Alex Holowczak]

No - the building closes. If they haven't sealed their move by then, they lose????

When playing for Maidenhead I once had to take the board and set outside put it on a car bonnet for my opponent to seal his move.

Did you leave the clock running?

[Neill Cooper]

No - the building closes. If they haven't sealed their move by then, they lose????

When playing for Maidenhead I once had to take the board and set outside put it on a car bonnet for my opponent to seal his move.

Did you leave the clock running?

Of Course

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

Did you leave the clock running?

Of Course

More importantly, did you leave the car running?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Did you leave the clock running?

Of Course

More importantly, did you leave the car running?

From the sound of it, it may not have been his car. It can be quite difficult to find a flat enough surface outside on which to place a chess board high up enough to give someone a reasonable chance of working out their sealed move! I've never got to the stage of being chucked out of a venue, but there have been times when sealing a tricky move when I've realised after thinking for 10 minutes that I needed to really pick one of the moves I was considering, as it was getting late and all the other tables and chairs around me had been cleared away! Sadly, I picked the wrong move. But there are also times when adjourning, especially if my opponent is a long way ahead on the clock, when I've had to think to myself: "hang on, how much time do I have left until the next time control, and am I in time trouble again already?" I think it is technically possible with some time controls, if your opponent uses hardly any time at all in the first time control, to lose on time while thinking about a sealed move!