An attempt to solve/improve 10.2b

[Simon Dixon]

The rule as I understand it is, a player can claim a draw under 10.2 only if s/he has a winning position.

You can claim in any position, it doesn't mean it will be awarded. The defender in a drawn ending should also have protection. One of the tries used by inexperienced players is to attempt progress in opposite bishop endings with one extra pawn. Also KN v KR is more often than not a theoretical draw.

The big controversy is that the CAA guidance suggests that K v KR can be awarded a draw, which encourages frivolous claims and a belief that you should always claim a draw when less than two minutes remain on the clock.

My understanding of 10.2 is to prevent a loss in a won position. For eg, if I am a Q up in a middlegame with the attack and I am about to lose on time, then it allows me to make a claim. Should that be for a win or a draw, I don't know for sure. I usually claim a draw as I feel time must come into it, as to play on would result in me losing on time anyway.

I suppose it is the same thinking behind the K v KR situation, which is drawn due to insufficient material if the player with the rook runs out of time.

[Alex Holowczak]

My understanding of 10.2 is to prevent a loss in a won position.

10.2 is to stop people from having the mentality of trying to win on time, as opposed to winning over the board. It doesn't matter whether the person who is losing over the board is trying to win on time or the person who is winning is trying to win on time.

[Simon Dixon]

10.2 is to stop people from having the mentality of trying to win on time

What is the point of using clocks then.

My biggest strategy is to gain a lead on time.

[LozCooper]

10.2 is to stop people from having the mentality of trying to win on time

What is the point of using clocks then.

My biggest strategy is to gain a lead on time.

I would say the point of using clocks is to stop games going on for an infinite amount of time. There's nothing wrong with building up a time advantage which may cause players to make a mistake in time trouble or at the end of a game but flagging them to win in a position with, for example, K&B v K&opposite coloured bishop is one of the things the rule is aimed at preventing.

[Simon Dixon]

for example, K&B v K&opposite coloured bishop is one of the things the rule is aimed at preventing.

So basically the idea behind 10.2 is to prevent possible wins on time in dead drawn positions. Or at least one of the ideas which actually makes sense.

[Nick Thomas]

for example, K&B v K&opposite coloured bishop is one of the things the rule is aimed at preventing.

So basically the idea behind 10.2 is to prevent possible wins on time in dead drawn positions. Or at least one of the ideas which actually makes sense.

Yes

[Simon Dixon]

for example, K&B v K&opposite coloured bishop is one of the things the rule is aimed at preventing.

So basically the idea behind 10.2 is to prevent possible wins on time in dead drawn positions. Or at least one of the ideas which actually makes sense.

Yes

Now all we need to do is find out what the rest of it means. Unless that is all there is to it, problem solved.

Or almost solved, marking time, ie not trying to win by normal means is also easy to understand.

What does that leave? My assertion that you can claim a draw if you have a won position, a Q up for eg, and there is no hope of the opponent checkmating.

[Roger de Coverly]

So basically the idea behind 10.2 is to prevent possible wins on time in dead drawn positions.

And for that matter, it can prevent winning on time in a dead lost position. The standard (and correct) advice to players is that if they play for a win when short of time, they risk losing. But if they offer a draw, it is likely to be accepted because 10.2 can force acceptance.

A reason why we're shouting at arbiters is that they seem to think 10.2 should be used to award draws to players who are in dead lost positions. That's only fine if a repetition of position or fifty move claim could be valid but otherwise it gives more rights to a player short of time than one who isn't.

[Simon Dixon]

And for that matter, it can prevent winning on time in a dead lost position. The standard (and correct) advice to players is that if they play for a win when short of time, they risk losing. But if they offer a draw, it is likely to be accepted because 10.2 can force acceptance.

My assertion was correct then, you can claim a draw in a won position to avoid losing on time. Very good indeed. As clear as an azure sky of deepest summer sir.

A reason why we're shouting at arbiters is that they seem to think 10.2 should be used to award draws to players who are in dead lost positions. That's only fine if a repetition of position or fifty move claim could be valid but otherwise it gives more rights to a player short of time than one who isn't.

Now I see, arbiters who do not understand, or people acting as arbiters when they do not know anything about the rules.


In a nutshell, the rule 10.2 is to prevent a player from winning on time in recognised drawn or lost positions.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

And for that matter, it can prevent winning on time in a dead lost position. The standard (and correct) advice to players is that if they play for a win when short of time, they risk losing. But if they offer a draw, it is likely to be accepted because 10.2 can force acceptance.

My assertion was correct then, you can claim a draw in a won position to avoid losing on time. Very good indeed. As clear as an azure sky of deepest summer sir.

I always thought that if there was still play in the position, that this was not possible as it rewards players who run short of time and then seek sanctuary in a 'draw', which penalises the player who handled their clock correctly. How do you define "won" position anyway? Completely unworkable and can only be treated on a case-by-case basis. It is perfectly possible to keep playing for a win even when material down, especially when ahead on the clock or if you think your opponent may blunder in time trouble.

[Roger de Coverly]

How do you define "won" position anyway?

How about a position where, if time pressure was not an issue, you would accept any draw with alacrity. Personally if I'm doing badly but my opponent offers a draw because of time shortage, I will usually accept (relative grade can be an influence). I risk losing (on the board) by continuing. If the position is bad, but not that bad, you have to take a decision. If you know your opponent is talented at blitz that also influences your decision. Of course if you have the advantage but are short of time, you also have to engineer a position where your opponent has little choice but to accept a draw. In practice you might decide at about five minutes from the end, it might be worth a draw offer then as well before you reach the two minute mark.

If you need a formal definition, any position where a chess engine gives + a lot. A position which if adjourned or adjudicated would be instantly resigned.

[Paul Cooksey]

The more we discuss this, the more I am in favour of increment.

Throwing another one in; I won an opposite bishops ending with equal pawns against a 150ish junior 3 or 4 years ago. He offered me several draws, pulled faces, and gave me what I believe my niece would call "evils" for about half an hour. Then he realised they are not all drawn and resigned. I am now thinking he might have got away with running his clock down and saying to the arbiter, "draw under the two minute rule, opposite coloured bishops".

As an aside - is there a generally accepted way to attract an arbiter if you have <2 mins?

[Sean Hewitt]

As an aside - is there a generally accepted way to attract an arbiter if you have <2 mins?

Stop the clock and go and find him. The restaurant is probably the best place to look

[Roger de Coverly]

I am now thinking he might have got away with running his clock down and saying to the arbiter, "draw under the two minute rule, opposite coloured bishops".

As an aside - is there a generally accepted way to attract an arbiter if you have <2 mins?

In those circumstances, you would have to hope the arbiter was a reasonably decent player who would observe that the claimed position was one in which a win was possible or likely. Opposite bishop endings are frequently positionally drawn regardless of what progress is being made. I had one recently where I made progress by winning a pawn. It still didn't affect the final result.

Tournament rules would normally allow you to stop the clock if an arbiter needed to be summoned.

As you might expect 10.2 is a frequent visitor to this forum. Here's an earlier one
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1045

As Berks league controller I would observe that players, teams or match captains always resolve potential 10.2s amongst themselves. The only ones ever referred as disputes are opposite Bishop endings by lower rated players where one of the players thinks they can win on time by shuffling the King or Bishop faster than the opponent. Even those are only at the rate of one every other season.

[Alex McFarlane]

As an aside - is there a generally accepted way to attract an arbiter if you have <2 mins?

Stop the clock and go and find him. The restaurant is probably the best place to look

That's your <deleted> southern arbiters for you. In a restaurant indeed.

Real arbiters are to be found in the bar with a pie and a pint .... in each hand and a spare balanced on their knee.

(Just realised another word fitted the spaces)