An attempt to solve/improve 10.2b

Technical questions regarding Openings, Middlegames, Endings etc.
Nick Thomas
Posts: 456
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:56 pm

Re: An attempt to solve/improve 10.2b

Post by Nick Thomas » Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:41 pm

E Michael White wrote:
Nick Thomas wrote:a) There will be less of them
There may be more of them. Players may believe they have more chance of winning with 15 extra moves than under the old rules; so elect to play on rather than agree a draw.
I don't really understand this. Anyone thinking like this would surely decline the draw in either case and allow the 10.2 claim to happen.

Nick Thomas
Posts: 456
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:56 pm

Re: An attempt to solve/improve 10.2b

Post by Nick Thomas » Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:06 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Nick Thomas wrote:I agree completely. But my "fix" is possibly workable and yours unfortunately is not (not in my lifetime :( )
I can think of several strong players who you can rely on to agree draws in the 4NCL before a time scramble is reached :)
It's the word "strong" which threw me but this now appears a bit suspicious to me :idea:

Simon Dixon
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:11 pm

Re: An attempt to solve/improve 10.2b

Post by Simon Dixon » Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:57 pm

1. Too many decisions are being made in favour of the claimer (the person claiming a draw) and not enough in favour of the claimee (the opponent).
2. Arbiters are not either a) Trained well enough in the application of this rule b) Incapable of understanding the purpose and proper application of the rule c) Not a good enough chess player to apply the rule correctly in some cases.
3. The claimee is not being given the benefit of the doubt.
4. The game is being brought into disrepute.
5. Arbiters/claimers do not understand what “by normal means” means. (apologies for repetition of “means” made worse by this note).
6. No right of appeal is available.

The rule as I understand it is, a player can claim a draw under 10.2 only if s/he has a winning position. If the position is balanced, still everything to play for, then no such claim should be made let alone allowed, and the game is lost on time as it should be, which is the whole point of using clocks.

Otherwise anyone can claim a draw, even in a losing position by waiting for the clock to run down to - 2 mins. Now it does not take a genius to know that cannot be right, so my first assertion must be correct.

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

Re: An attempt to solve/improve 10.2b

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:00 pm

Simon Dixon wrote:The rule as I understand it is, a player can claim a draw under 10.2 only if s/he has a winning position. If the position is balanced, still everything to play for, then no such claim should be made let alone allowed, and the game is lost on time as it should be, which is the whole point of using clocks.

Otherwise anyone can claim a draw, even in a losing position by waiting for the clock to run down to - 2 mins. Now it does not take a genius to know that cannot be right, so my first assertion must be correct.
You can claim a draw under 10.2 in a losing position. If your opponent is making not "making sufficient attempts to win by normal means", then it's a draw. For example, if it's K + plenty v K, and the K + plenty just moves his K around without moving any pieces so that you lose on time, a 10.2 claim would be successful.

Paul Cooksey

Re: An attempt to solve/improve 10.2b

Post by Paul Cooksey » Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:09 pm

Simon Dixon wrote:The rule as I understand it is, a player can claim a draw under 10.2 only if s/he has a winning position
I don't think that's correct. I had K+N vs K+R against an Indian IM in a tournament. He had 15 minutes, I had less than 5. Practically I probably had just enough time to record 50 moves. But if my opponent had just played random moves as quickly as possible to try win on time I would have claimed when I got below 2 minutes.

He acted sportingly and offered a draw after a few moves. I would do the same. I hope most strong players would.
Last edited by Paul Cooksey on Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Simon Dixon
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:11 pm

Re: An attempt to solve/improve 10.2b

Post by Simon Dixon » Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:12 pm

You can claim a draw under 10.2 in a losing position. If your opponent is making not "making sufficient attempts to win by normal means", then it's a draw. For example, if it's K + plenty v K, and the K + plenty just moves his K around without moving any pieces so that you lose on time, a 10.2 claim would be successful.
An almost impossible scenario IMO, the exception being that of a game between total beginners so the 10.2 will not come into it.

Simon Dixon
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:11 pm

Re: An attempt to solve/improve 10.2b

Post by Simon Dixon » Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:23 pm

I don't think that's correct. I had K+N vs K+R against and Indian IM in a tournament. He had 15 minutes, I had less than 5. Practically I probably had just enough time to record 50 moves.
Of course it is correct, the K + R can beat the K + N, so it means you can't claim a draw under 10.2

If you had the K + R and less than 2 mins then you can claim a draw.

But if you wanted to claim a draw because the leading opponent was feffin about, then you need an arbiter to witness the play.
He acted sportingly and offered a draw after a few moves. I would do the same. I hope most strong players would.
The rational and sensible option.

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

Re: An attempt to solve/improve 10.2b

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:36 pm

Simon Dixon wrote:
I don't think that's correct. I had K+N vs K+R against and Indian IM in a tournament. He had 15 minutes, I had less than 5. Practically I probably had just enough time to record 50 moves.
Of course it is correct, the K + R can beat the K + N, so it means you can't claim a draw under 10.2

If you had the K + R and less than 2 mins then you can claim a draw.
No, it is incorrect. KN is quite entitled to claim a draw v KR under 10.2. Anyone can claim a 10.2 in the last two minutes. The material status of the game does not effect the right to make a claim in any way.
Simon Dixon wrote:But if you wanted to claim a draw because the leading opponent was feffin about, then you need an arbiter to witness the play.
This is the point. It's why KN v KR is an entirely sensible 10.2 claim if KR can't win the game by normal means.

Simon Dixon
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:11 pm

Re: An attempt to solve/improve 10.2b

Post by Simon Dixon » Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:49 pm

This is the point. It's why KN v KR is an entirely sensible 10.2 claim if KR can't win the game by normal means.
It is only sensible to call an arbiter if the player with the K+R is making no attempt to win, you cannot claim a draw simply because you are in a losing position and about to lose on time as well. Unless as I have already pointed out, the opponent is making no attempt to win by out playing you.

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

Re: An attempt to solve/improve 10.2b

Post by Alex McFarlane » Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:33 am

The number of 10.2 claims,in my opinion, is going down year on year. I have only one or two a year which cause any difficulty. By difficulty I mean that the decision requires real thought or leaves you thinking that you were hard on one or other player (usually caused by a player being just a few moves short of proving to you that he could hold the position despite your belief that he would).

Much of this discussion has centred round ‘trying to win’. It is unlikely that an arbiter would award a draw on these grounds immediately. The standard reply is to instruct the players to play on. During this time the player with the extra time/material advantage should be aware that he must demonstrate that he is trying to win by normal means. This alert is usually a wake up call.

With regard to Nick’s proposals I understand what he is trying to achieve. My personal view is that despite the statement giving the benefit of doubt to the claimee (if that’s a word) rather than the claimant an arbiter will be much more likely to declare a game drawn as this effectively returns the emphasis on the result to the players. There is much sense in taking the option which means that the players themselves effectively decide the game in the additional time. This is similar to the arbiter seldom deciding on a claim immediately but allowing the players the remaining time to ‘sort it out’ themselves.
Such action creates problems. There will be situations where a player would have been given a win under the current system but will now have to prove it against an opponent who instead of having seconds to defend will now have two minutes.

In addition it will be up to the arbiter to count the moves to ensure 15 moves have been played. This means that you require one arbiter per game. If you should happen to have one more game going to this method than you have arbiters then what do you do? One of the games would have to be ‘frozen’ until the other had finished. This gives the claimant even more time to come up with a defensive plan.

I think the practicalities of implementing such a proposal outweigh any benefits which would come from it. Shame!

Nick Thomas
Posts: 456
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:56 pm

Re: An attempt to solve/improve 10.2b

Post by Nick Thomas » Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:30 am

Alex McFarlane wrote:The number of 10.2 claims,in my opinion, is going down year on year. I have only one or two a year which cause any difficulty. By difficulty I mean that the decision requires real thought or leaves you thinking that you were hard on one or other player (usually caused by a player being just a few moves short of proving to you that he could hold the position despite your belief that he would).

Much of this discussion has centred round ‘trying to win’. It is unlikely that an arbiter would award a draw on these grounds immediately. The standard reply is to instruct the players to play on. During this time the player with the extra time/material advantage should be aware that he must demonstrate that he is trying to win by normal means. This alert is usually a wake up call.

With regard to Nick’s proposals I understand what he is trying to achieve. My personal view is that despite the statement giving the benefit of doubt to the claimee (if that’s a word) rather than the claimant an arbiter will be much more likely to declare a game drawn as this effectively returns the emphasis on the result to the players. There is much sense in taking the option which means that the players themselves effectively decide the game in the additional time. This is similar to the arbiter seldom deciding on a claim immediately but allowing the players the remaining time to ‘sort it out’ themselves.
Such action creates problems. There will be situations where a player would have been given a win under the current system but will now have to prove it against an opponent who instead of having seconds to defend will now have two minutes.

In addition it will be up to the arbiter to count the moves to ensure 15 moves have been played. This means that you require one arbiter per game. If you should happen to have one more game going to this method than you have arbiters then what do you do? One of the games would have to be ‘frozen’ until the other had finished. This gives the claimant even more time to come up with a defensive plan.

I think the practicalities of implementing such a proposal outweigh any benefits which would come from it. Shame!
Thanks for taking the time to post on this Alex.
I think you might have misunderstood the details of my proposals though:
My personal view is that despite the statement giving the benefit of doubt to the claimee (if that’s a word) rather than the claimant an arbiter will be much more likely to declare a game drawn as this effectively returns the emphasis on the result to the players.
I don't propose any change under 10.2a except to ensure that the arbiter is trained to give the benefit of the doubt to the claimee (I have always been uneasy about the use of this ridiculous word but it hopefully serves a purpose). If the arbiter awards a draw here the result stands.
There will be situations where a player would have been given a win under the current system but will now have to prove it against an opponent who instead of having seconds to defend will now have two minutes
This situation will never happen under my proposals. If the arbiter rejects the 10.2 claim and declares the game won (and lost) then even under my proposal the claimee wins.
In addition it will be up to the arbiter to count the moves to ensure 15 moves have been played. This means that you require one arbiter per game. If you should happen to have one more game going to this method than you have arbiters then what do you do? One of the games would have to be ‘frozen’ until the other had finished. This gives the claimant even more time to come up with a defensive plan.
This is a very unlikely and very small problem since the whole process should take a maximum of only 5 minutes. You have already conceded that:
I have only one or two a year which cause any difficulty
The question is "do the many benefits outweigh this remote and in my view small difficulty". Ask the players whether they would prefer the remote possibility of waiting 5 minutes to continue the game or would prefer the game to be unfairly declared a draw after the arbiter has viewed only 3 or 4 moves and being confused about the correct interpretation of the rules - with no recourse to an appeal!

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

Re: An attempt to solve/improve 10.2b

Post by Alex McFarlane » Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:24 am

I think I understand what you are saying (but I'm probably wrong).

Despite the rule saying that the benefit of doubt goes to the claimee, human nature being what it is the arbiter will effectively 'chicken out' of making a decision and put the pressure on the 'innocent' claimee.

The arbiter would have the choice of giving a win to the claimee and it being unable to be contested by the claimer or to give a draw and allow the claimee to contest this and play on - thereby devolving power to the players. The second option is far and away the more likely - despite what the Law says!!
Only in totally clear positions will the arbiter give anything other than a draw. I'm afraid that's a fact of life.

Indeed because the claimee can then go on to lose you are putting that person in the position of either accepting a draw in a game that was probably won or of playing on and risking a loss. The outcome will be a lot more drawn games and a lot of unhappy players. Not because your idea is bad but because the implementation of it will almost certainly be worse than the current situation.

By the way, i know of no British arbiter who is happy that 10.2 decisions cannot be appealed. In congresses the lack of an appeal is convenient in ensuring that the timetable is kept, but otherwise I think most arbiters would prefer that the decision could be challenged with supportive evidence.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: An attempt to solve/improve 10.2b

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:48 am

Simon Dixon wrote: 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.

Nick Thomas
Posts: 456
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:56 pm

Re: An attempt to solve/improve 10.2b

Post by Nick Thomas » Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:56 am

Sorry Alex I'm still not convinced that you understand the proposal.
Bob makes a 10.2 claim against Sally with 2 minutes remaining. An arbiter is called and can either:
a) Reject the claim
b) Declare the game drawn
c) Postpone his decision

The arbiter is given guidance to give Sally the benefit of the doubt i.e. Do not declare the game drawn unless you are absolutely sure that the game cannot be won by normal means or if he/she has been watching for some time that Sally is not trying to win by normal means.

If The arbiter decides to postpone the decision (probably fairly common in practise both now and with my proposed amendments) then as soon as possible after a flag has fallen he should make his/her decision according to 10.2b. Only at this point does Sally have the right to invoke the extra clause if the arbiter decides the game should be declared a draw.
Despite the rule saying that the benefit of doubt goes to the claimee, human nature being what it is the arbiter will effectively 'chicken out' of making a decision and put the pressure on the 'innocent' claimee
It is good that the arbiter may be put off declaring the game drawn here (at the 10.2a stage) as I think some bad decisions are possible if the game is not allowed to continue.
The arbiter would have the choice of giving a win to the claimee and it being unable to be contested by the claimer or to give a draw and allow the claimee to contest this and play on - thereby devolving power to the players. The second option is far and away the more likely
This is correct and in my opinion a good thing. Note that this only happens after flag fall at the 10.2b stage.
Indeed because the claimee can then go on to lose you are putting that person in the position of either accepting a draw in a game that was probably won or of playing on and risking a loss. The outcome will be a lot more drawn games and a lot of unhappy players
Sally will never be in a position where she has a choice of accepting a draw in a won position or playing on and risking a loss. She only has a choice at the point where a flag has fallen and the arbiter has declared the game drawn . We cannot go down the road of saying that the arbiters are so poorly trained and weak minded that they will declare the game drawn even though they are aware that the claim should be rejected simply because Sally has the right of an immediate appeal. The outcome in my opinion will be that far fewer games are (mistakenly) declared drawn by badly trained or poorly equipped arbiters at the 10.2b stage and that more will be decided on the board which has to be much much better. Indeed it might be a good idea to require arbiters to record details of 10.2 claims and decisions and to compile a database to ensure helpful feedback.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: An attempt to solve/improve 10.2b

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:05 am

Nick Thomas wrote: Indeed it might be a good idea to require arbiters to record details of 10.2 claims and decisions and to compile a database to ensure helpful feedback.
Not just arbiters. Players themselves will concede draws without reference to the arbiter because of the existence of 10.2. I usually get two or three implicit 10.2s every hundred games. Being a pawn up in an opposite bishops ending is one of these, but agreeing a draw when proposed by an opponent who is both winning and seriously short of time is another.

In my experience, play continues until two minutes remains and then players are prepared to accept draws in drawn positions or concede draws if they don't feel they have enough time to win on the board.