Angus French wrote:David Welch wrote detailed guidance on 10.2 and it was published on the ECF website but lost when the site was redesigned.
My understanding is that the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate the draw/lack of progress during play.
Here is the guidance courtesy of the Wayback Machine which has many past websites archived (
http://web.archive.org/web/200710072155 ... _nov06.htm)
Guidance on the Quickplay Finish
Last update: Thursday March 22, 2007 14:29
David Welch, Chief Arbiter of the ECF
The game of chess is always evolving and the quickplay finish has risen in importance as adjudications and adjournments have slipped out of favour. Even the quickplay finish could be eventually replaced by events with a single time control (e.g. all moves in 2 hours) or by a Fischer-style time control.
Each system of timing brings its own problems and difficulties, and each system affects the style of play. The quickplay finish has itself changed over the years. Originally different congresses had different rules, then the BCF brought out a unified set of rules. Eventually FIDE incorporated the QPF in to the main Laws of Chess. Even the FIDE Laws have changed since they were introduced.
As the rules and Laws have changed, so has the guidance to Arbiters and players. I have been asked to state the ECF’s present position.
It is obvious that when a claim under Article 10.2 is made, there is the same problem that occurs when a game is adjudicated: the two players are expecting to receive 1½ points out of a position that is only worth a total of one point.
I would ask the reader to read the
Laws of Chess (Article 10 and Appendices B and D.) This information is available on the ECF website, as are my notes on the Changes to the Laws of Chess, effective 1 July 2005.
Article 10.1 A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game, when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time.
Note that the placing in brackets of the word ‘remaining’ indicates that there is no need for a previous time control.
Article 10.1 makes it the duty of the player to allow sufficient time to finish the game, just as a conventional time control makes it the duty of the player to allow sufficient time (for example) to complete the first 40 moves.
There are two differences, however. Firstly, it is in the interest of a player who is getting short of time to try to avoid the longer endings e.g. if he allows himself to end up with K + Q against K + Q + P, then he must expect to make a very long sequence of moves. Secondly, the opponent may try to extend the game unnaturally by avoiding any progress towards the end of the game or by considering it reasonable to play on in a position where there is practically no chance of a win over the board.
Article 10.2 affords the player some protection if his opponent employs either of these tactics.
Article 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. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter.
The first sentence is unfortunate, as witness the following conversation:
Young player to arbiter: ‘I am claiming a draw because I have less than two minutes on my clock.’ Arbiter: ‘Why are you making a claim?’ Young player: ‘Because I was coached always to claim when I had less than two minutes unless I thought I could win.’
The next part of 10.2 implies that the player must say why he made a claim, because the arbiter is invited to agree with the player.
Article 10.2 (a) If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone the decision or reject the claim.
‘...making no effort…’ is the rarer claim and presents the greatest immediate problem for the arbiter. It would be unwise to interrupt the game at this point to investigate the claim. However, when he asks the players to resume, there is a good chance that the opponent will sacrifice a piece to try to achieve a breakthrough, something which he might have tried many moves before. On balance, it is probably better to ask for play to continue and to base the final decision on the events which then unfold. It would be a brave arbiter (but possibly an astute one) who would observe flag fall and then investigate the part of the game leading up to the initial claim.
There was one case of ‘…making no effort…’ when black with lone K on e5 claimed a draw against a K on f2 and a rook on a4. Play continued 1. Rb4 Kd5 2. Ra4 Ke5 3. Rb4 and black’s flag fell. The arbiter correctly awarded a draw. Note that the artificial prolonging of the game is the key point of the decision.
The claim ‘…making no effort…’ is actually easier to demonstrate when there is no arbiter present. The game MUST stop at that point and the evidence be gathered.
It is always rare for an arbiter to reject a claim out of hand, unless he suspects delaying tactics. Therefore the arbiter will ask the players to play on, to gain as much evidence as possible. I would only adjust the clock of the opponent by 2 minutes if there was good reason, particularly with electronic clocks, but I think this is down to whether the arbiter thinks he will do more harm than good.
Let us now concentrate on the claim ‘…not possible to win by normal means…’ It is normal for a player to make a blunder if he has not demonstrated a total grasp of the position. It is not normal simply to make a player run out of time in a position where it is practically impossible to win over the board. It is not normal to expect the player to under-promote to a bishop so that the opponent can set up a help-mate.
If a player has shown that he has the technique to draw a position such as White K(e4) versus K (e6) + P (e5), the arbiter would not require that all the moves up to the eventual stalemate be played and would award the draw. In K + R versus K + R, the award of a draw would be immediate, except for beginners, when it might be wise to observe a few moves first.
Under Appendix D, it is harder for the claimant to have his claim upheld, because the appeal arbiter is deprived of the information that the ‘over-the-board’ arbiter can gain by saying ‘Play on.’
A serious problem arises when the player has a good position, but is short of time. In some junior events, the opponent with Q + 3P versus the claimant with Q + 7P is asked if he would be prepared to play for a win if the clock were removed. Objectively, the arbiter cannot award the claimant a draw if there is any reasonable chance that the opponent would win. The claimant had perhaps behaved unwisely by not allowing himself sufficient time to exchange pieces in to a position where he could not lose.
Rules of Thumb for the Arbiter
1) Always gain maximum information, usually by asking the players to play on.
2) If the opponent has prolonged the game, or could only reasonably expect to win on time alone, the draw should be awarded.
3) If the player who makes the claim has himself contributed to his own time trouble, or has been forced to spend time countering his opponent’s good moves, he weakens his claim for a draw.
4) Any benefit of the doubt is given to the opponent of the claimant.
5) Don’t make a decision which brings the game in to disrepute.
6) If you are out of your depth, ask for advice before making a decision, because there is no appeal.
Suggestions for the Players
1) Leave yourself enough time to finish the game under normal circumstances.
2) If the opponent of the claimant blunders and is no longer seeking to win, he should offer a draw in the presence of the arbiter. If the original claimant refuses, the claimant will no longer be protected by the arbiter.
3) If you play for a win, you risk losing unless your opponent could not possibly checkmate you.