FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

[Alex Holowczak]

The player with the extra material is not at fault

Yes he is, he's repeating moves! He's providing absolutely no evidence that this game is a win for him.

[Adam Raoof]

The player with the extra material is not at fault

Yes he is, he's repeating moves! He's providing absolutely no evidence that this game is a win for him.

Try running this scenario past a Senior Arbiter, and see what they say.... I know you can give a draw here, but it seems rather harsh.

[Alex Holowczak]

The player with the extra material is not at fault

Yes he is, he's repeating moves! He's providing absolutely no evidence that this game is a win for him.

Try running this scenario past a Senior Arbiter, and see what they say....

Dave Welch, the ECF Chief Arbiter, explained this to us at the ECF Arbiters' Course. I'm merely regurgitating what he told us. If you read the initial source, it even mentions Dave.

[E Michael White]

Regarding juniors claiming too early. The early advice in the 1990s by the BCF chief arbiter was to get the claim in early if the player was going to be happy with a draw. So its hardly surprising that different views have percolated down over the years.

I don't understand the reasons for arbiters wanting to interpret the rules differently all the time.

It seems many arbiters are power seekers who like to give their own flavour to rules, as it makes them feel important.

If arbiters stuck to the laws as they are things would be better. Where laws are bad, we should lobby FIDE to change them rather than ignore them locally.

Right again. It should be possible to go from one league/tournament to another and know what the rules will be. Some arbiters need to be sent for retraining.

The third part would contain all the Laws that should only apply to significant events - probably those with norm chances.

Some additional laws for norm seeking tournaments are contained in FIDE Tournament Rules which have to apply to norm seeking events. The British Championships sometimes flout these. Most of these additional rules relate to process/procedure not basics but your idea could extend these.

Back in pre-1993 days, when FIDE had no quickplay finish rules - or so I'm told -

FIDE had Rapidplay rules in 1985 which formed the basis for BCF Rapid and QPF rules which caused many arbiters to get the 2 confused particularly as regards pointing out flag falls and illegal moves during the last 2 minutes.

My main difficulty with the 10.2 rule is knowing when to claim. A lot can happen in the last two minutes and a position that was not a draw can turn in to an easily drawn one with just a few seconds left, and even then back again in to a winning position. Or an opponent clearly trying to win with 2 minutes left can then just start playing moves to run you out of time with 45 seconds left. I think this is a particular problem in leagues where no arbiter is present - how many moves do you need to play to demonstrate the position drawn in those circumstances.

Claim as early as possible with an arbiter there. He wont award an immediate draw but will watch.

With no arbiter in a league claim as late as possible with seconds to go. Try to record moves up into 2 minutes and write the time left around 2 mins on the score sheet, as score sheets have to accompany the claim with the final position. This may show no progress has been made in the final 2.

I think the illegal move idea may have come from blitz.

Thats probably right. Early tournaments in the 1970s used blitz rules as QPF rules. Some leagues in the 1960s used these as an unofficial QPF to avoid adjournments. In those days nobody knew the rules properly captains just made them up and players remembered as many as they could. Later on these players became parents and arbiters. The rest is recent history.

There is of course a subtle difference in the 10.2 rule where no arbiter is present in that the rules state "has been making no effort" whereas for "arbiter present" events the rules say "is making no effort to win" . This ensure in theory that In Leagues LMCs have to look at the preceding moves; in practise LMCs put their own flavour on the rules. In tournaments arbiters use this difference to avoid making immediate decisions.

I can't believe this can be correct. If you claim a 10.2 and your opponent repeats moves once, you should just sit there until your flag falls and the draw would be awarded?

This will sometimes be incorrect because the only winning plan after the arbiter has been summoned could be to repeat the position from two moves earlier. The player is then making progress while the arbiter watches. Its down to the subtle difference in the rules again. However I dont believe the rule writers intended or even noticed this.

[Roger de Coverly]

It's a matter of judgement to decide how many moves should be played before you can say that the winning side has been given a fair opportunity to try to win the game, but I would say that in this case he has not.

I don't see why the side attempting to win shouldn't get the full 50 moves, or at least as far as distance to mate being exceeded. If you were playing with an increment or if time pressure wasn't an issue, that would be the case. In particular if you were playing on an increment it would be standard and legal practice to repeat a move or two to gain extra time and the arbiter would have no intervention rights.

By all means allow the arbiter to count to 50 and watch for repetitions, but that's as far as they should intervene. So the "able to win" clause should in my view outrank the "attempting to win" clause.

To get back to the original question, if arbiters are going to uphold frivolous claims like King against King and Rook, it will be no great surprise that junior players make claims on principle when they have less than two minutes remaining.

[Adam Raoof]

Dave Welch, the ECF Chief Arbiter, explained this to us at the ECF Arbiters' Course. I'm merely regurgitating what he told us. If you read the initial source, it even mentions Dave.

I realise that, but I disagree. Read the guidance from Chess Scotland (http://www.chessscotland.com/csinfo/arbguide.htm)

"(f) This claim procedure must be set in motion by a player (say White) who has less than two minutes left on the clock.
(1) If White is clearly superior and Black has no significant counterplay then the Arbiter would be likely to declare the game drawn immediately.
(2) If White is equal or inferior it is likely that the Arbiter will require the game to continue. In this case the award of extra time to Black (10.2b) is discretionary and may depend on how reasonable the Arbiter thinks White's claim may be.
(g) As Arbiter, it is best not to accept a claim of 'no practical winning chances' too soon. It is often better to say 'play some more moves' and to see as much as possible of the play in the final few minutes. If the player is equal or inferior, the best chance is to prove the draw on the board by actual play - hence it is likely to help to play on even to flag-fall.
(h) Because the decision is not an adjudication, it is desirable for the player claiming a draw to make the case by actual play. It is reasonable for the Arbiter to take account of the number of moves made by the claimant in the last few minutes of playing time. "

[Adam Raoof]

It's a matter of judgement to decide how many moves should be played before you can say that the winning side has been given a fair opportunity to try to win the game, but I would say that in this case he has not.

I don't see why the side attempting to win shouldn't get the full 50 moves, or at least as far as distance to mate being exceeded. If you were playing with an increment or if time pressure wasn't an issue, that would be the case. In particular if you were playing on an increment it would be standard and legal practice to repeat a move or two to gain extra time and the arbiter would have no intervention rights.

By all means allow the arbiter to count to 50 and watch for repetitions, but that's as far as they should intervene. So the "able to win" clause should in my view outrank the "attempting to win" clause.

To get back to the original question, if arbiters are going to uphold frivolous claims like King against King and Rook, it will be no great surprise that junior players make claims on principle when they have less than two minutes remaining.

I meant to say 'before the flag falls', and I agree with you.

[Peter Shaw]

Alex, what if Black claims a draw with KR v KQ, White repeats moves once and Black's flag falls. Do you award a draw then?

[Alex Holowczak]

(h) Because the decision is not an adjudication, it is desirable for the player claiming a draw to make the case by actual play. It is reasonable for the Arbiter to take account of the number of moves made by the claimant in the last few minutes of playing time. "

This is the key one. It's not an adjudication, so it's not the case that every KR v K is a win for KR if K runs out of time. If you're making a case by actual play, then let's look at the play. White has repeated moves. He had many moves that weren't repetition. He could even have moved his K to the other side of the board, or advanced his K, rather than repeat moves. The number of moves in the last 2 minutes isn't known here. We just know that two moves were made from when the claim was made, which could have been with 5 seconds left on the clock.

[Roger de Coverly]

Repeating moves demonstrates that the player doesn't necessarily know how to win the position, even if KR v K is itself a book win. This is particularly important in junior chess, where most people don't know KR v K.

I agree, but why should the player be denied the usual fifty moves to figure it out just because the opponent is short of time? It's particularly annoying if arbiters try to extend this principle to positions where the win, though possible, is a bit unclear. If the position isn't a dead draw (opposite bishops for instance), surely the player with the advantage should have every right to play for a win regardless of the opponent's time shortage? If this involves trying multiple plans and repeating the position once between tries, why should an arbiter be adjudicating the quality of play?

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex, what if Black claims a draw with KR v KQ, White repeats moves once and Black's flag falls. Do you award a draw then?

If the player is winning and claims a draw, you first ask if White accepts a draw. You then pick the clock up, and ask if he still wants to decline the draw offer. I.e. if he wants to play on without a clock. Allegedly, this usually solves the problem. As Alex McFarlane's guidance suggests, this would normally be awarded a draw. I would award it a draw.

[Adam Raoof]

(h) Because the decision is not an adjudication, it is desirable for the player claiming a draw to make the case by actual play. It is reasonable for the Arbiter to take account of the number of moves made by the claimant in the last few minutes of playing time. "

This is the key one. It's not an adjudication, so it's not the case that every KR v K is a win for KR if K runs out of time. If you're making a case by actual play, then let's look at the play. White has repeated moves. He had many moves that weren't repetition. He could even have moved his K to the other side of the board, or advanced his K, rather than repeat moves. The number of moves in the last 2 minutes isn't known here. We just know that two moves were made from when the claim was made, which could have been with 5 seconds left on the clock.

Sorry, I must have been looking at the wrong example - you appear to have added some more information to the whole scenario. Can you just give me scenario again? If I were at Golders Green and someone had called me over to claim a draw with a K against a K and R, and then lost on time after two moves, I am clear about the result of the game.

[David Shepherd]

Regarding the original king and rook example, I have seen such moves happen loads of times in junior games and the player with the king and rook goes on to win or sometimes stalemate the opponent. I do not really agree with the ruling if it is a junior who is short on time or indeed anyone who is short of time. In one game a player graded 170 left a rook en-prise with a few seconds on his clock and with a few seconds left on my clock and I failed to take it. Clearly neither of us were tring to win. In the example the king moved towards the rook, the rook moved away which is natural when you have no time left and are starting to panic. If the player with the rook had lots of time left then it might be a fair ruling.

What if the both players are GM's and the rook is near the clock so they have made have made a short move in order to prevent themselves losing on time. I would not be happy if I had done this and they awarded a draw.

[Alex Holowczak]

Repeating moves demonstrates that the player doesn't necessarily know how to win the position, even if KR v K is itself a book win. This is particularly important in junior chess, where most people don't know KR v K.

I agree, but why should the player be denied the usual fifty moves to figure it out just because the opponent is short of time? It's particularly annoying if arbiters try to extend this principle to positions where the win, though possible, is a bit unclear. If the position isn't a dead draw (opposite bishops for instance), surely the player with the advantage should have every right to play for a win regardless of the opponent's time shortage? If this involves trying multiple plans and repeating the position once between tries, why should an arbiter be adjudicating the quality of play?

You're trying something you've already tried, again. This is clearly an example of not making making progress.

If the arbiter deems that no progress can be made within those fifty moves, then he awards a draw. If he deems that progress can be made within the fifty moves, and you're doing your best to make it with moves over the board - as opposed to repeating the position - then he won't.

[Alex Holowczak]

(h) Because the decision is not an adjudication, it is desirable for the player claiming a draw to make the case by actual play. It is reasonable for the Arbiter to take account of the number of moves made by the claimant in the last few minutes of playing time. "

This is the key one. It's not an adjudication, so it's not the case that every KR v K is a win for KR if K runs out of time. If you're making a case by actual play, then let's look at the play. White has repeated moves. He had many moves that weren't repetition. He could even have moved his K to the other side of the board, or advanced his K, rather than repeat moves. The number of moves in the last 2 minutes isn't known here. We just know that two moves were made from when the claim was made, which could have been with 5 seconds left on the clock.

Sorry, I must have been looking at the wrong example - you appear to have added some more information to the whole scenario. Can you just give me scenario again? If I were at Golders Green and someone had called me over to claim a draw with a K against a K and R, and then lost on time after two moves, I am clear about the result of the game.

It is a loss for the claimant in nearly all situations. If the player repeats the position in those two moves, then it's a draw. That's the only difference.