FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

[Adam Raoof]

I come on here for a bit of light relief before the 5pm time control and all i see is everyone giving Alex H a hard time.

Brilliant!!! Keep up the good work.

This is considered ongoing development for English Arbiters...

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex, 7 didn't happen because Q & 4 resigned. But what if Q & 4's flag has fallen after 3, but before 4? Draw, according to your earlier post. Which of course is nonsense.

So the Q has been left en prise, but the defender doesn't physically have time to take it? The defender's flag falls, and you think a fair result of that game is a win for the non-claimant who has made no progress apart from leaving his Q en prise - such that he would now lose if Q&4 had enough time - in an attempt to show he's making progress?

[Roger de Coverly]

]
Alas, this is what the ECF's Chief Arbiter says about the KR v K position. As I say, this is what the CAA course taught us.

The original question was why there is a belief that you can claim a draw regardless of the position when two minutes remain. The answer is that the CAA encourages such a belief by its interpretation that a claim with a sole King against King and Rook is both valid and can be awarded if the player with the Rook "blunders" by playing a repetition.

[Alex Holowczak]

I come on here for a bit of light relief before the 5pm time control and all i see is everyone giving Alex H a hard time.

Brilliant!!! Keep up the good work.

Hang on, this is what the CAA course taught us. As the Chief Arbiter of the CAA, this is probably something you're responsible for if what I'm saying is incorrect.

[Alex Holowczak]

]
Alas, this is what the ECF's Chief Arbiter says about the KR v K position. As I say, this is what the CAA course taught us.

The original question was why there is a belief that you can claim a draw regardless of the position when two minutes remain. The answer is that the CAA encourages such a belief by its interpretation that a claim with a sole King against King and Rook is both valid and can be awarded if the player with the Rook "blunders" by playing a repetition.

Well, that's not my fault, take it up with Dave W and Alex McF!

[Roger de Coverly]

So the Q has been left en prise, but the defender doesn't physically have time to take it? The defender's flag falls, and you think a fair result of that game is a win for the non-claimant who has made no progress apart from leaving his Q en prise - such that he would now lose if Q&4 had enough time - in an attempt to show he's making progress?

If your flag falls after you have claimed a 10.2 and the arbiter defers the decision, you don't necessarily lose, rather it depends on the arbiter. If earlier you were claiming on the grounds that your opponent was unable to win, he's even less likely to win if he doesn't have a queen. So it should be a draw. If you hadn't made the claim, you lose because of the flag fall. If the position had remained a draw, but a less than obvious one, that's one of the arbiter's more difficult calls, as to whether to award the win.

[Alex Holowczak]

If your flag falls after you have claimed a 10.2 and the arbiter defers the decision, you don't necessarily lose, rather it depends on the arbiter.

Most sensible arbiters would probably make sure that the event they've been asked to run was using an incremental time control, so that this is avoided altogether.

[Simon Brown]

Alex, I do actually. Even if a game is very drawn, everyone has the right to try to win it. Being unable to manage your clock shouldn't give you the right to draw a game you would otherwise lose.

In the event, the arbiter - Stewart Reuben - opined that because Q & 5 had validly tried to win, largely by putting his Q en prise, the win would have stood notwithstanding my resignation. I didn't dispute it, but I don't think my opponent would have disagreed if it was given as a draw (apart from the fact that there was prize money at stake).

Oh, and we weren't juniors, but I wasn't aware that the rules were different for juniors.........

[Alex Holowczak]

Oh, and we weren't juniors, but I wasn't aware that the rules were different for juniors.........

The very original point was that juniors claim things spuriously. I saw one last year that was K + almost everything v K + almost everything. The time control was G/45. One player had 2 minutes, the other had more than 20. The guy with 20 was recording his moves and hadn't got as far as move 20. I was surprised when that wasn't declined straight off the bat...

[Roger de Coverly]

Most sensible arbiters would probably make sure that the event they've been asked to run was using an incremental time control, so that this is avoided altogether.

All the morning sessions at the British in Sheffield are using 40/100 + 20, venues and scheduling frequently rule out incremental move rates.

[David Shepherd]

Most sensible arbiters would probably make sure that the event they've been asked to run was using an incremental time control, so that this is avoided altogether.

All the morning sessions at the British in Sheffield are using 40/100 + 20, venues and scheduling frequently rule out incremental move rates.

Is that really true though? True they may well rule out 30 second increment, but do they really rule out say 4 or 5 second increment?

[Alex Holowczak]

Most sensible arbiters would probably make sure that the event they've been asked to run was using an incremental time control, so that this is avoided altogether.

All the morning sessions at the British in Sheffield are using 40/100 + 20, venues and scheduling frequently rule out incremental move rates.

I'm fairly sure the arbiting team would rather use 110 + 10' for those sessions in Sheffield. They asked that last year on the questionnaire. I assume people said no. Their mistake was asking, rather than just doing it...

[Roger de Coverly]

The very original point was that juniors claim things spuriously. I saw one last year that was K + almost everything v K + almost everything. The time control was G/45. One player had 2 minutes, the other had more than 20. The guy with 20 was recording his moves and hadn't got as far as move 20. I was surprised when that wasn't declined straight off the bat...

G/90 (as distinct from 30/75 + 15) worries me in leagues for exactly this reason. I think you should reject such a claim regardless if the position is somewhere near equal, but should you modify this in the event that the player with the 2 minutes was completely winning? Having a minimum number of moves to have elapsed for a 10.2 claim would clarify matters somewhat. This is under "no arbiter present" rules, so any such claim has to be resolved by the match captains or referred to the league organisers.

[Alex Holowczak]

The very original point was that juniors claim things spuriously. I saw one last year that was K + almost everything v K + almost everything. The time control was G/45. One player had 2 minutes, the other had more than 20. The guy with 20 was recording his moves and hadn't got as far as move 20. I was surprised when that wasn't declined straight off the bat...

G/90 (as distinct from 30/75 + 15) worries me in leagues for exactly this reason. I think you should reject such a claim regardless if the position is somewhere near equal, but should you modify this in the event that the player with the 2 minutes was completely winning? Having a minimum number of moves to have elapsed for a 10.2 claim would clarify matters somewhat. This is under "no arbiter present" rules, so any such claim has to be resolved by the match captains or referred to the league organisers.

I agree it should have been rejected. For what it's worth, while materially it was equal, his opponent's position looked pretty overwhelming to me.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

If I have 5 seconds on my clock and my opponent has 5 seconds on his clock, and it's KR v K and 20+ moves away from checkmate, I don't think either side could reasonably claim they weren't trying to win on time.

Tsk. All chess players should know that "with the side with the rook to move, checkmate can be forced in at most sixteen moves from any starting position". Should all chess arbiters know that?