Kevin Thurlow wrote:" unless the "superior" side is claiming the draw and is very superior. .
My pet example is rook and pawn endings. Let's presume that the defender doesn't have a passed pawn. I hope you would declare R+P v R an instant draw if offered by the player with the pawn provided there wasn't a forced mate on the board!
What about R+2 v R+1 or R+3 v R+2? I'd probably agree that R+6 v R+5 is potentially too complex to rule on but the superior side can simply set up a position with all pawns defended, the King safe, the enemy king cut off and the rook (or king) as near to the clock as possible. You only lose these positions (R+6 v R+5) by trying too hard to win.
Kevin Thurlow wrote:What I would not want is someone deliberately running his time down so he could claim a draw under 10.2 when it's say R+6 each.
I think players would agree with you on that. It might not be shared by all arbiters though. A 4NCL game was ruled drawn despite a loss on time some years ago through insufficient progress mostly because the defender hardly played any moves !