Claiming a draw with less than 2 minutes on clock.

[Stewart Reuben]

I once won a quickplay finish with RvB. My opponent expressed no indignation. It was an event with arbiters present.
Both quickplay finish rules, those with an arbiter and those without, were written by English arbiters to cope with the problems that were hitherto solved solely with adjudication (apologies for using a swear word). They are used worldwide. Players with the bishop have correctly been awarded draws in RvB endgames when they have demonstrated that they know the technique. Basically head for a corner of opposite colour to the bishop and it is a fortress.

Of course it is much better to use an increment. But, as has been frequently said before, either the players are too cheap to buy modern clocks, or the administrators think they are.

David Haydon. Just because your opponent claimed a draw, doesn't mean to say he would get it. Assuming the events were as you describe, you should be awarded the win.

[Neill Cooper]

Coincidentally the last of the 32 games to finish in yesterday's Hampton vs Wilson's schools matches was a win with R vs B, (where a pawn sacrifice just before left the end left the king in the wrong corner).

[Jonathan Bryant]

Although don't be surprised if they run into the same opponent again and they find them opting for the adjournment option.

Actually, I think this is quite an important point of which non-London League chessers might not be aware. If you don’t like quickplay finishes and all that they bring - e.g. the possibility of not having enough time to demonstrate a draw - you don’t have to play them. You can opt for adjournment instead.

I’d also agree with your point that not having an arbiter present is inherently problematic.


As for you suggestion about looking up the approved method of drawing RvB - well, I don’t need to because I already know it. Whether I’d be able to demonstrate it over the board with various other factors in play is another matter.

Ultimately, my main objection to the ''this is a theoretical draw so the game should immediately be declared drawn' argument is that it removes any need to actually know how to draw those positions. It’s not clear to me why ignorance and lack of study should be encouraged or rewarded.

[Richard Bates]

As for you suggestion about looking up the approved method of drawing RvB - well, I don’t need to because I already know it. Whether I’d be able to demonstrate it over the board with various other factors in play is another matter.

I didn't think you'd miss it Tony, but i didn't want to give you the chance.

[Brian Towers]

Throwing this to arbiters, suppose that you are asked to make a decision on a position where a claim has been made of "unable to win by normal means" without an arbiter being present. To what extent, if at all, are the absolute or relative grades or ratings of the two players relevant? Be careful, because a position drawn with ease in a GM v GM encounter might not be the same if both players are 150s.

Where I currently live and play my chess (outside the UK) all standard rate competitive chess is played with a 30 second increment so, from a personal perspective, this is a moot question.

However about 10 or more years ago there was a scandal (as far as our club was concerned) where one of our club players, rated over 2000 and with a full working knowledge of Philidor, Lucena, etc., reached a simple theoretically drawn KRvKRP endgame against a much higher rated opponent and, with less than 2 minutes on the clock and no increment, claimed a draw under 10.2. His claim was rejected and he was awarded a loss. This decision was upheld on appeal. The furore reached and was reported in the national chess press.

The only possible conclusion was that the decision was based on the rating difference between the two players regardless of the strength and knowledge of the player making the claim.

It may very well be that the current situation (all standard chess played with increment) is a direct result of this and an ensuing "never again" feeling in the federation.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... and with a full working knowledge of Philidor, Lucena, etc., reached a simple theoretically drawn KRvKRP endgame against a much higher rated opponent and, with less than 2 minutes on the clock and no increment, claimed a draw under 10.2.

Do you happen to know what the exact position was? Not that it’s relevant to this thread per se, I’m just curious.

[Brian Towers]

Do you happen to know what the exact position was? Not that it’s relevant to this thread per se, I’m just curious.

No, I'm afraid not.

The closest I could come would be to offer you the final position from a completely different and much less controversial game where I tried to invoke 10.2. It was in Brian Towers (1866) v Michael Botvinnik (2277) 7th May 2005 Liga B Herzliya v Zoran. According to my scorebook White had 61 seconds, Black 57 seconds and the position was 8/8/8/8/6pk/8/KP1r3P/7R, white (me) to move. The match was at their place. They had no arbiter so when I made my claim we ended up phoning our club chairman who was an arbiter and he simply said "Play on". I reckon with an extra 20 minutes on the clock I could have drawn that game despite the 400+ rating difference but with a minute each I had no chance. I can offer you the moves up to move 43 but then I obviously dipped under 5 minutes and stopped recording.

My opponent, by the way, looked about 20. Grandson, perhaps? Or is Botvinnik the Russian equivalent of Smith or Jones?

[IM Jack Rudd]

8/8/8/8/6pk/8/KP1r3P/7R

[Paul Dargan]

Not related to the OP - but in the position described shown, I'm afraid that I would want to play for a win as Black - as would many. Indeed Kh3, Kg2 is a big threat. White 'might' be able to draw - but OTB and with limited time I would fancy Black and wouldn't really want the White side of this position.

btw - how did Yi do today in what Williams described as 'this must reall be drawn' R+P ending

Paul

[Edited for typo and wrong game from Gib]

[Roger de Coverly]

They had no arbiter so when I made my claim we ended up phoning our club chairman who was an arbiter and he simply said "Play on".

In a UK league, it's generally the case that it is played "with no arbiter deemed present". So play ceases on a claim. That said, why is White's draw claim valid? Superficially why is it not possible for Black to take the h pawn and queen the g pawn? Perhaps you sacrifice the Rook and then try for one of the draws with K and advanced P v K and R.

In a tournament with an arbiter present, I'd imagine a UK arbiter would ask for play to continue and only award the draw once a trivially drawn position had resulted. That's the harsh side of playing to a finish, if you run out of time in a position with play remaining you lose. (Oddly in Junior chess, they have a strange interpretation that the opponent also has to demonstrate how to win).

[Paul McKeown]

I'm with Richard on this one.

I was teaching at Richmond Juniors yesterday, and thought it would be useful to talk about this endgame, seeing it had come up. The kids knew it already, though. "KR vs. KB is a draw, sir. You're safe in the corners of the opposite colour to the bishop. The king can't approach because of stalemate. The other corners are a loss." This from children aged six to twelve.

There is no realistic means to win. KR vs. KB is a draw, except for a few pathological cases, provided you are competent enough not to get the bishop pinned or skewered.

And gibberish about KR - KN is just an attempt to confuse the discussion; it's a very different endgame.

[Paul McKeown]

And I think that there is important information missing in the report given. The player that claimed the draw has eyesight which is poor enough that he legally could be registered blind; he has had several operations over the last few years in an attempt to maintain what vision remains. I don't think it correct to ask such a player to ram poorly seen pieces around the equally poorly seen board in a desperate attempt to prove his knowledge (knowledge which he clearly has being a player whose grade has been as high as 220 or so in the recent past) to someone unreasonably looking to squeeze blood from a stone.

[Paul McKeown]

And my final thought on the matter is that I think it dubious practise to come on a public forum asking for comment, before the league and its appointed arbiters have made their ruling. Although that hasn't stopped people from doing the same in the past, though.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I
There is no realistic means to win. KR vs. KB is a draw, except for a few pathological cases, provided you are competent enough not to get the bishop pinned or skewered.

And gibberish about KR - KN is just an attempt to confuse the discussion; it's a very different endgame.

Edouard found a way other than pin or skewer to lose KR v KB against Marin at Benasque a few years back: getting it forked with a mate threat.
(http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... edies.html)

Incidentally, "Richard" in the comments to that old post - I’ve always assumed this was the forum's Richard Bates but perhaps not - writes,

"I remember a debate on some forum a few years ago about whether a player should be able to claim a draw with K+N vs K+R. (an elementary draw IMO which i believe I could teach someone with no knowledge of chess to hold vs the World Champion). A leading arbiter took the contrary view, yet expressed the belief that K+B vs K+R should produce a successful draw claim on the former's behalf. I think games like this confirm my opinion."

(Bold from the original).


Regarding your point about the special circumstances an opponent might face, I would agree that a chesser might want to make allowances in certain situations. That would be a personal choice, though, rather than a question of the rules.



PS: My compliments to the Richmond Juniors and their teachers/coaches.

[Roger de Coverly]

There's enough information on the forum to look up the match result on the London League site. It shows there as "adjourned", although presumably that really means "disputed".

I don't really agree with the logic of awarding a win in a drawn position on the grounds of "might blunder". The same equally applies to the player seeking a win, that they might reach a theoretically winning position and not spot the decisive continuation.