Rule 10.2 (a) AGAIN then

[Richard James]

http://gawainjones.co.uk/southend-easter-congress/

[Paul Dargan]

Gawain seems to think he can appeal a 10.2 decision - as I understand it you can't. The arbiters decision is final. There's a few situations in bridge also where the TDs ruling at the table cant be appealed.

Certainly in the USA there's plenty of legal precedent for allowing the (probably incorrect) decison at the time in a sporting event to stand to give organisers the ability to finish an event and award the prizes rather than get bogged down in appeals and court action after the event.

Interesting to see whether appointing arbiters who are not ECF or FIDE 'qualified' rather than registered is sufficiently negligent/egrigious/suitable adjective of the committee to make this a case for him.

Paul

[Ian Kingston]

If Jones's account is correct, his opponent never made a correct claim in accordance with the law - he did not have the move. This makes the arguments about the position itself irrelevant. The fact that one can't appeal against a 10.2 ruling looks a bit silly in this light - one really ought to be able to appeal on the basis that the claim has not been made correctly, even if not about the arbiter's judgement of the position.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Interesting to get a full account from Jones. I wonder if his opponent is ever likely to give his side of things? The dispute appears to be primarily with the organisers, so maybe not. See also the comment at the end from a strong local(?) player and former junior.

[David White]

I think that 10.2 claims should only be upheld where the opponent has no reasonable winning chances and that cannot win by normal means should mean situations where, for example, your opponent only has a knight but can in some unlikely combinations of moves find a checkmate. In this case, I suspect that most players having Gawain's position and with plenty of time left would continue to play on and not agree a draw. It seems unreasonable that he wasn't given the opportunity to try to win because his opponent ran out of time.

I do not think whether the position is thoretically drawn is relevant otherwise we are just going back to the old adjudication days. There will always be a grey area but I think that for the claim to succeed the player is in effect saying that it is trivial to draw. Perhaps, there should be another option which would be to give both players an extra 5 minutes and with no further 10.2 claims to be allowed with the arbiter watching the game and declare the game drawn if 50 moves have been played without a piece being taken or pawn moved.

[Roger de Coverly]

In this case, I suspect that most players having Gawain's position and with plenty of time left would continue to play on and not agree a draw.

According to Gawain's own account, he didn't have lots of time left, but had two minutes extra awarded because of the incorrect claim made when Cherniaev had around five minutes left.

I dare say GMs see it differently, but amateur games where both players are short of time and the position isn't totally clear have a habit of being agreed as draws.

In the final position, there's a tricky defence of .. Rh3. This contains a threat of Rh5 forcing an instant draw because the Rook and Knight are in the same rank.

It's speculation as to Cherniaev's thoughts, but I expect many of us have been in a position where we are defending an ending that's slightly worse but suspect the opponent is not going to give up on attempting to win, regardless of the evidence of the position. So how do you handle the defence? On the premise that trusting an arbiter's judgement is gambling, it's necessary to handle your time so that the initial claim of a draw is made in a position where a claim looks feasible and that moves can be played in the 120 seconds remaining to demonstrate the drawn nature of the position. But how many moves is it reasonable to be required to make in the final 120 seconds?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

In this case, I suspect that most players having Gawain's position and with plenty of time left would continue to play on and not agree a draw.

According to Gawain's own account, he didn't have lots of time left, but had two minutes extra awarded because of the incorrect claim made when Cherniaev had around five minutes left.

Out of interest, if White had been short of time and White's flag had fallen after a draw offer and 10.2 claim by White, what would the result have been? I suspect it would have been awarded as a win on time for Black (given the presence of the pawn, and certainly with the two connected h+g pawns earlier I'm not sure any arbiter could argue that Black doesn't have chances), and that alone should tell us that the reverse situation means that it should have been awarded a win for White when Black's flag fell. The position is sufficiently unclear that both players risk a 10.2 claim being turned down.

I dare say GMs see it differently, but amateur games where both players are short of time and the position isn't totally clear have a habit of being agreed as draws.

It is possible that the awarding of extra time to Jones influenced the result. Quite why his opponent made a claim with more than five minutes left, only he will know. If both players had each had less than a minute left and about the same time, then a mutual draw may have been agreed. But Jones was effectively given a reprieve for falling behind on the clock, as he was given extra time (rightly) when his opponent incorrectly claimed under 10.2.

In the final position, there's a tricky defence of .. Rh3. This contains a threat of Rh5 forcing an instant draw because the Rook and Knight are in the same rank.

It's speculation as to Cherniaev's thoughts, but I expect many of us have been in a position where we are defending an ending that's slightly worse but suspect the opponent is not going to give up on attempting to win, regardless of the evidence of the position. So how do you handle the defence? On the premise that trusting an arbiter's judgement is gambling, it's necessary to handle your time so that the initial claim of a draw is made in a position where a claim looks feasible and that moves can be played in the 120 seconds remaining to demonstrate the drawn nature of the position. But how many moves is it reasonable to be required to make in the final 120 seconds?

It appears the strategy of making lots of noise and (presumably gestures) and multiple claims does work...

[Christopher Kreuzer]

In the final position, there's a tricky defence of .. Rh3. This contains a threat of Rh5 forcing an instant draw because the Rook and Knight are in the same rank.

Doesn't White just play a rook check and then move the rook to protect the knight and then regroup? I don't think Black can force the rooks off the way you think.

[Roger de Coverly]

Doesn't White just play a rook check and then move the rook to protect the knight and then regroup? I don't think Black can force the rooks off the way you think.

You cannot force the Rooks off, but you can fend off the immediate attempt to win the g pawn. Th threat was to play Rd5, then Nd3, then advance the King to take it. Being able to take the g pawn would progress to the theoretical draw of RN v R.

I was trying to use a computer engine to find some plausible play. The problem is that an engine "knows" that KRN v KR is a draw, so will happily give up the pawn to reach it.

[Roger de Coverly]

The position is sufficiently unclear that both players risk a 10.2 claim being turned down.

A 10.2 claim is also a draw offer. For that matter if Black claims first, the game continues under observation, it is still possible for White to offer the draw. It's also possible for the arbiter to declare the game drawn. I think I can remember some sort of debate about whether having contested a 10.2 draw claim, if the player attempting to win made a gross blunder or was about to run out of time, whether he could just say "draw" regardless of the opponent.

[Tanya Jones]

Maybe not the ideal time and place to make my forum debut, but there we are. Just a point, not writing as Gawain's mum (though obviously that's why I'm interested) or as a (effectively novice) chessplayer but as an erstwhile lawyer, when I looked at rule 10.2 I noticed that the point about the arbiter's decision being final [(d)] relates to (a) (b) and (c), i.e. his discretion as to whether it's possible to win by normal means, the awarding of extra time etc. However, the main part of Rule 10.2, the mechanics of making the claim, doesn't fall within (d). It appears to me, therefore, that if an arbiter considered a 10.2 claim when it was not valid, e.g. if the claim was made on the opponent's move, then that decision would theoretically be subject to appeal. That's it. Hopefully I'll have something jollier to say next time.

[E Michael White]

It appears to me, therefore, that if an arbiter considered a 10.2 claim when it was not valid, e.g. if the claim was made on the opponent's move, then that decision would theoretically be subject to appeal

I think that is correct and I made the same point on this forum a year or two ago in another connection.

However there is currently no obligation for a FIDE rated event to have an appeal committee, unless it is organised to grant IM or GM norms and even that is disputed by some ENG arbiters, or the event is organised with additional rules. I believe this is unsatisfactory and suggested a year or two ago that events should be Kite-marked eg Cat1 = top level, FIDE rated, FIDE rules, FIDE qualified arbiter, appeal committee but no one other than CJ de Mooi thought too much of the idea.

Another point that should be raised is that not complying with the same rule on three separate occasions and being warned on the first occasion should justify disqualification.

[Stewart Reuben]

C.06. The FIDE Tournament Rules.
All international chess competitions shall be played in accordance with the FIDE Laws of Chess. The FIDE Tournament Rules shall be used in conjunction with the Laws of Chess and shall apply to all official FIDE competitions. Said Rules shall also be applied to all FIDE-rated tournaments, amended where appropriate. The organisers, competitors and arbiters involved in any competition are expected to be acquainted with these Rules before the start of the competition. In these Rules the words ‘he’, ‘him’ and ‘his’ shall be considered to include ‘she’ and ‘her’.
1. General Remark
Where an event has a problem not covered by internal rules, these Rules shall be considered to be definitive.

C.06.10.b makes it clear there shall be an Appeal Committee.
An event could announce in advance that there would be no Appeal Committee, thus amending C.06 because it was thought inappropriate. e.g. one lone arbiter for a rated children's tournament. C.06 applies only to FIDE Rated events, all of which now have to have at least a registered National Arbiter (FIDE even charge for that.)

The problem is C.06 is given too little weight by arbiters. I was guilty of that until 2006 when I helped completely redrafting them.

Let us assume Gawain's account is accurate. This is not a given, but usually he is quite objective.
Gawain should have received an extra 2 minutes the second time Alexander claimed illegally. I might have given an extra 4 minutes! The claim was made in an illegal manner; even if it had been legal, it would have been rejected.
The third time he should have been forfeited. But this assumes the arbiter explained the correct procedure. He may have awarded the extra 2 minutes on the basis of 10.2, which never happened.
Tanya is absolutely correct. The FIDE Laws 10.2d didn't apply. There was never a legitimate claim.

E Michael White suggests 'kite marks' for events, presumably awarded by the ECF and/or FIDE. This would be very difficult to apply, would lead to an onerous amount of work and would cost a substntial sum if FIDE were involved.
Most events self-monitor. This is a bit like hotels awarding themselves 3*. The entry form usually gives the information E Michael wants. But in England some don't list the Chief Arbiter. That can be corrected.

[David Grobler]

there was a 10.2 claim at St Albans OPEN today (round 4)....2 boards away from Mr Cherniev (who was on top board)
The guy who had hardly any time left was (in my opinion ) in a slightly worse position (all be it a pawn up )...it was a completely open board...maybe a rook , bishop and 5 v a rook bishop and 4?
Anyway...he claimed a draw.....and got the arbiter...who acted correctly (in my opinion)....and asked them both to keep playing...and we all watched the guy with little time fail to find the best defence ...and he lost on time (now having reached a lost position )
Is there not a danger of anyone simply claiming 10.2...when they are short of time...and getting a draw ?...all credit to the arbiter for not allowing it.....

[Stewart Reuben]

The way you describe it, if correct, the non-claimant should have received an extra 2 minutes. The reason for the caveat is that very often people fail to give the absolute information correctly.
Adjudication - abysmal
Adjournment - time consuming, people get help from friends or computers and it is not suitable for a weekend tournament
quickplay finish - at one time the best option
add on in cumulative or delay mode - a huge improvement. You need to spend a little money so that there are enough digital clocks to cope with the demand. Sometimes these can be borrowed. The ECF has a substantial stock.