D.1 - Two Rulings

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Paul McKeown
Posts: 3266
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: D.1 - Two Rulings

Post by Paul McKeown » Sun May 29, 2011 10:52 pm

Richard Bates wrote:
Paul McKeown wrote:
In the first I would require play to continue otb and hence be minded to reject the claim in the absence of an arbiter; although perhaps drawish there is certainly scope for trying to win by either side. If the claim was that Black made no attempt to win by normal means and the score sheet simply showed mindless shuffling for the previous half dozen or more moves (Bh1-d5-a8-b7-a8-c6-d5 that sort of stuff) then I would however consider the case proven, in which case draw. In all other situations loss, but with a certain heavy heart, it should be drawn if played out, bar utterly moronic play.
If the first position should be given a loss in these circumstances, then any club player would be idiotic to make a claim under the laws in any situation bar one where the alternative is that they are going to lose on time in the next few seconds. Personally i would have thought that "drawn ... bar utterly moronic play" was a subset of "can't win by normal means" rather than the other way around! ;)
Richard,

I agree that "cannot win by normal means" and "drawn ... bar utterly moronic play" are closely related. However, the convention with 10.2 claims is that, if possible, the arbiter should be shown convincing play that demonstrates the futility of yet further play. Obviously if lack of time precludes this, then with a claim in the absence of arbiter, unlike in the normal otb case in the presence of arbiter, a decision cannot be postponed and a draw retrospectively awarded after flag fall. In which case it would certainly help to be provided with this information (e.g. "22 seconds left or less than half a minute"). A score sheet demonstrating futility with at least half a dozen pointless shuffling moves would also make the case.

Obviously, if I made the claim and my opponent didn't simply shake my hand in agreement of the matter, then I would feel a little aggrieved!

Ken McNulty
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 9:17 pm
Contact:

Re: D.1 - Two Rulings

Post by Ken McNulty » Sun May 29, 2011 10:56 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: Out of interest, in which leagues were these claims made?
Alex, one was North Staffs and one was Cannock District.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8968
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: D.1 - Two Rulings

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun May 29, 2011 10:59 pm

Ken McNulty wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote: Out of interest, in which leagues were these claims made?
Alex, one was North Staffs and one was Cannock District.
Awww, you're not going to tell me which one was which? :(

I had a feeling one might be the Cannock League, and I know the person who might have been called upon to make such a decision. Hence my interest!

Sean Hewitt

Re: D.1 - Two Rulings

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sun May 29, 2011 11:00 pm

Ken McNulty wrote:OK, the actual rulings were:

Game 1 - Claim upheld : Draw. Assuming a D.1a claim, I find this rather surprising, as it is surely still possible for either side to win.

Game 2 - White had 1:18 remaining on the clock at the time of the claim (illegal claim - not his move!). Black had 8:07 remaining. Although white is clearly winning, the decision was that neither side had been making any time wasting moves (black's complete score sheet was submitted), and it was still possible for black to win (should we consider that blunders are part or normal play, especially when so short on time?!). Therefore: Claim rejected : 0-1.
It seems that the fact that white made a claim when he was not entitled to, was completely ignored.
Seems like two correct decisions to me, even if the rationale behind the second is a bit iffy.

Richard Bates
Posts: 2918
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: D.1 - Two Rulings

Post by Richard Bates » Sun May 29, 2011 11:08 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:
Obviously, if I made the claim and my opponent didn't simply shake my hand in agreement of the matter, then I would feel a little aggrieved!
Well quite. Seeing some of the disputes that seem to go on in club chess i consider myself fortunate that i am rarely anything other than confident in the levels of sportsmanship of my opponents.

BTW it may not be technically correct, but i would like to think that if one player was stubborn and insisted on arbitration, the arbitrator should be able to call on advanced chess playing knowledge to reach a decision. One can understand that an "at the board" arbiter often has to exhibit caution about "beyond normal means" (as opposed to "attempting to make progress") because their own playing strength may not be up to the task, but it seems reasonable that that this problem can be set aside in the circumstances described.
Last edited by Richard Bates on Sun May 29, 2011 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

E Michael White
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: D.1 - Two Rulings

Post by E Michael White » Sun May 29, 2011 11:10 pm

Alex MacFarlanae and Sean Hewitt agreed when Sean wrote: The second is clear cut. The claim fails because the player must have the move in order to make the claim. Having played Bf4 white no longer has the move and therefore has no right to make a claim at that point.
Gentlemen, whilst not wishing to disagree with your views in the scenario you envisage, it would be worth checking whether Bf4 was played before or after the claim was made. Perhaps White got confused with a normal draw offer or made the claim and then moved. If this had happened the games ceased under rule D1 when the claim was made so Bf4 would not have been played and both players verified and submitted an incorrect position.

The first posting says the claim was made with the move. So did the player's hand leave the piece before he finished the sentence ?

The League management Committee would then have to decide whether to look at the position before Bf4 or award the game as a loss to both players for submitting an incorrect position !
Last edited by E Michael White on Mon May 30, 2011 9:12 am, edited 4 times in total.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8968
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: D.1 - Two Rulings

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun May 29, 2011 11:13 pm

E Michael White wrote:The League management Committee would then have to decide whether to look at the position before Bf4 or award the game as a loss to both players for submitting an incorrect position !
It would never be a loss for both players. Only one player made the claim. If he submitted an incorrect position, then his claim fails and the other player wins. If white claimed, the fact that it's an incorrect claim is nothing to do with black.

E Michael White
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: D.1 - Two Rulings

Post by E Michael White » Sun May 29, 2011 11:21 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:It would never be a loss for both players. Only one player made the claim. If he submitted an incorrect position, then his claim fails and the other player wins. If white claimed, the fact that it's an incorrect claim is nothing to do with black.
Both players are required to verify the position submitted under rule D1. So as they did not comply with the rules; the local LMC would have to decide. Traditionally Surrey would argue for decades and Lancashire into the next century.

In addition to verifying an incorrect position ( which is his responsibility under the rules not as you state) Black possibly made no further effort to move after an invalid claim, so its not as clear cut as you imagine.

Shouldnt you be studying instead of posting 4000 posts in 2 years !

Martin Benjamin
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:54 pm

Re: D.1 - Two Rulings

Post by Martin Benjamin » Sun May 29, 2011 11:29 pm

Paul McKeown wrote: In the first I would require play to continue otb and hence be minded to reject the claim in the absence of an arbiter; although perhaps drawish there is certainly scope for trying to win by either side.

Obviously, if I made the claim and my opponent didn't simply shake my hand in agreement of the matter, then I would feel a little aggrieved!
Paul - it seems to me that your second statement (with which I concur) is at odds with the first point you made. "Although perhaps drawish there is certainly scope for trying to win by either side" understates how drawn that position is. Others, better qualified than I, have given an opinion as to what the ruling should be with reference to the laws of chess, but I would be very disappointed in myself if I did not agree a draw as Black in that position. Unfortunately, examples like this are seized on by those trying to justify retaining adjudication or adjournment.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8968
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: D.1 - Two Rulings

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun May 29, 2011 11:40 pm

E Michael White wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:It would never be a loss for both players. Only one player made the claim. If he submitted an incorrect position, then his claim fails and the other player wins. If white claimed, the fact that it's an incorrect claim is nothing to do with black.
Both players are required to verify the position submitted under rule D1. So as they did not comply with the rules; the local LMC would have to decide. Traditionally Surrey would argue for decades and Lancashire into the next century.

In addition to verifying an incorrect position ( which is his responsibility under the rules not as you state) Black possibly made no further effort to move after an invalid claim, so its not as clear cut as you imagine.

Shouldnt you be studying instead of posting 4000 posts in 2 years !
I interpreted it such that the position needs to be verified only so that he can't then subsequently complain about the position that was submitted not being correct. If the position submitted was incorrect, then the claim fails, then end of claim. The non-claimant wouldn't be penalised.

Besides, it doesn't say that the non-verifying of a position loses the game. It doesn't list any penalty, so 13.4 applies. You could just apply a warning. If the claimant can't be bothered to submit the position correctly, or is claiming illegally, then I think you "warn" the player who didn't verify it - more likely advise him that he was supposed to - and decline the claim.

I have now happily completed my course, subject to not failing any of the exams I just sat. :D

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18148
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: D.1 - Two Rulings

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun May 29, 2011 11:47 pm

Martin Benjamin wrote:Paul - it seems to me that your second statement (with which I concur) is at odds with the first point you made. "Although perhaps drawish there is certainly scope for trying to win by either side" understates how drawn that position is.
On first sight (position 1), you notice the isolated pawn and wonder if Black has a way to exploit it. You then notice that the White King will stay on e3 and White will just shuffle the Bishop. So draw agreed was the correct result. You might have hoped that the Match Captain or Club Secretary would have conceded the draw without having to refer it to the League.

On the second example, it would have been cleaner if the player had moved Bf4, offered a draw and waited for the reply before upgrading the offer to a claim. The three occasions where you can propose or claim a draw without moving are a bit obscure, the other two being 50 moves and three-fold repetition.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8968
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: D.1 - Two Rulings

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun May 29, 2011 11:48 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:On the second example, it would have been cleaner if the player had moved Bf4, offered a draw and waited for the reply before upgrading the offer to a claim. The three occasions where you can propose or claim a draw without moving are a bit obscure, the other two being 50 moves and three-fold repetition.
A claim under 10.2 (or Appendix D) is also a draw offer. If an arbiter is present, he'd ask your opponent whether the offer was accepted before doing anything else. If an arbiter wasn't present, your solution seems a good way to test the water without causing a fuss.

E Michael White
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: D.1 - Two Rulings

Post by E Michael White » Sun May 29, 2011 11:53 pm

If the sequence of events was
  • White moved Bf4
    White claimed under D1
Then the claim is invalid but the rules are unclear as to whether play ceases after such an invalid claim. The rules only cover what happens after a valid claim as the rule states "having the move".

It would be arguable, certainly in some counties that play should not cease on the night as the claim was invalid. In this scenario Black did not make any further move and so made no effort to win, which in some minds might justify upholding the claim if the local LMC picks up the task of deciding the issue.

Richard Bates
Posts: 2918
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: D.1 - Two Rulings

Post by Richard Bates » Sun May 29, 2011 11:55 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:On the second example, it would have been cleaner if the player had moved Bf4, offered a draw and waited for the reply before upgrading the offer to a claim. The three occasions where you can propose or claim a draw without moving are a bit obscure, the other two being 50 moves and three-fold repetition.
A claim under 10.2 (or Appendix D) is also a draw offer.
Yes but this misses the point that by offering a draw then assuming white has at least some time left black would be taking a big risk of defeat by declining. Whereas under a 10.2 (especially where it has to be "referred upstairs") black has an incentive to contest it because s/he might get given a win, whilst the worst outcome is a draw (and possibly costs).

Also a draw offer avoids the problem that there is a natural tendency for people to contest claims because they take affront to the involvement of a third party.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3266
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: D.1 - Two Rulings

Post by Paul McKeown » Sun May 29, 2011 11:59 pm

Martin Benjamin wrote:
Paul McKeown wrote: In the first I would require play to continue otb and hence be minded to reject the claim in the absence of an arbiter; although perhaps drawish there is certainly scope for trying to win by either side.

Obviously, if I made the claim and my opponent didn't simply shake my hand in agreement of the matter, then I would feel a little aggrieved!
Paul - it seems to me that your second statement (with which I concur) is at odds with the first point you made. "Although perhaps drawish there is certainly scope for trying to win by either side" understates how drawn that position is. Others, better qualified than I, have given an opinion as to what the ruling should be with reference to the laws of chess, but I would be very disappointed in myself if I did not agree a draw as Black in that position. Unfortunately, examples like this are seized on by those trying to justify retaining adjudication or adjournment.
Martin,

White could have a brain malfunction. He could, for instance, try to work his bishop round to f7 to "attack" the e-pawn, Black could play Ke7, White could keep "attacking" the e-pawn with Bg8, Black could then play Kf8, White could then play Bh7, Black could play Bc6, White could try to work his king into the position to "attack" the now undefended e-pawn, Black plays Be8, White continues "attacking" with his king, then Black closes the cage with h5 and only then does White realise that he has trapped his own bishop.

Unlikely? Yes, but we have all seen such comical - and indeed moronic even - brain malfunctions occuring in time scrambles.

Which is why arbiters like to see a little evidence to support 10.2 claims. Unfortunately few leagues have the resources to appoint arbiters to oversee league matches, therefore this very imperfect procedure exists to claim 10.2 in the absence of an arbiter, immediately ending the game (postponement of decision not being possible).

The position was not a clear cut opposite bishop endgame or something of that nature, so I think that if your opponent rebuffs a (clearly justified) draw offer, you should "collect evidence" and play as much into your last two minutes as possible (without losing on time), making sure that sufficient pointless moves have been made that it should be obvious to any arbiter that your claim should be upheld with the complete score sheet provided. If you don't have enough time to do this, you are going to risk the arbiter feeling uncomfortable without the security blanket that postponement otb would have provided.

I would hope (as White) that the arbiter would have the good sense to uphold a 10.2 draw claim, however, my understanding of how arbiters approach these things would make me reluctant to do so without having "collected evidence". I would always submit this particular claim fearing the worst. If the result came back as a draw I would see it as self-evidently correct, but if the result came back as a loss, I would feel frustrated at the stupidity of the arbiter!

I hope no one sees this as a reason to retain adjournment, adjudication or to force short increments, all of which have worse defects to my mind than 10.2.

In any case I would agree a draw as Black without hesitation - White's bishop is better, compensating for his isolated pawn.

Post Reply