D.1 - Two Rulings

[Alex McFarlane]

My team once had a match where an opposing team member, the exchange up and in a clearly better position tried to claim a draw after 15 minutes. He was told he couldn't so sat for 13 minutes and then claimed the draw. The situation was agreed by both teams in the submission to the League Controller. He correctly lost his claim as he had not demonstrated that he knew how to draw.

I did try to tell him that, in my opinion, he would lose and should play on to demonstrate the draw (keeping it as a statement of the Laws rather than giving actual advice) but he did not accept the point. He refused to accept the point even when his own club refused to pay the £10 fee involved for such a claim and paid it himself I believe.

I mention this fee as I believe like the adjudication fee it reduces the number of Appendix D/10.2 submissions made.

[Paul Cooksey]

I'll admit to ignorance that people were trying to use this rule to claim these kind of positions are drawn.

My understanding was that the arbiter made a decision on the moves played as well as the position? So if a player just shuffles his bishop backwards and forwards it is a draw in the first example, or even if he has K+B+N v K. But on the other hand even if he is clearly lost like in the second example, he can keep playing if he is creating threats of some sort.

I'd certainly want to play a few more moves with white in position 1. (bg6, g4 - it is possible, if unlikely, to get to a won pawn ending). But I might play some meaningless moves first to disguise my intention, as the Soviets taught us. I'm allowed to think someone who has got into time trouble might make a mistake, right?.

[benedgell]

I'd have thought with the first position it depends on the moves beforehand. If they've been going round in circles or black has been shuffling back and forth then its a draw, but if they've just reached the sort of position in the game (say as a hypothetical the game went 48...Qc1x Qe3+ 49. Kxe3 Be4) then presumably neither 'a' or 'b' applies and the game should continue?

[Richard Bates]

I'll admit to ignorance that people were trying to use this rule to claim these kind of positions are drawn.

My understanding was that the arbiter made a decision on the moves played as well as the position? So if a player just shuffles his bishop backwards and forwards it is a draw in the first example, or even if he has K+B+N v K. But on the other hand even if he is clearly lost like in the second example, he can keep playing if he is creating threats of some sort.

I'd certainly want to play a few more moves with white in position 1. (bg6, g4 - it is possible, if unlikely, to get to a won pawn ending). But I might play some meaningless moves first to disguise my intention, as the Soviets taught us. I'm allowed to think someone who has got into time trouble might make a mistake, right?.

Only one major flaw in your reasoning. White was the one claiming the draw!

[AustinElliott]

I was thinking the only way to lose the ending in Diag 1 would be to over-reach playing for a non-existent win, which I guess either side COULD just about do.

Thinking about it, though, in a game between novice players the easiest way for a weak player to LOSE the first endgame as White would be to exchange Bishops on d5 into a lost Pawn ending. I can imagine some doing that in the mistaken belief that more simplification = draw, though I guess anyone who knew anything about pawn endings would avoid trading the B's as White. So I guess if White was claiming a draw, you'd have to be sure White was savvy enough to AVOID a Bishop exchange to rule it drawn.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I think that in position two there is too much play in the position for a draw to be awarded

I agree. And position 1 is an excellent example of where you need to see the moves made by the players to see if one side is making progress or not. I was actually surprised to see some people posting that there were ways to play for a win when the drawing method seems obvious. Which is not to say that it is not possible to lose such positions - the examples by Paul McKeown and AustinElliott being the main two ways to lose that position.

And taking a closer look at position 1, things aren't that obvious after all. If White just shuffles the bishop, Black can make progress by bringing his king to c3 (via a5). What happens after that I'm not sure. Anyway, it seems that a position where mindless shuffling holds the draw hasn't quite been reached yet (not to mention the immediate move of g4 as someone pointed out).

I'm not an arbiter or ever likely to be one, but I'd reject both claims.

[Paul McKeown]

And taking a closer look at position 1, things aren't that obvious after all. If White just shuffles the bishop, Black can make progress by bringing his king to c3 (via a5). What happens after that I'm not sure. Anyway, it seems that a position where mindless shuffling holds the draw hasn't quite been reached yet (not to mention the immediate move of g4 as someone pointed out).

Bringing the Black King to c3 is an attempt - but it shouldn't succeed if White keeps his King on e3 and his Bishop on the e1-a5 diagonal, holding the d4 pawn and keeping the Black King from proceeding further into White's kingside. The Bishop should have enough safe squares on that diagonal to avoid zugzwang. But - it would be nice for the arbiter to see understanding of this before awarding the draw.

[Roger de Coverly]

And taking a closer look at position 1, things aren't that obvious after all. If White just shuffles the bishop, Black can make progress by bringing his king to c3 (via a5).

It's progress of sorts but it's still a draw since you cannot evict the white king from e3.

This is the "con the arbiter" idea. You have a position which is objectively totally drawn but you have more time. So you "make progress". It might, for example, be a position with opposite coloured Bishops. You win a pawn. It doesn't change anything but it looks good . What usually happens is that the defender plays quickly enough to reach a position where they don't hit the two minutes until the position is very clearly drawn.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

And taking a closer look at position 1, things aren't that obvious after all. If White just shuffles the bishop, Black can make progress by bringing his king to c3 (via a5). What happens after that I'm not sure. Anyway, it seems that a position where mindless shuffling holds the draw hasn't quite been reached yet (not to mention the immediate move of g4 as someone pointed out).

Bringing the Black King to c3 is an attempt - but it shouldn't succeed if White keeps his King on e3 and his Bishop on the e1-a5 diagonal, holding the d4 pawn and keeping the Black King from proceeding further into White's kingside. The Bishop should have enough safe squares on that diagonal to avoid zugzwang. But - it would be nice for the arbiter to see understanding of this before awarding the draw.

e1-a5 diagonal? Do you mean d1-h5 or d1-a4? I briefly toyed with g6 and h5 to get the zugzwang on the diagonal, before remembering that this would be a bad idea as this would lose both pawns...

[Christopher Kreuzer]

And taking a closer look at position 1, things aren't that obvious after all. If White just shuffles the bishop, Black can make progress by bringing his king to c3 (via a5).

It's progress of sorts but it's still a draw since you cannot evict the white king from e3.

My plan was to go right past the king on e3 by going to e1, f1, g2 and then massacring the g3 and h4 pawns. I've done this before in games, going right round behind a static king. Of course, it's not good chess (g4 messes things up), but it shows that there is play in the position.

[Martyn Harris]

Just to stir things up a bit - on the first position Ken has misreported happenings.

First, the captains allowed play to continue after the claim, with the position shown being as reached on black's flagfall. The position at the time of the claim is not known, though it is believed by all parties that the claim was properly made.

Second it was black, not white, who had made the claim.

And third, something that arbiters presumably cannot take into account, but no doubt people have opinions on: black needed a draw to win the match for his team, white a win to draw the match.

I'll also point out that the game concerned neither Ken's club nor mine. Further, relationships between the clubs in the North Staffs league are good, and there is no question of a feud arising out of the ruling.

[AustinElliott]

And taking a closer look at position 1, things aren't that obvious after all. If White just shuffles the bishop, Black can make progress by bringing his king to c3 (via a5).

It's progress of sorts but it's still a draw since you cannot evict the white king from e3.

My plan was to go right past the king on e3 by going to e1, f1, g2 and then massacring the g3 and h4 pawns. I've done this before in games, going right round behind a static king. Of course, it's not good chess (g4 messes things up), but it shows that there is play in the position.

But as long as the White Bishops stays on the f1-a6 diagonal, then even if the Black K takes the long hike via a5 - c3 to e1, e1 is the end of the line. The White K sits on e3, so f2 is no-go. And the Bishop covers f1. So you could take the Black K in the diag, and put it on e1, and it still can't get to the K-side pawns.

The only try would probably be (with the Black K on e1) to then play (Black's) Bishop to g2 heading for f1 to force the White Bishop off the diagonal (or exchange B's) and "clear" f1 for the BK. But then as soon as Black plays Bg2, White can play Bc4 and threaten the e6 pawn (and the f5 one beyond) so the Black BIshop would go back to d5...

Sounds like a draw by repetition to me.

POSTSCRIPT: In the light of what Martyn Harris just posted I really can't see any winning chances for White unless Black were to fall into some dire swindle like 50. Ba6 Kd5?? 51. Bb5+

- winning a P on e4 to leave White a pawn up.

I remember someone else said something about White playing on by maybe getting the White Bishop to g6 and then playing g4, but would exchanging the g3 pawn for the e6 one (in effect) by g4 & gf: ef:, or for the g7 one (in effect) by g4-g5 & gh: gh: actually be winning for White?

[Paul Cooksey]

[quote="Richard Bates"]
Only one major flaw in your reasoning. White was the one claiming the draw!

[quote="Martyn Harris"]
... it was black, not white, who had made the claim.

Somehow it feels better to be accidentally right

[quote="AustinElliott"]
but would exchanging the g3 pawn for the e6 one (in effect) by g4 & gf: ef:...: actually be winning for White?

Not in itself, but the position is starting to be promising, blacks king can be moved from d5 and pawn ending forced. Black would need to make further mistakes, but I would feel I was making progress.

I would be horrified if this was given as a draw in one of my games. I would be even be a bit annoyed if the arbiter was called and the game disrupted. It is up to the player to show he can defend it, in the time trouble he created for himself.

Unless, and it is a big caveat, I have been shuffling my pieces around aimlessly for at least 10 moves. I disagree with the approach of looking at the position, I thought it was the intention as proved by the moves played that matters.

Can Ken or Martyn say if the preceding play was taken into account?

[Alex Holowczak]

First, the captains allowed play to continue after the claim, with the position shown being as reached on black's flagfall. The position at the time of the claim is not known, though it is believed by all parties that the claim was properly made.

Oh dear. So the rule about the game immediately ending when the claim is made has not been adhered to, and the incorrect position has been submitted. Thus, the claim is void, and the game is lost by the player whose flag fell.

And third, something that arbiters presumably cannot take into account, but no doubt people have opinions on: black needed a draw to win the match for his team, white a win to draw the match.

Your presumption is correct.

[Alex Holowczak]

Oh dear. So the rule about the game immediately ending when the claim is made has not been adhered to, and the incorrect position has been submitted. Thus, the claim is void, and the game is lost by the player whose flag fell.

Is that right?
Are the captains not acting as arbiters in this situation?

Yes, but the league rules might not allow the captain to act like that. If they don't allow them to act like that, then they decide the result on the night, without going to the Committee. Either way, the proper procedure hasn't been followed, so the claim is invalid, because your claim under D1 hasn't followed the procedure in D1.