English Chess Forum

I have recently seen two local league games where there where D.1 claims (no arbiter present). No decision could be reached on the night, so they were both sent for independent arbitration. I wonder what peoples thoughts are as to the merit of each claim / opinions on what the rulings were.

One claim was upheld, and one was rejected. Which is which?

Game 1. Black has just played 49...Be4. and White has claimed the D.1 draw claim.



Game 2. Although it is black to play, white has just made the claim with the move 45.Bf4.




To save you looking the rule up:
D. Quickplay finishes where no arbiter is present in the venue

D.1
Where games are played as in Article 10, a player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.
He may claim on the basis:

a.that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or
b.that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.

Regards

Ken

Ken McNulty wrote:I have recently seen two local league games where there where D.1 claims (no arbiter present). No decision could be reached on the night, so they were both sent for independent arbitration. I wonder what peoples thoughts are as to the merit of each claim / opinions on what the rulings were.

One claim was upheld, and one was rejected. Which is which?

They're both pretty much borderline. In the first position I would have thought that Black can legitimately continue to attempt to exploit the isolated pawn. In the second, although white is, I think, quite a bit better, I don't know that he's so much better that Black would expect to accept any draw offer. In a Congress, both positions are legitimate for the arbiter to ask for play to continue. I think it follows that a 10.2 claim shouldn't succeed. if such positions arose when playing with an increment, you wouldn't be anticipating a draw agreement.

The first one depends upon the game score. If the bishop + pawn ending has just been reached it is likely to fail. If however it has been on the board for a while and the score shows that no progress is being made, the award of the draw is likely.

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.

Ken,

You haven't said whether the claim was made under (a) or (b). Since no scoresheet has been supplied I assume the claims are under (a) and will reply accordingly.

Game 1 Under (a) the claim should be rejected as there is still play in the game. (A claim under b could produce a different result dependant on the previous moves)

Game 2 Under any conditions the claim should not have been allowed since the player making the claim did not have the move. Appendix D states that "Where games are played under Article 10 ....." and 10.2 states that "The player, on the move, ..." Therefore the draw claim was invalid.
Considering it as being a valid claim I think I would expect White to have proved that he could at least draw the game and as things stand he is a few moves short of that.

I now note that Sean has said the same thing.

Alex McFarlane wrote:I now note that Sean has said the same thing.

Is that great minds think alike, or fools seldom differ?

Alex McFarlane wrote:Ken,

You haven't said whether the claim was made under (a) or (b). Since no scoresheet has been supplied I assume the claims are under (a) and will reply accordingly.

Game 1 Under (a) the claim should be rejected as there is still play in the game. (A claim under b could produce a different result dependant on the previous moves)

Whether the claim should be accepted or not i don't know (I would like to think it would be, although really involving the arbiter shouldn't be necessary), but the position is a dead draw (short of black doing something really silly in trying to prove a winning attempt) and i would take issue with the suggestion that "there is still play in the game".

In the first position White can play something like Bc4 to stop the King getting in, but really it looks like a draw!
In the second position it would be interesting to know where the Bishop moved from- because otherwise White should play something like Re1 to trap the knight and then to ultimately take it off. Should the knight come off, White should be too far in front to fear the arbiter ruling against him/her. If he's brave he may even believe he could win it with 2 mins!

Alex McFarlane wrote:Ken,

You haven't said whether the claim was made under (a) or (b).

Do you have to declare which sub-rule you are claiming under, or do they exist more to help the arbiters?

Ken McNulty wrote:D.1
Where games are played as in Article 10, a player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.
He may claim on the basis:

a.that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or
b.that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.

You don't say which claim was made in either position, either that a win was not possible or that no effort was being made. If the latter, then a complete score would be required.

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.

In the second, I would reject the claim as White is not on the move.

[Note that if he had been on the move when he made his or her claim, I would be minded to accept the claim in the absence of the arbiter, as I would assume that White had next to zero seconds left, as he is about to win gross material due to the trapped (and shortly to be lost) knight and the ease with which Black's pawns can be attacked by the White rook. If the clock times were given as well and White had 20 seconds left then draw, but if he had 2 minutes left, then loss. Otb I would postpone my decision and ask for the game to continue, but would be minded to award the draw after flag fall. This is all academic: it was Black's move, therefore the claim must fail.]

Ken McNulty wrote:

Alex McFarlane wrote:Ken,

You haven't said whether the claim was made under (a) or (b).

Do you have to declare which sub-rule you are claiming under, or do they exist more to help the arbiters?

Technically you have to declare what subsection you are claiming under. But as you can claim under both (hence the and / or), that's what you do and let the arbiter decide which (if any) he allows!

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,

You must normally demonstrate on the board that you know what you are doing. It can therefore be necessary to demonstrate that you are not going to play the moronic moves before a draw is awarded. That is why some games between 2000 players will be given as draws at an earlier stage than the same position if it was between 1200 players.

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.

Richard Bates wrote: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.

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. Remember that in a league environment, the person you're appealing to might not necessarily be an arbiter, or know the rules, or understand why he's even receiving a game from you...

Ken McNulty wrote:Game 2 - ... It seems that the fact that white made a claim when he was not entitled to, was completely ignored.

Doh!

Out of interest, in which leagues were these claims made?