D.1 - Two Rulings

[Alex Holowczak]

So if I were in a situation where an opponent tried to make a claim of a draw while I had the move could I allow him to stop the game and send off the scoresheet, safe in the knowledge that it would fail, or is sombody present obliged to tell him that he has to wait until I have moved before he can then make a claim?

As far as I can see, Appendix D has no requirement for the claim to be made when it is the player's turn to move. It just says: "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." Nothing about whose turn it needs to be.

[Alex McFarlane]

"Where games are played as in Article 10,

As in Article 10 .... and it is here that it states the player must be on the move.

So if I were in a situation where an opponent tried to make a claim of a draw while I had the move could I allow him to stop the game and send off the scoresheet, safe in the knowledge that it would fail, or is sombody present obliged to tell him that he has to wait until I have moved before he can then make a claim?

Technically he must wait until you move. If you allow him to do as suggested then you have conspired with him. I doubt if a claim for a win would then be accepted.

[Alex Holowczak]

"Where games are played as in Article 10,

As in Article 10 .... and it is here that it states the player must be on the move.

Yes, it does, but...

D1 states "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.", and 10.2 states "If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls."

To me, that seems like D1 is overriding 10.2, since D1 repeats stuff about having two minutes left on this clock, and before the flag falls, but not that it must be the claimant's turn to move.

[Joey Stewart]

So if I were in a situation where an opponent tried to make a claim of a draw while I had the move could I allow him to stop the game and send off the scoresheet, safe in the knowledge that it would fail, or is sombody present obliged to tell him that he has to wait until I have moved before he can then make a claim?

Technically he must wait until you move. If you allow him to do as suggested then you have conspired with him. I doubt if a claim for a win would then be accepted.[/quote]


I would have thought that if they are not eligible to be awarded a draw their claim has failed and the only response would have to be to give them a loss, plus I could always plead ignorance of the rule myself since it was them who made the claim.

[John Cox]

I wonder if the solution to this problem - or some of these problems - could be found in modifying the rules in a rather radical manner.

What the claimant wants is not to lose hopelessly drawn positions by being unable to play an infinite number of moves in thirty seconds. What the other party wants is the opportunity to force his opponent, who has been so foolish as to run short of time (no more excuse for a blundering than a lawbreaker saying he was drunk when he committed the crime, as we know), to prove he can cope with playing the position very quickly.

So how would it be if at any time a player can say he is exercising his right to claim a draw, and the other party is entitled either to accept the claim or say, no, we'll play on. If he does, then the party claiming the draw gets his clock reset to two minutes, the innocent party gets at least (say) five, and the game proceeds. The claimant cannot win no matter what happens. If the game finishes on the board, all well and good. If the claimant loses on time, then the game is a draw if, and only if, he has both played (say) forty moves in his two minutes, and the position is still such that the overwhelmingly probable result between two players of the strength in question is a draw (or some such formulation).

I haven't thought much about this and this proposal may well need some modification, but surely something along these lines would be preferable. Assuming DGTs can cope with it. Even if they can't though it should be possible for a match captain or someone to mark off the moves.

[Paul Cooksey]

My initial reaction is to like John's idea, because it takes away the arbiter's judgement on the game position.

I don't like the idea that an arbiter who plays significantly less strongly than the players has to make a judgement on what is happening on the board. But I don't think it is realistic or necessary for all arbiters to be very strong players, and this idea removes that issue.

[Alex Holowczak]

There is a very simple way to get around this problem. Play with an increment. Even if the increment is 3 seconds, and only kicks in after your first time control. That way, both players get what they want, and you won't be there until 12am/the venue closes.

[Roger de Coverly]

I haven't thought much about this and this proposal may well need some modification, but surely something along these lines would be preferable. Assuming DGTs can cope with it. Even if they can't though it should be possible for a match captain or someone to mark off the moves.

If you have DGTs, then you can have a rule which says that you introduce a delay or increment. What do you say to those, like Mike Basman, who appreciate the drama of a clock bashing session?

I don't think it's available as a setting, but what if you had a rule which said the time limit was G/90 but with a five second increment applying to both players as soon as a clock reached 120 seconds remaining?

[John Cox]

Well, you still have the problem of being tortured for ever and ever in R and P -v- R or the like, or R and B -v- R for that matter unless and until someone else starts counting off the moves (at least I assume this is allowed). At least my way there is a finite time period involved, which I think is good. But yes, increments are an improvement on the situation at present, of course. Personally I'm rather with Mike B, but perhaps it's childish of me.

[Alex Holowczak]

If you have DGTs, then you can have a rule which says that you introduce a delay or increment. What do you say to those, like Mike Basman, who appreciate the drama of a clock bashing session?

He's entitled to his view, but I think he's wrong.

I don't think it's available as a setting, but what if you had a rule which said the time limit was G/90 but with a five second increment applying to both players as soon as a clock reached 120 seconds remaining?

It may be, but perhaps not in the way you imagine. "Canadian Overtime" is used in Go, and the time controls are of the format x minutes + y moves in z minutes forever. So something like 80 minutes + 12 moves in 1 minute repeating might work. That way you can budget for a 80-minutes each game, knowing that if you run up to the 80 minutes, you have your anti-10.2 measure. Of course, x, y and z can be tweaked. That is an option on the DGTs.

[Dan O'Dowd]

I don't think it's available as a setting, but what if you had a rule which said the time limit was G/90 but with a five second increment applying to both players as soon as a clock reached 120 seconds remaining?

It isn't available to my knowledge but there is a workaround: Set time control 1 to G88, then set time control 2 to 2"+5'/move, to be put on when the clock reaches 0. This does of course in a way incentivise the time trouble addict not to leave himself short too early, lest his opponent gain 5 seconds extra a move.

[Stewart Reuben]

Wow what a long thread. I haven't read all of it. But to mix in discussions about 10.2 and its close relative Appendix D is likely to lead to madness.
D was written for English chess by David Welch and the late Richard Furness. I doubt they ever considered a recent illegal move. Certainly I didn't when ushering the Law through, which has only undergone one modification since it was first included.

Nobody, that I noticed, has commented on 'The claim shall be referred to an arbiter whose decision shall be final.'
That was introduced for D because
a) I thought different arbiters might have different opinions and uniformity in decisions is better. I visualised the same arbiter for the whole competition.
b) A number of inter-club matches are knockout. To have an appeal procedure might take too long.

CHANGING TO THE 10.2 THREAD.
If you have a digital clock and a highly specific guillotine time, then use delay mode not cumulative. 2 seconds extra per move would solve virtually all problems. In the US they have introduced one late in the game. Mike Basman prefers to see players flailing around. I don't. So what?

That the arbiter's decision is final was later introduced for Article 10.2 was against the wishes of both Geurt Gijssen and me. Many think it applies to the whole of Article 10, which is incorrect.

John Cox's idea that, if a player claims a draw under 10.2, he can no longer win, was considered. A majority thought that, if a player wanted to try to win, then he should be exposed to the risk of losing.

[Nick Thomas]

3 possible solutions (one of them mine), or at least improvements, were published in Geurt Gijssen's column in September. The problem is that although chess players like to dwell on problems they have an aversion to solutions.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt161.pdf

[Martin Benjamin]

If guillotine mode is used, I don't think two seconds is long enough. The physical act of picking up a piece, moving it and then pressing the clock can easily take two seconds. A need to sneeze, dropping the piece or accidentally knocking over another piece would be enough to need more than two seconds, causing a loss on time. Surely a five second per move guillotine finish would finish the game quickly enough, and avoid the problems noted above.

[Stewart Reuben]

I have no experience of 2 seconds delay. Martin may be correct. All I know is that it has been used, as has 1 second for Armageddon. It wouldn't suffice for me.