FIDE Rule 10.2 and "by normal means"

[Edward Tandi]

I have recently had to arbitrate a local game played between two strong, experienced players.

In the last 16 seconds, a pawn down, black achieved a theoretically drawn opposite coloured bishop endgame. Black stopped the clock to claim a draw. White argued that there was a little play left, so play continued until black's time ran out. The final position clearly demonstrated that black could always defend their remaining pawns and blockade the white pawns etc.

Firstly, this was a rapidplay game. The FIDE rules explicitly exclude rule 10.2 fom blitz games, but no such exclusion exists for rapidplay, so I have to assume that it applies.

If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter.
1. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.

OK so far, except the interpretation of "by normal means". White makes a few claims:

1. UK arbiters normally like have a period where the defender shows that the attacker can make no progress. In this particular case there wasn't time for the defending side to demonstrate that the attacking side was making no progress i.e. hadn't repeated any maneuvers. Therefore it could be argued that black had not left themselves enough time to show that they could defend the position and should therefore lose.
2. The phrase 'by normal means' is open to a very wide range of interpretations. e.g. one interpretation might be 'by the opponent not leaving material en prise'. The rule would only be applied in a situation where the side trying to win on time is at a disadvantage (e.g. a queen down) rather than a pawn up. This is the sort of interpretation they seem to apply in Spain.
3. In cases where a player is material down and doesn't allow himself enough time to defend a theoretically drawn position and the attacking player does try to win then I think the defender should lose.

All this for a local club game, how hard can being an arbiter get? I awared a draw -was I right?

[Tim Spanton]

I have recently had to arbitrate a local game played between two strong, experienced players.

In the last 16 seconds, a pawn down, black achieved a theoretically drawn opposite coloured bishop endgame. Black stopped the clock to claim a draw. White argued that there was a little play left, so play continued until black's time ran out. The final position clearly demonstrated that black could always defend their remaining pawns and blockade the white pawns etc.

Firstly, this was a rapidplay game. The FIDE rules explicitly exclude rule 10.2 fom blitz games, but no such exclusion exists for rapidplay, so I have to assume that it applies.

If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter.
1. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.

OK so far, except the interpretation of "by normal means". White makes a few claims:

1. UK arbiters normally like have a period where the defender shows that the attacker can make no progress. In this particular case there wasn't time for the defending side to demonstrate that the attacking side was making no progress i.e. hadn't repeated any maneuvers. Therefore it could be argued that black had not left themselves enough time to show that they could defend the position and should therefore lose.
2. The phrase 'by normal means' is open to a very wide range of interpretations. e.g. one interpretation might be 'by the opponent not leaving material en prise'. The rule would only be applied in a situation where the side trying to win on time is at a disadvantage (e.g. a queen down) rather than a pawn up. This is the sort of interpretation they seem to apply in Spain.
3. In cases where a player is material down and doesn't allow himself enough time to defend a theoretically drawn position and the attacking player does try to win then I think the defender should lose.

All this for a local club game, how hard can being an arbiter get? I awared a draw -was I right?

I'm no expert but I would have said you were wrong since you could not have reasonably come to the conclusion that White was not trying to win by normal means

[Edward Tandi]

I'm no expert but I would have said you were wrong since you could not have reasonably come to the conclusion that White was not trying to win by normal means

My point is that it was not possible to win by "normal means".

[Tim Spanton]

I'm no expert but I would have said you were wrong since you could not have reasonably come to the conclusion that White was not trying to win by normal means

My point is that it was not possible to win by "normal means".

But surely that's not relevant - the question is whether he was trying to win by normal means or, rather, whether you could be sure he was not trying to win by normal means. The fact that it was drawn with correct play does not matter

[Edward Tandi]

I'm no expert but I would have said you were wrong since you could not have reasonably come to the conclusion that White was not trying to win by normal means

My point is that it was not possible to win by "normal means".

But surely that's not relevant - the question is whether he was trying to win by normal means or, rather, whether you could be sure he was not trying to win by normal means. The fact that it was drawn with correct play does not matter

Oh, I am certain white was trying. I am merely trying to follow the rules. Note the bits in bold:

If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter.
1. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.

It is the interpretation of "normal means" that needs clarifying.

[Sean Hewitt]

In the last 16 seconds, a pawn down, black achieved a theoretically drawn opposite coloured bishop endgame. Black stopped the clock to claim a draw. White argued that there was a little play left, so play continued until black's time ran out. The final position clearly demonstrated that black could always defend their remaining pawns and blockade the white pawns etc.

Its impossible to give a firm judgment without seeing the game score. But, if as you say "The final position clearly demonstrated that black could always defend their remaining pawns and blockade the white pawns etc" then awarding the draw is the correct decision.

I'm no expert but I would have said you were wrong since you could not have reasonably come to the conclusion that White was not trying to win by normal means

I'm sure that the arbiter did not come to the conclusion that white was not trying to win by normal means. It sounds to me like he certainly was trying to win. However, the law says that the arbiter shall declare the game drawn if he agrees the final position cannot be won by normal means and given what the arbiter says above, this is the reason that he [rightly] awarded the draw.

[Sean Hewitt]

My point is that it was not possible to win by "normal means".

But surely that's not relevant - the question is whether he was trying to win by normal means or, rather, whether you could be sure he was not trying to win by normal means. The fact that it was drawn with correct play does not matter

Not relevant? Its absolutely critical!! If he cant win by normal means then its a draw, no matter how hard he's trying.

[Tim Spanton]

I guess,as Edward says, it comes down to defining "normal means." To me it includes pressurising in a dead drawn position in the hope the opponent blunders. I've had titled players try this against me in very straightforward rook-and-pawn endings and I certainly regarded it as normal means.
Equally, some time in the last 12 months - I can't recall when - I had the slightly worse of a position in which knight and f, g and h pawns were opposed by knight and f, g and h pawns. My opponent was a lot weaker, played passively and eventually lost a pawn and with it the game. I dont suppose he was too pleased (we didn't have a pm) but again I regarded it as normal.

[Edward Tandi]

I guess,as Edward says, it comes down to defining "normal means." To me it includes pressurising in a dead drawn position in the hope the opponent blunders. I've had titled players try this against me in very straightforward rook-and-pawn endings and I certainly regarded it as normal means.
Equally, some time in the last 12 months - I can't recall when - I had the slightly worse of a position in which knight and f, g and h pawns were opposed by knight and f, g and h pawns. My opponent was a lot weaker, played passively and eventually lost a pawn and with it the game. I don't suppose he was too pleased (we didn't have a pm) but again I regarded it as normal.

So one possible interpretation of "win by normal means" is to say that a win is possible following the laws of chess as defined by Article 3 (piece movement) and Article 5 (completion). Under this definition, play would have continued because technically at least, black might have made a major blunder allowing white to win. It is (technically) still possible for white to win, so black would have lost on time.

What actually happened, was that due to the experience of the players, I had determined that black was not going to make such a trivial and catastrophic blunder and therefore awarded a draw. It seemed to be "in the spirit of the game" and it felt right to me at the time.

I will emphasise that Rule 10.2 is explicitly excluded from blitz, which I take to mean that the blitz variant is all about time pressure. In standard play and rapidplay variants, I think the time controls are a necessary evil, but should not be used as a device to win games with in a drawn position. This is my interpretation, but I have to ask if this is what was intended.

[Paul Stimpson]

What actually happened, was that due to the experience of the players, I had determined that black was not going to make such a trivial and catastrophic blunder and therefore awarded a draw. It seemed to be "in the spirit of the game" and it felt right to me at the time.

Unless the position was an absolute Book Draw and the player had to do something pretty stupid to lose I would suggest you were incorrect to award a draw.

I think what Tim is trying to say is the opponent was not given the chance to try a few legal strategies to win. Such as King Penetration, Pawn Sac, Piece Manoeuvres, Piece sac etc.

I don't think the rule should be used to save people who are short on time to achieve a 'theoretically drawn' position and automatically get a draw, however if the position is really simple then commonsense should prevail.

The rule is there to stop players purley winning on time by not playing to win, alternating a King between two squares for instance, hoping for flag fall.

[Edward Tandi]

What actually happened, was that due to the experience of the players, I had determined that black was not going to make such a trivial and catastrophic blunder and therefore awarded a draw. It seemed to be "in the spirit of the game" and it felt right to me at the time.

Unless the position was an absolute Book Draw and the player had to do something pretty stupid to lose I would suggest you were incorrect to award a draw.

So which book? Would it list all of the opposite-coloured bishop draw cases?

I think what Tim is trying to say is the opponent was not given the chance to try a few legal strategies to win. Such as King Penetration, Pawn Sac, Piece Manoeuvres, Piece sac etc.

Well in this case, after continuation, king penetration was tried, but it had reached the point when king moves were just starting to repeat.

I don't think the rule should be used to save people who are short on time to achieve a 'theoretically drawn' position and automatically get a draw, however if the position is really simple then commonsense should prevail.

The rule is there to stop players purley winning on time by not playing to win, alternating a King between two squares for instance, hoping for flag fall.

Common sense. If only we had a precise definition for that
Close call it would seem.

[Paul Stimpson]

>>So which book? Would it list all of the opposite-coloured bishop draw cases?

Without a position to look at we can only generalise. If the position was such that it was not a simple proven drawn position i.e book draw and needed care and time to draw then with 16 seconds left on the clock and the player trying to win, did so by normal means, ie not piece shuffling, then you were incorrect to award the draw.

>>Well in this case, after continuation, king penetration was tried, but it had reached the point when king moves were just starting to repeat.

You didn't mention this in your original post, If play was observed to flag fall and King moves were repeating then declaring a draw would be much more justifiable.

[Edward Tandi]

So which book? Would it list all of the opposite-coloured bishop draw cases?

Without a position to look at we can only generalise. If the position was such that it was not a simple proven drawn position i.e book draw and needed care and time to draw then with 16 seconds left on the clock and the player trying to win, did so by normal means, ie not piece shuffling, then you were incorrect to award the draw.

Does anyone know of an official book, or will any/all do? Anyway, you're saying that because it's not in the book, it must be a draw. Interesting.

I didn't award the draw straight away...

... play continued until black's time ran out. The final position clearly demonstrated that black could always defend their remaining pawns and blockade the white pawns etc.

So you interpret "normal means" as "not shuffling".

Well in this case, after continuation, king penetration was tried, but it had reached the point when king moves were just starting to repeat.

You didn't mention this in your original post, If play was observed to flag fall and King moves were repeating then declaring a draw would be much more justifiable.

I must admit I held back on the repetition bit, it all happened so quickly, that it could be disputed. It would only have been a 2-fold repetition and I wasn't looking for it specifically at the time.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think the draw decision was the correct one. Stewart Reuben has advocated that a delay or increment digital clock be substituted in the event of a 10.2 claim and the game continued. A hypothetical substitution is a way of clarifying an arbiter's decision. In this game you might assume that if the play had reduced to king shuffling, then if playing with an increment, the draw would either be agreed or forced by repetition in short order.

Like Tim Spanton, I have had GMs continuing to play even in endings where they have the worse of a level/drawn position. Under the increment benchmark, this is reasonable and the game should continue.

I believe it's also reasonable for a player who is completely won to claim a draw under 10.2 if really short of time.

A clock substitution rule (and increment time rates in general) would remove the need for chess skill and experience from the arbiter's role. Whilst some arbiters are or were strong players in their own right, many have struggled to achieve a 3 figure ECF grade. If FIDE's latest thinking is to require arbiter approval for draws in under 30 moves, then arbiters with a strong playing strength would again be at a premium.

[Edward Tandi]

Stewart Reuben has advocated that a delay or increment digital clock be substituted in the event of a 10.2 claim and the game continued. A hypothetical substitution is a way of clarifying an arbiter's decision. In this game you might assume that if the play had reduced to king shuffling, then if playing with an increment, the draw would either be agreed or forced by repetition in short order.

I think this is an excellent idea. I shall use this method in future tournaments I arrange.