FIDE Rule 10.2 and "by normal means"

[E Michael White]

Whilst not disagreeing with most of what Roger and Sean have said there is another angle to this. If no arbiter ( League rules may exclude captains ) is present it should be easier to claim a perpetual check draw in the last two minutes than with an arbiter there.

Appendix D (b) is the relevant section of FIDE rules for play without arbiters.

The subtle difference is that:-

10.2 (a) states ".... is making no effort to win...." ( ie present tense)
Appendix D (b) states '…has been making no effort to win…' ( ie past tense) , play stops and your local league committee looks at the score sheets.

Appendix D (b) relates to the moves immediately preceding the claim. A senior arbiter told me that if he were watching play he would expect some progress in 5 or 6 moves which suggests that a score sheet showing wishy-washy checking with or without repetition for at least 6-8 moves should be considered a draw.

So the advice should be to record moves into the 2 minutes and then claim a draw under D (b). In practice though, these decisions are often made by league committee members who dont comply with the preface section of FIDE rules.

[Roger de Coverly]

suggests that a score sheet showing wishy-washy checking with or without repetition for at least 6-8 moves should be considered a draw.

In the example outlined, it was the player doing the wishy-washy stuff that offered a draw.

[Greg Breed]

If the player is able to record the moves and continues checking with the position being exactly the same 3 times then it's a draw and that player can claim it. The rules state that if an exact position has been reached 3 times in a game then the game is a draw if claimed by one of the players. Obviously any pawn move or capture means that a position can never be exactly the same again.

[Stewart Reuben]

The term 'perpetual check' is not defined in the Laws of Chess. This is deliberate as it is a concept the essence of which would be difficult to capture.
Chess always has a problem where a game can continue forever but the players only have a finite thinking time. We all know there are various ways of coping. Adjudication has been banished by any sensible organisation for over 30 years.
Claiming 3 fold repetition, which is probably what you meant by perpetual check.
50 move rule.
Claim under 10.2.
In a club game the local rules should define the rights of the captains. They should not extend unilaterally as far as helping the player with the Laws. The two captains might confer and do something.
It seems to me that the particular problem you describe is solved by 10.2. The player could have claimed a draw when he had less than 2 minutes left. Appendix D of the Laws explains how this works when no arbiter is present. It is there at my insistence on behalf of British events where the problem does arise. It is understandable though that many players do not understand 10.2.
Quickplay finishes are allowed only in the first division of the London League. The secretary Brian Smith told me that there had never been a claim under Appendix D. Presumably this is because knowledgeable players understand the nature of chess well enough for there never to be a dispute. I guess also the captains act intelligently in concert to ensure there is no dispute. Such actions include consulting strong players. Of course it is more difficult where the captain himself is involved.

It is not unusual in children's events for multiple repetition to occur, usually because one side is checking the other all the time. You notice an arbiter's avoidance of the term perpetual check!The children don't know what to do. A good arbiter will then step in and declare the game drawn. That is not covered in the precise Laws of Chess, only in the preface.
As far as I know nobody has ever written guidelines for arbiters controlling events for children or other inexperienced players. Perhaps only one sentence is needed. Use your commonsense.

Stewart Reuben

[John Philpott]

Stewart Reuben wrote

Quickplay finishes are allowed only in the first division of the London League.

That is not actually the case Stewart. Although what the rules describe as "normal format" (multiple sessions with sealed moves, adjournments and resumptions) is the default format below the first division, a one session format can be adopted provided that both players agree to this before the completion of White's second move. If there have been no Appendix D claims, perhaps the lower division players who so agree are sufficiently knowledgeable, although there is obviously less scope to consult strong players.

[Simon Spivack]

The secretary Brian Smith told me that there had never been a claim under Appendix D. Presumably this is because knowledgeable players understand the nature of chess well enough for there never to be a dispute.Stewart Reuben

The late Norman Oliver made it crystal clear that he did not wish any 10.2 disputes to be passed onto him for resolution. I was once copied in to an email in which Norman told off two captains for having the temerity to behave otherwise. His view was that the most appropriate course was either rejection and a two minute penalty, or to postpone a decision and observe, possibly adding a two minute penalty, both courses being quite impossible for a league secretary. In many ways London League one is self-policing, a good captain will have some idea of what to do when 10.2 arises, a poor one will preside over relegation. Appendix D should be an irrelevance.

The problem that Michele has is to instil the confidence to stake a 10.2 claim to a draw. The actual minutiae of 10.2 is neither here nor there, nor is precision called for. I once wrote such a summary just before a county committee meeting, which Andrew Whitely was kind enough to cast an eye over, he made one suggestion. Unfortunately, I can neither recall my initial text, nor Andrew's comment. I included it in the newsletter I sent out to all the members. I'd tentatively suggest something very short, along the lines of:

"A player in a Quickplay Finish who has less than two minutes left can claim a draw if he believes that the opponent cannot win by normal means, or is making no effort to do so. The clocks should be stopped as a preliminary to the claim. An incorrect claim can result in a penalty."

There is no need to mention two minutes, either as a penalty or as part of a postponed decision: if the decision is passed up the food chain then the penalty is likely to be the loss of the game. This article is something that a captain should know; he should have some idea when it comes to the Laws of Chess. Unfortunately, it is rarely practical to have a copy of the Laws of Chess on a club noticeboard; such items tend to grow legs and walk.

One possible enhancement is to give a couple of simple examples; for instance perpetual check as given by Michele. Another straightforward case arose in the Middlesex League, it must have been about fifteen years ago.

The position was roughly:

White: pawn f4, king f3 and rook a3;
Black: pawn f5, king f6 and rook e6.

Both Bob Wade and I were present; to our horror our player did not appear to be aware of 10.2, we both watched as our player eventually lost on time, whilst both rooks were moved randomly, save for avoiding the three fold repetition and rook capture. I did try speaking to the opposing captain before the flags fell, he refused point blank to supervene jointly with me, the captains did have that joint authority. Unfortunately, not every club member reads emails and newsletters, but it is probably still worth the effort.

[JustinHorton]

It was before my time but I'm told there was a London League Secretary whose normal practice was to respond to all appeals by double-defaulting the players. Is this true, and was that Norman Oliver?

[Stewart Reuben]

Hubris.
Having dinner last night with Brian Smith, he told me there had been a problem regarding 10.2, or rather Appendix D. The players of course did not understand the rule. But it all worked out in the end, the opponent of the player whose flag fell had only a bare king so a draw was agreed. Why the captains then felt the need to contact Brian is a bit puzzling.
I rather suspect Norman was making what we in the business call a joke.
Stewart

[Kevin Thurlow]

I recall complaining to Norman Oliver about my opponent's conduct in one match and he just ignored the letter. When I intercepted him at a subsequent match he just shrugged and said "what do you expect me to do about it?"

So I complained to the London League Secretary(?)about the original complaint and Oliver's attitude, and he ignored me as well.

I wonder why people don't play league chess.

Kevin

[Simon Spivack]

Norman was a strict, but fair, secretary; I liked him, I also like Brian his successor.

It was before my time but I'm told there was a London League Secretary whose normal practice was to respond to all appeals by double-defaulting the players. Is this true, and was that Norman Oliver?

This doesn't sound like Norman. I should imagine that your source was thinking of the "cut-off" date, which was typically sometime in May. To explain, under London League rules, unless they have changed, a first adjournment should have been played off within three weeks. In practise Norman was a bit flexible about this; however, the closer it got to the end of the season, the more careful one had to be. Any result submitted after the "cut-off" date, including whole matches (it was OK if at least one captain sent in the result) would be voided, not defaulted. One could easily find out what this date was; it seemed, and still does, to me that this was a sensible way of encouraging captains to get a move on.

A captain should know his players; one time a player of mine adjourned in a won position. Despite my urging he did not agree a resumption date on the night, because he did not have his diary on him (he never did ). I knew that inertia was the game; in desperation I rang up his opponent, I left a message on the answer phone pretending to be my player and asked the opposing player to return my (sic) call: the trick worked.

When I write "strict"; I do not mean a rigid interpretation of the rules and laws applicable. For instance it was OK to add players to a team before Christmas, after the New Year Norman became increasingly reluctant *if* that player made a material difference to the team: one could probably get away with it in January, but by March Norman would probably veto the addition. One season a player of about 210 strength joined us with about two or three matches to go: I was determined to embed him into our team. I checked the fixtures' list and was able to persuade Norman that neither our team, nor our opponents' teams would feature in the relegation battle or challenge for the title. Norman accepted this argument.

Norman could come across as a dragon to some, but when one understood what he wanted, and how to handle him, he was more of a pussy cat. He did not want to be disturbed unnecessarily; something that could be resolved between the captains, including article 10.2 should. He was an excellent league secretary, as is Brian. At one time there were seven divisions, which meant there must have been over seventy teams; contacting Norman over trivia was bound to elicit whatever the antonym to "thank you" was: he was quite right.

[Simon Spivack]

Hubris.
Stewart

I'll try and put my foot in it too, I can't recall any decision of Norman's being overturned, ever. Who would have dared.

Having dinner last night with Brian Smith, he told me there had been a problem regarding 10.2, or rather Appendix D. The players of course did not understand the rule. But it all worked out in the end, the opponent of the player whose flag fell had only a bare king so a draw was agreed. Why the captains then felt the need to contact Brian is a bit puzzling.
I rather suspect Norman was making what we in the business call a joke.
Stewart

The incident I am thinking of was about ten years ago; I can't recall whether Norman copied me in, or our intrepid captain did so. I have a vague recollection of the position, it seemed to me that it was of the type where the decision should have been postponed and the game continued with an extra two minutes for the non-claiming player.

"When the facts change, I change my mind; what do you do?" Does Brian want 10.2 disputes to be passed onto him? To me article D represents a defeat.

In a match where the two captains know and trust one another, all sorts of things become possible. On one occasion we had a team with a reserve, unfortunately a player who had not contacted us turned up on the night. We therefore had two extra players. We could see that the opposing team was far weaker than normal. Because the opposing captain trusted us I obtained his team list, as a result we dropped our boards two and three (not one because their board one was an IM and a bit better than what we had, the IM won anyway), who had no objection. This made for a more interesting match than the more orthodox lack of communication, which would have led to us playing our highest graded players. We did not alter the order.

[Simon Spivack]

I recall complaining to Norman Oliver about my opponent's conduct in one match and he just ignored the letter. When I intercepted him at a subsequent match he just shrugged and said "what do you expect me to do about it?"

Norman required careful handling, obviously not something everyone knew; it would have been better to have gone through someone who knew him quite well. I am sorry that this happened.

So I complained to the London League Secretary(?)about the original complaint and Oliver's attitude, and he ignored me as well.
Kevin

It was probably the Chairman, Alan Martin.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Thanks Simon!

I have endured much, much worse.....

Kevin

[Sean Hewitt]

An incident occurred at Milton Keynes on Sunday. Both players were short of time in an intricate rook and pawn ending. Then, three pairs of pawns were swapped off, leaving the following position with black to move and both players having about 15 seconds for all of their remaining moves



Black played ...Ra5 to which white played Rg4

Black now claimed a draw under 10.2, saying that he could simply play his king into the corner (a8) and that because whites king was cut off he couldnt win by normal means. Both players now had 11 seconds remaining.

I wont tell you my decision until the end. Discuss!

[Matthew Turner]

Black must offer a draw, if White declines then White risks losing (as an arbiter I would say this to the player). The arbiter observes the game. If White flag falls (assuming he hasn't taken off the Black Rook) then he loses. If the Black flag falls then the arbiter must determine whether the Black player had demonstrated the technique to draw. Given the position this should only require a few moves which should be perfectly possible in 11 seconds and the game would be declared a draw. If Black is only able to make one or two moves before flag fall then in my opinion they should lose, particularly because Ra5 is not a great starting move.