I think the correct decision is clear cut - defer your decision and tell the players to play on. As the position has just changed significantly White has not had the opportunity to try to win it and Black has not had the opportunity to demonstrate he knows how to draw it (except that he could have played Kb6 and won the pawn, but didn’t).Sean Hewitt wrote: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!
I think you should be very wary of taking any account of things players tell you after the clocks have been stopped. When players are very short of time they sometimes completely lose the plot and play like complete beginners. If a player tells you how he would have drawn a position you don’t know whether he realised this before or after the clocks were stopped. For example:
1. I witnessed a congress game some years ago between two players graded well over 200. Both had less than 1 minute left. White was clearly winning, but making pointless moves that were making no progress. An illegal move was played, necessitating the clocks being stopped while that was sorted out. In the mean time White composed himself and won the game without difficulty when the game resumed. I don’t think he would have won the game if the illegal move hadn’t been played.
2. In a recent local league game, a player graded in the 190s reached an ending of King + Queen against King with about 30 seconds left on his clock. He failed to win it before his time ran out.
