FIDE Rule 10.2 and "by normal means"

[Roger de Coverly]

What wording would one use to clarify the situation?

It would help if it was stated that where a player with a clearly better or winning position offers a draw within the last 2 minutes, that refusal by the opponent was a case of "the opponent being unable to win by normal means". So if you are serious amounts of material ahead or in an ending with only two possible results, you can bail out for a draw if you don't think the time remaining is enough to deliver mate.

[Greg Breed]

The way you put it there Roger, "by normal means" sounds very much to me to mean "without resorting to a win on time (in an inferior or drawn (drawish) position)". It still doesn't clarify it enough I would think to satisfy Edward.
Any other suggestions for improvements?

[John Upham]

I've heard less experienced players declare that they will not accept a draw offer in a drawn or worse position on the grounds that "I have more time than you and you will run out of time first"

If ever there was a good reason for a 10.2 to be used wisely then this has to be one of them.

[Edward Tandi]

OK, I'll give the guidance a shot...

A player may claim a draw under 10.2 under the following circumstances:

1. The opponent is not making any effort to win. This becomes evident when they start to shuffle their pieces, moving without plan. The opponent is trying to win on time, which is not considered to be "by normal means".
2. The position is a well know book draw and the defender has demonstrated they know it. This is evident by the defender having completed a number of crucial moves in the correct sequence.
3. Neither side can make progress. After eliminating possible sacs, zugzwangs and king opposition manoevers, this situation becomes evident when players start to shuffle their pieces, possibly starting to repeating moves. This situation can be encountered with pawn blockades and opposite-bishop endgames etc.
4. The player running out of time has an overwhelming material advantage and their opponent has no mating opportunity or no mating material.

The arbiter may ask the opponent to explain their winning plan. If the arbiter is in any doubt of the outcome, more time shall be added and play continued until the arbiter has made a decision.

Have I missed anything?

[Sean Hewitt]

OK, I'll give the guidance a shot...

A player may claim a draw under 10.2 under the following circumstances:

1. The opponent is not making any effort to win. This becomes evident when they start to shuffle their pieces, moving without plan. The opponent is trying to win on time, which is not considered to be "by normal means".
2. The position is a well know book draw and the defender has demonstrated they know it. This is evident by the defender having completed a number of crucial moves in the correct sequence.
3. Neither side can make progress. After eliminating possible sacs, zugzwangs and king opposition manoevers, this situation becomes evident when players start to shuffle their pieces, possibly starting to repeating moves. This situation can be encountered with pawn blockades and opposite-bishop endgames etc.
4. The player running out of time has an overwhelming material advantage and their opponent has no mating opportunity or no mating material.

The arbiter may ask the opponent to explain their winning plan. If the arbiter is in any doubt of the outcome, more time shall be added and play continued until the arbiter has made a decision.

Have I missed anything?

This is really how the law is now - although perhaps explained more fully than the current wording.

With regards to 2) I would add a caveat "or can explain to the satisfaction of the arbiter the drawing technique" For example, a game swaps off into K,B and wrong rooks pawn v king. The player with lone king has two seconds left. He has no time to make any moves proving the draw but should be able (as now) to claim the draw by saying "I can just move my king to the corner and move from R1 to N1 and back."

[Edward Tandi]

OK, I'll give the guidance a shot...

This is really how the law is now - although perhaps explained more fully than the current wording.

With regards to 2) I would add a caveat "or can explain to the satisfaction of the arbiter the drawing technique" For example, a game swaps off into K,B and wrong rooks pawn v king. The player with lone king has two seconds left. He has no time to make any moves proving the draw but should be able (as now) to claim the draw by saying "I can just move my king to the corner and move from R1 to N1 and back."

Oh good, it reflects what was intended. Revised below...


A player may claim a draw under 10.2 under the following circumstances:

1. The opponent is not making any effort to win. This becomes evident when they start to shuffle their pieces, moving without plan. The opponent is trying to win on time, which is not considered to be "by normal means".
2. The position is a well know book draw and the defender has demonstrated they know it. This is evident after the defender has completed a number of crucial moves in the correct sequence. Given extremely limited time, the defender may demonstrate their knowledge of the drawn endgame by explaining to the satisfaction of the arbiter, the drawing technique.
3. Neither side can make progress. After eliminating possible sacs, zugzwangs and king opposition manoevers, this situation becomes evident when players start to shuffle their pieces, possibly starting to repeating moves. This situation can be encountered with pawn blockades and opposite-bishop endgames etc.
4. The player running out of time has an overwhelming material advantage and their opponent has no mating opportunity or no mating material.

The arbiter may ask the opponent to explain their winning plan. If the arbiter is in any doubt of the outcome, more time shall be added and play continued until the arbiter has made a decision.

Any advances?

[Roger de Coverly]

Any advances?

Do you think you have covered the ending where a player has an extra pawn but offers/claims the draw because of insufficient time? Perhaps along the lines of - the player making the draw claim is the only plausible winner - that's obviously a more difficult call in any but the simplest position.

[Edward Tandi]

Any advances?

Do you think you have covered the ending where a player has an extra pawn but offers/claims the draw because of insufficient time? Perhaps along the lines of - the player making the draw claim is the only plausible winner - that's obviously a more difficult call in any but the simplest position.

I think what you are saying comes under the category of winning but not overwhelmingly. The simplest cases are covered by the endgame manual, but otherwise I'm not sure the arbiter should intervene. There is clearly much play left in the game. Even of there are only pawns left, the opponent's pawn might queen first.

Maybe item 2 cam be expanded to cover both win and draw.

[Edward Tandi]

Updated:

A player may claim a draw under FIDE Law 10.2 in one of the following circumstances:

1. The opponent is not making any effort to win. This becomes evident when the opponent starts to shuffle their pieces, moving without plan. The opponent's intention is to try to win on time, which is not considered to be "by normal means". If the arbiter is in any doubt, this should be clarified by asking the opponent to explain their winning plan.
2. The position is a well know book draw and the claimant has demonstrated they know how to defend. This is evident after the defender has completed a number of crucial moves in the correct sequence. Given extremely limited time, the defender may demonstrate their knowledge of the drawn endgame by explaining to the satisfaction of the arbiter, the drawing technique.
3. Neither side can make progress. After eliminating possible sacs, zugzwangs and king opposition manoevers, this situation becomes evident when either player starts to shuffle their pieces, possibly starting to repeating moves. This situation can be encountered with pawn blockades and opposite-bishop endgames etc.
4. The opponent has insufficient mating material and has turned down the offer of a draw. The player who is winning, but running out of time, can claim the draw on the grounds that the opponent cannot possibly win.
5. The position is a well known book win, but the winner is running out of time. In the case of the opponent turning down a draw, the player can claim the draw by demonstrating they know how to win. This can be demonstrated by completing a number of crucial moves in the correct sequence, or under extremely limited time, by explaining to the satisfaction of the arbiter, the winning technique.
6. The player running out of time has an overwhelming material advantage and their opponent has no immediate mating threats. In the case of the opponent turning down a draw, the player can claim the draw on the grounds that the opponent would not normally win. This may require some skill by the arbiter, but if there is any doubt, more time should be added and play continued until the arbiter has made a decision.

The rule may not be applied until the claimant has two minutes or less remaining on their clock. In general, the arbiter can ask the opponent to explain their winning plan and if the arbiter is in any doubt of the outcome, more time shall be added and play continued until the arbiter has made a decision. If digital chess clocks are available, the preferred method of adding time is to use time increments.

[Sean Hewitt]

Do you think you have covered the ending where a player has an extra pawn but offers/claims the draw because of insufficient time? Perhaps along the lines of - the player making the draw claim is the only plausible winner - that's obviously a more difficult call in any but the simplest position.

Surely this is exactly the kind of scenario where 10.2 should not apply?

K+2P -v- K+P fair enough - assuming the lone pawn is not passed itself.

But K+R+B+6P -v- K+R+B+5P? Undoubtedly an ending but sorry fella, your gonna lose on time!!

[Kevin Thurlow]

Just caught up with this discussion. It is true that most ECF arbiters are not strong players, so mistakes will happen. Also remember that just because material is level that doesn't mean the game is drawn - look at the position on move 0. Theoretically you could sit there without moving in a rapidplay game until you had less than 2 minutes and try to claim a draw.
Why punish a player who has handled his time badly? I have accepted verbal evidence from a player. He claimed a draw, the opponent said he wanted to play on, and the claimant outlined how to defend the position (something like sac a piece to get B + wrong rook-pawn vs king). In fairness his opponent accepted the draw then before I had the chance to award it!
One player claimed a draw with 4 pawns against B + 1 pawn. They played on and the claimant lost two pawns, then his flag fell. The position was probably theoretically drawn, but his opponent had made progress, (winning 2 pawns) and (more importantly)the claimant had missed a simple move which would have forced off his opponent's last pawn. So I disallowed the draw claim. The claimant screamed at me for a while, which seemed unreasonable, as he was the one who couldn't play endings, and he did not deserve the draw.
If someone claims a draw it is important to ask the opponent if they want to play on - while they are answering you can study the position if necessary. And sometimes they just agree.

[Roger de Coverly]

If someone claims a draw it is important to ask the opponent if they want to play on - while they are answering you can study the position if necessary. And sometimes they just agree.

Shouldn't the procedure be for the claimant to first offer the draw?

Only if the offer is declined would you summon the arbiter and make a 10.2 claim (or cease play if it's a league with no arbiter present)

[Sean Hewitt]

Shouldn't the procedure be for the claimant to first offer the draw?

Only if the offer is declined would you summon the arbiter and make a 10.2 claim (or cease play if it's a league with no arbiter present)

No. You offer a draw after you have made your move but before you have pressed your clock. You claim a draw under 10.2 when it is your move (ie your clock is running and you havent yet moved a piece). It would therefore be impossible to legally offer a draw and then claim a draw if the offer were rejected.

[Roger de Coverly]

It would therefore be impossible to legally offer a draw and then claim a draw if the offer were rejected.

I'm thinking of this logical sequence

Claimant
plays move
offers draw
presses clock

Opponent
declines draw by playing move
presses clock

Claimant
makes 10.2 claim

[Sean Hewitt]

It would therefore be impossible to legally offer a draw and then claim a draw if the offer were rejected.

I'm thinking of this logical sequence

Claimant
plays move
offers draw
presses clock

Opponent
declines draw by playing move
presses clock

Claimant
makes 10.2 claim

You forgot

Claimant
Hopes his flag hasnt fallen in the meantime!!

Sure, you could do this - but there is no requirement in the laws of the game to have offered a draw prior to making a draw claim under articl 10.2