FIDE Rule 10.2 and "by normal means"

[Ian Thompson]

This is probably stating the obvious, but for most evening leagues Fischer time controls are impractical because (1) the playing session is open-ended in length, which poses problems for clubs that get thrown out at a fixed time, and (2) many (most?) clubs don't have digital clocks. (At a slight tangent - there are a handful of players who really don't like digital clocks. Given their obvious advantages I find that quite baffling.)

In our league, players may insist on the use of an electronic clock if one is available.

For Division 1 time controls the players may choose either Fischer 85 minutes + 5 seconds a move (the default for the division) or Fischer 60 minutes + 30 seconds a move, as well as other non-Fischer time controls. If they choose the first option then they have the right to claim a 10.2 draw after 190 minutes playing time (i.e. at least 120 moves). If they choose the second option then they do risk a late night if its a long game.

Most of the Division 1 teams do play at venues where there is no fixed finishing time (because they have the keys and have to lock up when they've finished).

As 10.2 claims can't be made until at least 120 moves have been played, the chances of one occuring are very low (0.04% if my database is representative). If a game did go on this long, the player does have some flexibility that he wouldn't have with an all moves in X minutes time control. If he has any doubts that the claim will succeed he can play on until he thinks it is clear-cut.

Ian Thompson

[Mike Gunn]

I play in the same league as Ian Thompson. The rate in div 1 is 1 hour 25 mins plus a 5 second increment for each player, so the standard playing session of 3 hours means 60 moves each (minimum). If this were changed to 1 hour 20 minutes each plus a 5 second increment it would be 120 moves each which I suggest is enough for 99.9% of games. The 5 second increment is obviously short but fits in well with what Stewart Reuben (I think) suggested elsewhere that the criterion for drawing a game when you run short of time should be the ability to draw it with just 5 seconds a move. Incidentally, the league voted last night not to extend Fischer to divs 2 to 5.

Stewart (again) also announced a few years ago that he had offered all players in the Hastings Premier a Fischer timing option (broadly equivalent to the usual 7 hour session) and they voted against it. I have played in one tournament with Fischer timings (rapidplay: 20 mins + 10 seconds increment) and I like it - I would play every game with Fischer increments if I could.

The big problem with 10.2 is that many players see it in moral terms: if they are ahead in material (or even level) then they shouldn't lose, no matter how far they are behind on the clock. They believe the game should be adjudicated a draw but 10.2 isn't an adjudication. If your flag falls and there is a reasonable amount of play left in the position then you lose - that's it (barring obvious injustices). You will always get conflicts over 10.2 because people see the issues differently - this is why the only solution is Fischer increments!

[Phil Neatherway]

Wrt to digital clocks. I have played League Chess since 1973 but I've only used a digital clock a few times, and never with a Fischer time limit. Therefore, I would consider myself at a disdvantage compared to someone who has used them regularly and is familiar with Fischer time limits. I wouldn't even be able to check that the clock is set correctly! So while I agree that digital clocks are superior, I can understand oppotition to their use.

Btw, is there a particular digital clock that other forum users would recommend?

[John Upham]

Btw, is there a particular digital clock that other forum users would recommend?

The DGT XL is excellent and more than adequate : probably the best clock for G, R, B and F type time controls : especially fine for Blitz.

The DGT960 is very new and lower cost

See http://www.dgtprojects.com/ for greater choice.

I do not (yet) have shares in DGT Projects.

J.

[Simon Spivack]

I have updated the guidance again, based on the recent posts.
Alas it has become too big to post here. I will refer readers to: http://www.westlondonchess.com/FIDE_10_2

West London are one of the clubs that I play against, it is a matter of concern to me that this guide may be used in a dispute; for it is both too simple and too complicated, furthermore, it is simply wrong in places.

I presume Stewart Reuben has refrained from commenting as life is too short to correct all the misapprehensions one finds. Or possibly he has simply not seen this thread.

It is not clear to me for whom the guide is written, which leads to unneeded additions. My belief is that a club guide should be written for the benefit of club members, which would include ordinary players and captains. Indeed, a major lack in this web page is that there is no mention whatsoever of the duties and responsibilities of a captain in a league match. Too many 10.2 disputes are referred to the league secretary when they should be resolved on the night: an unfortunate consequence of the inadequacy of so many captains, who imagine that they need do nothing more than field a team, submit a result and support their players, right or wrong. They should consider the claim, penalise if it is wrong, accept if valid and postpone if uncertain. If the captains can't reach a common position then one of them, at least, is probably incompetent when it comes to 10.2, or worse.

An arbiter ought already to have some understanding of the Laws of Chess, a club website does not strike me as the best place for an arbiter to learn.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that several arbiters, including Stewart Reuben and Geurt Gijssen (see page 39 of Stewart's book) dislike the lack of a right of appeal. I concur that an assumption of infallibility is most undesirable. I can see there is a practical problem if pairings for the next round have to be completed as soon as possible, but there are many contests where this is not required. FIDE should change its default position to permitting appeals: then weekend swisses, or whatever, could specifically deny the right of appeal.

What is written on the website is at variance with what Stewart has written in his book. Unless our government has altered copyright law more than I am aware, one can quote small sections of a book for the purposes of review and commentary. I should take this to mean that it is not possible to quote massive tracts, at least not without the permission of the copyright holder (i.e. Stewart, who, presumably, would prefer to consult the publishers, Harding Simpole, as to whether such a web page would represent cannibalisation or promotion). Regardless of whether my understanding of the legal issue is correct, it seems to me to be a matter of courtesy to ask Stewart before quoting extensively, which is my suggested course.

I should add that a lack of examples suggests limited confidence, which is not acceptable in a paper with didactic pretensions. I can think of one West London member who has access to web publishing facilities for chess games and diagrams, I'm confident there are others; there ought to be a member able to help in a project that is to the benefit of West London Chess Club.

Looking at extracts from the web page, below are some of my objections.

A claim cannot be made until the claimant has less than two minutes remaining on their clock.

A minor quibble, why include this space wasting repetition?

About the first thing the page should do is quote 10.2 in its *entirety*, and then refrain from otiose repetitions.

2. The position is a well know (sic) book draw. After making a claim, the player must demonstrate they know how to defend. This is evident after the claimant has completed a number of crucial moves in the correct sequence. Given extremely limited time, the claimant may demonstrate their knowledge of the drawn endgame by explaining to the satisfaction of the arbiter, the drawing technique. The arbiter shall decide whether to play on or not.

This is intuitively understandable, however, some book draws are harder than others. Consider the ending of rook and bishop against rook. Should the arbiter listen to an explanation from the defender of Cochrane's position, Szen's position, Phillidor's or the second rank defence? I confess I'd prefer to see some moves played on the board. In practise this is a nearly impossible ending to defend in limited time against an opponent who understands some of the winning tries. Grandmasters have lost from drawn positions.

Remember Stewart's point: only allow a draw if absolutely certain. A known book draw that is difficult should not, contrary to what is written above, normally be given immediately, even if the claimant has studied the theory.

It is tempting to add the adjective "easy", however, what may be easy to Kasparov could well prove a trial to the rest of us.

3. Neither side can make progress. After eliminating possible sacs, zugzwangs and King opposition manoevers (sic), 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.

I'm not sure that this brings all that much to the party. It is subtly different to 1 (which I have excised) in the sense that a player may be making an effort, albeit one that is not meaningful, for instance because of ignorance; but is this worth mentioning as this has, again, a lot more to do with the strengths of the players.

4. The opponent has insufficient mating material. The player who is winning but running out of time, may claim the draw on the grounds that the opponent cannot possibly win.

Rare and covered by 9.6. I'm not sure if this is particularly useful in an explanatory text.

6. The player running out of time has an overwhelming material advantage and their opponent has no immediate mating threats. 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.

Why just a material advantage, and why is there not any mention of the absence of a significant compensating disadvantage, apart from mate? Consider the affair between Kitty O'Shea and Charles Parnell; which had progressed, following considerable sacrifices from Mrs O'Shea, to the following position by move 89: White, pawns on a5, b6, c5 and h4; bishop on e6; king on f4: black, pawns on a6, b7, c6, e4, f5, g6 and h5; king on b8; rook on a8. Black, anxious to maintain his position, proposed that the matter be closed in accordance with 10.2 on the basis that he had an overwhelming material advantage (an exchange and three pawns) and that there was no immediate threat to the leadership of his party. Of course his position was untenable, for Parnell was finished, a fatal, fully offsetting, disadvantage.

Conversely, if Kitty had been less than two minutes from shame, and sought a let out under 10.2; then she should have been granted it, assuming she could state that she would leave her bishop safely in control of c8, capture enemy pawns that advanced with her king, save for the g pawn, which would be captured by her h-pawn, the pawn in turn marching glamorously to g8, without hesitation, in anticipation of a major promotion.

Chess judgement is crucial. In my view no arbiter who has not played seriously since, for instance, the 1960s should rule on 10.2.

Claiming a draw

If there is enough time on the clock, the player should first offer a draw. It is not a requirement, but is considered courteous and potentially reduces the arbiters workload. If the draw offer is rejected, the player can stop their clock immediately after their opponent's move and summon the arbiter.

Is this necessary? If a player is going to be discourteous, there is not much to be done about it: they can help themselves if they so choose, unfortunately, they choose not to.

The Arbiter

Rule 13.3 requires the arbiter to observe all games especially when players are short of time.

Yes, that is article 13.3; the article under discussion is 10.2, this and the following are therefore largely irrelevant.

In rapidplay games, there is less reason for an arbiter to do this as they cannot point out a flag fall and cannot make other rulings unless asked to by one of the players.

This is bizarre. Just because an arbiter has less power, it does not follow that he should be any less sedulous. For instance, in a tournament only the arbiter or a member of the control team can properly be considered an independent witness in a dispute; unless the arbiter knows the quality of the onlookers, even then I should be wary of depending too much upon, say, another player. It is possible for two people to witness the same incident, yet give two radically different accounts, without either being dishonest. Of course an arbiter can get it wrong too, yet his judgement should ordinarily be backed: if he is consistently wrong, then he should not be invited to serve as an arbiter.

Quickplay Finish
The arbiter has to make a decision when he observes a flag fall and because of this the arbiter has to keep one eye on the clock and the other on the board.

Rapidplay
Appendix B.7 states:

"The flag is considered to have fallen when a player has made a valid claim to that effect. The arbiter shall refrain from signalling a flag fall."

When a flag falls, the arbiter should not immediately make a decision unless a player points out that the flag has fallen. Because there is no need to make a decision when the flag falls, the arbiter can devote nearly all their attention to the board position.

This is to do with the fall of the clock, article 6.9. It muddies the waters to include this in a discussion about 10.2. Furthermore, although in a Rapidplay game B7 supervenes; it most certainly does not follow that an arbiter should hardly look at the clock, for instance there could be a dispute starring the clock. If there are several games taking place in a Rapidplay; the arbiter has to decide which one(s) to give the most attention to, one important indicator is the degree of time trouble, which involves looking at the clock. Note, too, that in a league match with no arbiter present, a match captain should not indicate a flag fall in a game other than his own; the situation is therefore, in this respect, similar to a Rapidplay: a parallel which can be made closer still should one of the players record a Rapidplay game, something he is not obligated to do, but may choose.

Evidence

In general, the arbiter can ask the opponent to explain their winning plan.

There is some confusion here. There are two cases:

a) The player who is supposedly winning claims the draw and

b) The player who is supposedly drawing claims the draw.


In b, too, an explanation may be warranted.

If the arbiter requires more evidence or is in any doubt of the outcome, there are a few options:

1. The arbiter shall add 2 minutes

There is a world of difference in meaning between "shall" as written here, and "may" as written in 10.2. This is simply wrong. Do not conflate a rejection (under c) which does mandate a two minute penalty, with a postponement (under b), where the decision to penalise is voluntary.

The golden rule is: if in doubt postpone and observe, use some discretion when penalising. See Stewart's example 4 on page 122.

2. More time shall be added for both players and the game 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.
3. If the play continues using time increments, rule 10.2 no longer applies -play continues until the game reaches a natural conclusion, or until time runs out.

Option 1 is the official FIDE position, options 2/3 are improvised

and are simply meaningless when explaining an existing law. One can't invent laws that do not exist in an ad hoc manner; they are neither mentioned in the Laws of Chess nor, probably, the rules of most competitions.

As mentioned above, even in a Rapidplay, there may be a score of the game. I'd look at that, even if only one of the players has kept a record, for one would have to be paranoid beyond help to imagine that the score was fanciful, apart from a few obvious exceptions.

If there are only a few games near the end, it is good practise, at least when norms and prizes are at stake, for the arbiter and other organisers to record the scores, even if the players are also recording.

A good memory is also useful, in one league match I remembered that two players had played about five years previously and become caught up in a 10.2 dispute. Fortunately my game, and that of the opposing captain, ended roughly halfway through the session. With half an hour left there were two games still in progress; in one both had roughly fifteen minutes, in the other the balance was three and twenty-seven; no prizes for guessing who the players were. Both captains made only cursory glances at the uneventful first game and devoted most of our energies to observing the other, the "candidate" so to speak. Happily it was resolved over the board without dispute. The player with more time was making a serious effort to win over the board, he did not try to blitz his opponent, he used up a large part of his time advantage to find and play a winning continuation.

Simon Spivack.

[Roger de Coverly]

They (the match captains) should consider the claim, penalise if it is wrong, accept if valid and postpone if uncertain.

Doesn't that depend on whether the league rules consider the match captains to be "an arbiter present"? If there's no arbiter, the FIDE rules imply that play ceases immediately and the players have no further part in it. Particularly in league play with no arbiter I would consider it best practice to offer a draw before a 10.2 claim and only make the claim if the draw is refused.

Here's the exact quote from the FIDE site

D.

Quickplay finishes where no arbiter is present in the venue.
D1.

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.
He may claim on the basis

1.

that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or
2.

that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.

In (a) the player must write down the final position and his opponent verify it.
In (b) the player must write down the final position and submit an up-to-date scoresheet, which must be completed before play has ceased. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.
The claim shall be referred to an arbiter whose decision shall be the final one.

Games where the claimant is the player trying to draw are always going to be difficult. But what of the simpler issue where the claimant was the one previously attempting to win?

Some of the contributions to this thread were trying to establish the extent to which a player who was trying to win could abandon the attempt with a draw offer when short of time and whether arbiters would support a 10.2 claim for a draw by a player who was clearly winning. Views were expressed that it depended on the complexity of the position and the skill level of the players. Thus there was no real consensus on the meaning of "clearly winning".

By way of example suppose white has Rook 6 pawns and 5 minutes against Rook 5 pawns and 20 minutes. The pawn structures, rook activity and king positions offer no advantages to either player. With players of equal ratings and equal time, a draw offer by white would be generous. So white offers a draw with 5 minutes against 20. This is turned down. You need to know the arbiter's attitude to 10.2 claims to play the next 3 minutes. You'd hope that a 10.2 claim with R+2 v R+1 would be allowed but for safety you've probably got to head for R+1 v R. Probably R+6 v R+5 would be rejected on the grounds on complexity.

[Simon Spivack]

They (the match captains) should consider the claim, penalise if it is wrong, accept if valid and postpone if uncertain.

Doesn't that depend on whether the league rules consider the match captains to be "an arbiter present"?

Yes, however, this is the case unless the rules have changed that apply in the leagues that my club and West London have in common. See for instance:

http://www.middlesexchess.org.uk/newrules.html

Under item 4 one reads:

"If a dispute between two players and a registered B.C.F. (E.C.F.) arbiter is present then the matter shall be referred to that person. If no arbiter is present as an official, player or a spectator, then the two team Captains shall jointly act as an arbiter. If they disagree, then the matter shall be referred to the League Secretary, in writing, with the full details."

I confess I don't like the authority given to an arbiter if he is not present in an official capacity. I should prefer it if he were simply asked for advice, but that is a different matter.

It's true that the SCCU more religiously follow the dictates of FIDE; I wasn't aware of other exceptions, which may be a reflection of my ignorance.

If there's no arbiter, the FIDE rules imply that play ceases immediately and the players have no further part in it. Particularly in league play with no arbiter I would consider it best practice to offer a draw before a 10.2 claim and only make the claim if the draw is refused.

I'm not certain whether this is best practise if one is making the claim from a nominally inferior position. In such a situation I should hope that the opponent would either offer a draw, or agree to it in the inevitable subsequent discussion. Yes, I am aware of what the SCCU website says.

Games where the claimant is the player trying to draw are always going to be difficult. But what of the simpler issue where the claimant was the one previously attempting to win?

Some of the contributions to this thread were trying to establish the extent to which a player who was trying to win could abandon the attempt with a draw offer when short of time and whether arbiters would support a 10.2 claim for a draw by a player who was clearly winning. Views were expressed that it depended on the complexity of the position and the skill level of the players. Thus there was no real consensus on the meaning of "clearly winning".

Yes, where is this being disputed? My point in my previous post was that the guidance given was counter-productive and wrong in places. I suggested contacting Stewart to see whether parts of his book could be quoted.

By way of example suppose white has Rook 6 pawns and 5 minutes against Rook 5 pawns and 20 minutes. The pawn structures, rook activity and king positions offer no advantages to either player. With players of equal ratings and equal time, a draw offer by white would be generous. So white offers a draw with 5 minutes against 20. This is turned down. You need to know the arbiter's attitude to 10.2 claims to play the next 3 minutes. You'd hope that a 10.2 claim with R+2 v R+1 would be allowed but for safety you've probably got to head for R+1 v R. Probably R+6 v R+5 would be rejected on the grounds on complexity.

This is somewhat vague. In the following I shall assume that an arbiter is present.

If there are still eleven pawns on the board when the claim is made with less than two minutes on the clock; then a good example to look at is that given by Stewart on page 123, number ten. His recommendation is to *postpone without penalty*. Of course that example has two bishops each rather than one rook each, and level material, but, in the absence of clarity in the chosen example, it looks the closest comparison. Probably after seeing several moves the draw would be given.

Simon Spivack.

[Edward Tandi]

I have updated the guidance again, based on the recent posts.
Alas it has become too big to post here. I will refer readers to: http://www.westlondonchess.com/FIDE_10_2

West London are one of the clubs that I play against, it is a matter of concern to me that this guide may be used in a dispute; for it is both too simple and too complicated, furthermore, it is simply wrong in places.

Good for you . RE the guidance, some guidance is better than none at all. From this thread, it became clear there is a wide and conflicting understanding of this rule. You claim it is wrong, great, let's have that discussion...

I presume Stewart Reuben has refrained from commenting as life is too short to correct all the misapprehensions one finds. Or possibly he has simply not seen this thread.

It is also possible that he is too busy organising the British Championships to give this thread an adequate reply, which is likely to be lengthy. We all value his input.

It is not clear to me for whom the guide is written, which leads to unneeded additions. My belief is that a club guide should be written for the benefit of club members, which would include ordinary players and captains. Indeed, a major lack in this web page is that there is no mention whatsoever of the duties and responsibilities of a captain in a league match.

Written as a web page, the guidance intended for whoever reads it. I expect it is mostly the players that will benefit. The responsibilities of a match captain will probably be written under another page, I have been considering it for some time.

Too many 10.2 disputes are referred to the league secretary when they should be resolved on the night: an unfortunate consequence of the inadequacy of so many captains, who imagine that they need do nothing more than field a team, submit a result and support their players, right or wrong. They should consider the claim, penalise if it is wrong, accept if valid and postpone if uncertain. If the captains can't reach a common position then one of them, at least, is probably incompetent when it comes to 10.2, or worse.

The match captain is put into a difficult situation of conflicting interests. The captain obviously wants to win their game, but even if they (secretly) agree it's a draw, they need to be supportive of the player adamant on disputing it (otherwise they get cheesed off and go play for someone else). It's a difficult situation to cope with.

An arbiter ought already to have some understanding of the Laws of Chess, a club website does not strike me as the best place for an arbiter to learn.

I chose the club Web site, because I am the Web administrator and since I have other chess related material on the site (such as grading), I thought it was a good fit. Official ECF arbiters usually go on a course, but many clubs (like ours) run ungraded tournaments and therefore require some kind of arbiter. Few clubs have a certified arbiter.

What is written on the website is at variance with what Stewart has written in his book. Unless our government has altered copyright law more than I am aware, one can quote small sections of a book for the purposes of review and commentary. I should take this to mean that it is not possible to quote massive tracts, at least not without the permission of the copyright holder (i.e. Stewart, who, presumably, would prefer to consult the publishers, Harding Simpole, as to whether such a web page would represent cannibalisation or promotion). Regardless of whether my understanding of the legal issue is correct, it seems to me to be a matter of courtesy to ask Stewart before quoting extensively, which is my suggested course.

I don't have Stewart's book and I am not aware of quoting it. FIDE rules aside, it was written by myself, including some snippets from this forum. In general, players are not going to go out and buy an arbiters book whereas serious arbiters will almost certainly buy Stewart's book, so I don't see a conflict of interest.

I should add that a lack of examples suggests limited confidence, which is not acceptable in a paper with didactic pretensions. I can think of one West London member who has access to web publishing facilities for chess games and diagrams, I'm confident there are others; there ought to be a member able to help in a project that is to the benefit of West London Chess Club.

You use a highly critical tone, there is no lack of confidence here and I think the guidance is of benefit to its readers. I was thinking of including examples, indeed they would clarify matters considerably. It takes time, and like most Web publications, this is an evolving work. I expect this will happen over the next few months.

Looking at extracts from the web page, below are some of my objections.

A claim cannot be made until the claimant has less than two minutes remaining on their clock.

A minor quibble, why include this space wasting repetition?

About the first thing the page should do is quote 10.2 in its *entirety*, and then refrain from otiose repetitions.

The two minute part is important when applying the rule, I can hardly do without mention of it. Yes I could quote 10.2 in its entirety, but that would result in even more duplication later on.

2. The position is a well know (sic) book draw. After making a claim, the player must demonstrate they know how to defend. This is evident after the claimant has completed a number of crucial moves in the correct sequence. Given extremely limited time, the claimant may demonstrate their knowledge of the drawn endgame by explaining to the satisfaction of the arbiter, the drawing technique. The arbiter shall decide whether to play on or not.

This is intuitively understandable, however, some book draws are harder than others. Consider the ending of rook and bishop against rook. Should the arbiter listen to an explanation from the defender of Cochrane's position, Szen's position, Phillidor's or the second rank defence? I confess I'd prefer to see some moves played on the board. In practise this is a nearly impossible ending to defend in limited time against an opponent who understands some of the winning tries. Grandmasters have lost from drawn positions.

Remember Stewart's point: only allow a draw if absolutely certain. A known book draw that is difficult should not, contrary to what is written above, normally be given immediately, even if the claimant has studied the theory.

Uncertainty is catered for, by allowing the continuation of play.

3. Neither side can make progress. After eliminating possible sacs, zugzwangs and King opposition manoevers (sic), 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.

I'm not sure that this brings all that much to the party. It is subtly different to 1 (which I have excised) in the sense that a player may be making an effort, albeit one that is not meaningful, for instance because of ignorance; but is this worth mentioning as this has, again, a lot more to do with the strengths of the players.

This covers a different set of cases, not necessarily covered in endgame books.

4. The opponent has insufficient mating material. The player who is winning but running out of time, may claim the draw on the grounds that the opponent cannot possibly win.

Rare and covered by 9.6. I'm not sure if this is particularly useful in an explanatory text.

This is the case when the claimant of the draw can still win. In 9.6 a win is not possible by either side.

6. The player running out of time has an overwhelming material advantage and their opponent has no immediate mating threats. 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.

Why just a material advantage, and why is there not any mention of the absence of a significant compensating disadvantage, apart from mate? Consider the affair between Kitty O'Shea and Charles Parnell; which had progressed, following considerable sacrifices from Mrs O'Shea, to the following position by move 89: White, pawns on a5, b6, c5 and h4; bishop on e6; king on f4: black, pawns on a6, b7, c6, e4, f5, g6 and h5; king on b8; rook on a8. Black, anxious to maintain his position, proposed that the matter be closed in accordance with 10.2 on the basis that he had an overwhelming material advantage (an exchange and three pawns) and that there was no immediate threat to the leadership of his party. Of course his position was untenable, for Parnell was finished, a fatal, fully offsetting, disadvantage.

Conversely, if Kitty had been less than two minutes from shame, and sought a let out under 10.2; then she should have been granted it, assuming she could state that she would leave her bishop safely in control of c8, capture enemy pawns that advanced with her king, save for the g pawn, which would be captured by her h-pawn, the pawn in turn marching glamorously to g8, without hesitation, in anticipation of a major promotion.

Chess judgement is crucial. In my view no arbiter who has not played seriously since, for instance, the 1960s should rule on 10.2.

Remember this is guidance, if you can come up with a better wording, I'm all ears. I will consider the case you mention above and see if I can come up with some improvement. Regarding judgement, yes a good standard of play helps, but we need a system that relies less upon it. The method for mitigating uncertainty in the text, is simply to add time.

Claiming a draw

If there is enough time on the clock, the player should first offer a draw. It is not a requirement, but is considered courteous and potentially reduces the arbiters workload. If the draw offer is rejected, the player can stop their clock immediately after their opponent's move and summon the arbiter.

Is this necessary? If a player is going to be discourteous, there is not much to be done about it: they can help themselves if they so choose, unfortunately, they choose not to.

By observing this, we hope the arbiter, who's job is hard enough, will be bothered less.

The Arbiter

Rule 13.3 requires the arbiter to observe all games especially when players are short of time.

Yes, that is article 13.3; the article under discussion is 10.2, this and the following are therefore largely irrelevant.

Observation is relevant to the ruling on 10.2, particularly the differences between quickplay and rapidplay. I don't have a separate page on arbiter responsibilities, so this one will have to do.

In rapidplay games, there is less reason for an arbiter to do this as they cannot point out a flag fall and cannot make other rulings unless asked to by one of the players.

This is bizarre. Just because an arbiter has less power, it does not follow that he should be any less sedulous. For instance, in a tournament only the arbiter or a member of the control team can properly be considered an independent witness in a dispute; unless the arbiter knows the quality of the onlookers, even then I should be wary of depending too much upon, say, another player. It is possible for two people to witness the same incident, yet give two radically different accounts, without either being dishonest. Of course an arbiter can get it wrong too, yet his judgement should ordinarily be backed: if he is consistently wrong, then he should not be invited to serve as an arbiter.

Point taken, we should not condone laziness, so I will reword it.

Quickplay Finish
The arbiter has to make a decision when he observes a flag fall and because of this the arbiter has to keep one eye on the clock and the other on the board.

Rapidplay
Appendix B.7 states:

"The flag is considered to have fallen when a player has made a valid claim to that effect. The arbiter shall refrain from signalling a flag fall."

When a flag falls, the arbiter should not immediately make a decision unless a player points out that the flag has fallen. Because there is no need to make a decision when the flag falls, the arbiter can devote nearly all their attention to the board position.

This is to do with the fall of the clock, article 6.9. It muddies the waters to include this in a discussion about 10.2. Furthermore, although in a Rapidplay game B7 supervenes; it most certainly does not follow that an arbiter should hardly look at the clock, for instance there could be a dispute starring the clock. If there are several games taking place in a Rapidplay; the arbiter has to decide which one(s) to give the most attention to, one important indicator is the degree of time trouble, which involves looking at the clock. Note, too, that in a league match with no arbiter present, a match captain should not indicate a flag fall in a game other than his own; the situation is therefore, in this respect, similar to a Rapidplay: a parallel which can be made closer still should one of the players record a Rapidplay game, something he is not obligated to do, but may choose.

I make no apologies for muddying waters, since most of the rules are interconnected anyway. I include all rules that have significant relevance to 10.2. I will remove any suggestion that the arbiter "should hardly look at the clock", since this is unintended.

Evidence

In general, the arbiter can ask the opponent to explain their winning plan.

There is some confusion here. There are two cases:

a) The player who is supposedly winning claims the draw and
b) The player who is supposedly drawing claims the draw.

In b, too, an explanation may be warranted.

Good point, I will change "opponent" to "claimant".

If the arbiter requires more evidence or is in any doubt of the outcome, there are a few options:

1. The arbiter shall add 2 minutes

There is a world of difference in meaning between "shall" as written here, and "may" as written in 10.2. This is simply wrong. Do not conflate a rejection (under c) which does mandate a two minute penalty, with a postponement (under b), where the decision to penalise is voluntary.

The golden rule is: if in doubt postpone and observe, use some discretion when penalising. See Stewart's example 4 on page 122.

Well spotted, I will update accordingly. I don't have Stewart's book and I expect most chess players don't either.

2. More time shall be added for both players and the game 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.
3. If the play continues using time increments, rule 10.2 no longer applies -play continues until the game reaches a natural conclusion, or until time runs out.

Option 1 is the official FIDE position, options 2/3 are improvised

and are simply meaningless when explaining an existing law. One can't invent laws that do not exist in an ad hoc manner; they are neither mentioned in the Laws of Chess nor, probably, the rules of most competitions.

Nevertheless, it reflects what arbiters do in reality. I will refer the reader to earlier posts in this topic.

As mentioned above, even in a Rapidplay, there may be a score of the game. I'd look at that, even if only one of the players has kept a record, for one would have to be paranoid beyond help to imagine that the score was fanciful, apart from a few obvious exceptions.

If there are only a few games near the end, it is good practise, at least when norms and prizes are at stake, for the arbiter and other organisers to record the scores, even if the players are also recording.

Virtually nobody records the last few minutes of a rapidplay game. The moves may be so quick, that it is impossible for the arbiter to record them, except perhaps by using electronic means.

Thanks for your feedback, although I would encourage you to break your reply down into a number of smaller comments in the future. Please be mindful that this guidance is not set in stone and it will continue to evolve as more people comment on it.

[Simon Spivack]

some guidance is better than none at all.

Unfortunately, we have to agree to differ here, some guides lead one on
entirely the wrong path!

You claim it is wrong, great, let's have that discussion...

No, I stated that it is wrong in parts, something you do concede further in
your post. IMO the errors are sufficiently grievous as to render what is on
the West London website nearly valueless.

It is not clear to me for whom the guide is written, which leads to
unneeded additions. My belief is that a club guide should be written for
the benefit of club members, which would include ordinary players and
captains. Indeed, a major lack in this web page is that there is no mention
whatsoever of the duties and responsibilities of a captain in a league
match.

Written as a web page, the guidance intended for whoever reads it. I expect
it is mostly the players that will benefit. The responsibilities of a match
captain will probably be written under another page, I have been
considering it for some time.

So you are proposing to write a guide for arbiters and players on one page,
and a separate page for captains. Why not write three separate pages, if
one is determined to be all things to all men? That would certainly aid in
clarity.

Too many 10.2 disputes are referred to the league secretary when they
should be resolved on the night: an unfortunate consequence of the
inadequacy of so many captains, who imagine that they need do nothing more
than field a team, submit a result and support their players, right or
wrong. They should consider the claim, penalise if it is wrong, accept if
valid and postpone if uncertain. If the captains can't reach a common
position then one of them, at least, is probably incompetent when it comes
to 10.2, or worse.

The match captain is put into a difficult situation of conflicting
interests. The captain obviously wants to win their game, but even if they
(secretly) agree it's a draw, they need to be supportive of the player
adamant on disputing it (otherwise they get cheesed off and go play for
someone else). It's a difficult situation to cope with.

I hope the above is not your way of proceeding.
Many captains mishandle 10.2 and have a questionable attitude, something I
have already mentioned. Rather than go round in circles I shall suggest a
method that has worked for me in the past. Incidentally, I first captained
a team in 1975; I have decades of experience in captaining teams. I am not,
however, suggesting that I always live up to the ideal.

The first point to remember is that it is likely that the captains may be
on a high, having gone through the vicissitudes of their own games: they
ought to take a second or two to calm themselves, they must appear relaxed
and alert. Next the captains should try and identify which player is the
more agitated; this is the one they should ask for an account of what
transpired and what they believe; after every significant point raised the
the other player should be asked whether he agrees with the account so far.
By this stage an air of calm should have been achieved. The next stage is
to describe the article(s) and explanations that pertain; for instance in
rook and bishop against rook I should mention that it is acceptable for the
player with more material to play for a win by reference to the specific
example of rook and knight against rook; the player with the bishop should
be awarded two minutes and the game continued. The player may feel that the
ruling is capricious, but he should be able to see that the caprice is in
the commentary to the Laws, not the captains.

What is written on the website is at variance with what Stewart has written
in his book. Unless our government has altered copyright law more than I am
aware, one can quote small sections of a book for the purposes of review
and commentary. I should take this to mean that it is not possible to quote
massive tracts, at least not without the permission of the copyright holder
(i.e. Stewart, who, presumably, would prefer to consult the publishers,
Harding Simpole, as to whether such a web page would represent
cannibalisation or promotion). Regardless of whether my understanding of
the legal issue is correct, it seems to me to be a matter of courtesy to
ask Stewart before quoting extensively, which is my suggested course.

I don't have Stewart's book and I am not aware of quoting it. FIDE rules
aside, it was written by myself, including some snippets from this forum.
In general, players are not going to go out and buy an arbiters book
whereas serious arbiters will almost certainly buy Stewart's book, so I
don't see a conflict of interest.

This is a misreading of what I wrote; if what you write is at variance with
what is in the book, how can there be an accusation of plagiarism?
What I am saying is that what you have written is wrong in parts; you
should therefore buy Stewart's book (according to you this is what a
serious arbiter must do) and then contact Stewart, letting him know which
part of his book you wish to reproduce, something *you have not yet done*,
but should consider. I should imagine he may also wish to comment on the
parts not from his book, if his name is to be associated. If Stewart gives
his assent then put on the web page what he has agreed to; if he can't or
won't, then you should try to contact a senior arbiter for help, this is
better done in private correspondence rather than on a forum, I have always
found most chess organisers helpful, tact is a good weapon.

I should add that a lack of examples suggests limited confidence, which is
not acceptable in a paper with didactic pretensions. I can think of one
West London member who has access to web publishing facilities for chess
games and diagrams, I'm confident there are others; there ought to be a
member able to help in a project that is to the benefit of West London
Chess Club.

You use a highly critical tone, there is no lack of confidence here

You concede there are errors and that playing strength is a factor, yet
there is no lack of confidence?

and I think the guidance is of benefit to its readers. I was thinking of
including examples, indeed they would clarify matters considerably. It
takes time, and like most Web publications, this is an evolving work. I
expect this will happen over the next few months.

It could be done far more quickly if you had Stewart's book and his
permission. It would even be worthwhile.

2. The position is a well know (sic) book draw. After making a claim, the
player must demonstrate they know how to defend. This is evident after the
claimant has completed a number of crucial moves in the correct sequence.
Given extremely limited time, the claimant may demonstrate their knowledge
of the drawn endgame by explaining to the satisfaction of the arbiter, the
drawing technique. The arbiter shall decide whether to play on or not.

This is intuitively understandable, however, some book draws are harder
than others. Consider the ending of rook and bishop against rook. Should
the arbiter listen to an explanation from the defender of Cochrane's
position, Szen's position, Phillidor's or the second rank defence? I
confess I'd prefer to see some moves played on the board. In practise this
is a nearly impossible ending to defend in limited time against an opponent
who understands some of the winning tries. Grandmasters have lost from
drawn positions.
Remember Stewart's point: only allow a draw if absolutely certain. A known
book draw that is difficult should not, contrary to what is written above,
normally be given immediately, even if the claimant has studied the theory.

Uncertainty is catered for, by allowing the continuation of play.

You wrote:
"Given extremely limited time, the claimant may demonstrate their knowledge
of the drawn endgame by explaining to the satisfaction of the arbiter, the
drawing technique." Why the "may" rather than "should"? furthermore, even
if the player does possess the requisite technique, if he has only seconds
left in an ending of rook and bishop against rook, he is out of luck in
most positions. This follows from Stewart's example four.

4. The opponent has insufficient mating material. The player who is winning
but running out of time, may claim the draw on the grounds that the
opponent cannot possibly win.

Rare and covered by 9.6. I'm not sure if this is particularly useful in an
explanatory text.

This is the case when the claimant of the draw can still win. In 9.6 a win
is not possible by either side.

I wrote too quickly in the above, of course it follows automatically from
10.2 itself, my apologies. Nonetheless, I maintain that it takes up space
to little purpose. If someone can't understand this from the article
itself, what hope is there.

Remember this is guidance, if you can come up with a better wording, I'm
all ears. I will consider the case you mention above and see if I can come
up with some improvement. Regarding judgement, yes a good standard of play
helps, but we need a system that relies less upon it. The method for
mitigating uncertainty in the text, is simply to add time.

As previously stated, my recommendation is to buy Stewart's book and then
ask him for permission to quote extracts. You should let him see exactly
what will appear in relation to 10.2.

I make no apologies for muddying waters, since most of the rules are
interconnected anyway. I include all rules that have significant relevance
to 10.2.

It is a pity that you can see nothing wrong in overcomplicating a matter.
You do not include all rules that could have significant relevence; for
instance whether or not the non-claiming player has five minutes or more in
a long play game, a record of the game potentially being significant. In my
view you are right to omit that, as it does not directly bear upon 10.2.

Evidence

In general, the arbiter can ask the opponent to explain their winning plan.

There is some confusion here. There are two cases:

a) The player who is supposedly winning claims the draw and
b) The player who is supposedly drawing claims the draw.

In b, too, an explanation may be warranted.

Good point, I will change "opponent" to "claimant".

This makes little sense. For instance the player claiming the draw may be
asked to explain his *drawing plan*. Indeed, in his example 9 Stewart asks
the claimant to *announce* his drawing method. Of course Stewart states
that this is subjective, yet in the example given I should suggest that
failure to award the draw in a game between GMs, say, would bring the game
into disrepute, which is given on page 121, but nowhere mentioned, as far
as I can recall, on the West London site.

Option 1 is the official FIDE position, options 2/3 are improvised

and are simply meaningless when explaining an existing law. One can't
invent laws that do not exist in an ad hoc manner; they are neither
mentioned in the Laws of Chess nor, probably, the rules of most
competitions.

Nevertheless, it reflects what arbiters do in reality. I will refer the
reader to earlier posts in this topic.

I hope that they mention the derogation somewhere in the rules of their
contest.

If there are only a few games near the end, it is good practise, at least
when norms and prizes are at stake, for the arbiter and other organisers to
record the scores, even if the players are also recording.

Virtually nobody records the last few minutes of a rapidplay game. The
moves may be so quick, that it is impossible for the arbiter to record
them, except perhaps by using electronic means.

I should have made it clearer that I was talking about games played at a
slower rate. The key word in what I wrote above was "norms", as in IM
norms, GM norms and so on. I don't have much difficulty recording a game
played at speed, at least before my eye operation, unless the rates of play
of both players are extremely fast. If a norm is at stake, then both players are sufficiently good that they can normally reconstruct a game anyway: something made easier if a third party has copied as much as he can.


Simon Spivack.

[Edward Tandi]

some guidance is better than none at all.

Unfortunately, we have to agree to differ here, some guides lead one on entirely the wrong path!

You claim it is wrong, great, let's have that discussion...

No, I stated that it is wrong in parts, something you do concede further in your post. IMO the errors are sufficiently grievous as to render what is on the West London website nearly valueless.

Yes I will agree to differ. I will let the readership decide its value, you are one of many. Please keep the feedback constructive.

Written as a web page, the guidance intended for whoever reads it. I expect it is mostly the players that will benefit. The responsibilities of a match captain will probably be written under another page, I have been considering it for some time.

So you are proposing to write a guide for arbiters and players on one page, and a separate page for captains. Why not write three separate pages, if one is determined to be all things to all men? That would certainly aid in clarity.

We have a need for captaincy guidance, since we find ourselves short of captains. I do not however intend to be training people to be arbiters, therefore I do not intend to cover that topic expansively.

The match captain is put into a difficult situation of conflicting interests. The captain obviously wants to win their game, but even if they (secretly) agree it's a draw, they need to be supportive of the player adamant on disputing it (otherwise they get cheesed off and go play for someone else). It's a difficult situation to cope with.

I hope the above is not your way of proceeding. Many captains mishandle 10.2 and have a questionable attitude, something I have already mentioned. Rather than go round in circles I shall suggest a method that has worked for me in the past. Incidentally, I first captained a team in 1975; I have decades of experience in captaining teams. I am not, however, suggesting that I always live up to the ideal.

The first point to remember is that it is likely that the captains may be on a high, having gone through the vicissitudes of their own games: they
ought to take a second or two to calm themselves, they must appear relaxed and alert. Next the captains should try and identify which player is the
more agitated; this is the one they should ask for an account of what transpired and what they believe; after every significant point raised the
the other player should be asked whether he agrees with the account so far. By this stage an air of calm should have been achieved. The next stage is
to describe the article(s) and explanations that pertain; for instance in rook and bishop against rook I should mention that it is acceptable for the
player with more material to play for a win by reference to the specific example of rook and knight against rook; the player with the bishop should
be awarded two minutes and the game continued. The player may feel that the ruling is capricious, but he should be able to see that the caprice is in
the commentary to the Laws, not the captains.

I do not yet know how I will handle a 10.2 claim as a team captain, but I dread it for the reasons I mention. I know I will try my best to do the right thing, as I think most captains do. The easy way out is of course to refer it to the secretary, even if this may be the wrong thing to do.

I don't have Stewart's book and I am not aware of quoting it. FIDE rules aside, it was written by myself, including some snippets from this forum. In general, players are not going to go out and buy an arbiters book whereas serious arbiters will almost certainly buy Stewart's book, so I don't see a conflict of interest.

This is a misreading of what I wrote; if what you write is at variance with what is in the book, how can there be an accusation of plagiarism?
What I am saying is that what you have written is wrong in parts; you should therefore buy Stewart's book (according to you this is what a
serious arbiter must do) and then contact Stewart, letting him know which part of his book you wish to reproduce, something *you have not yet done*,
but should consider. I should imagine he may also wish to comment on the parts not from his book, if his name is to be associated. If Stewart gives
his assent then put on the web page what he has agreed to; if he can't or won't, then you should try to contact a senior arbiter for help, this is
better done in private correspondence rather than on a forum, I have always found most chess organisers helpful, tact is a good weapon.

Understood, but I have no intention of copying another's work. There may be discrepancies in what I write, but with help they will be corrected. You question the forum method I am using to collect information, but in my point of view, there is no better way to collect the experiences of the many. I will probably run what I have written past a senior arbiter or two, but the information gained through the collaborative means of the forum I consider priceless.

You use a highly critical tone, there is no lack of confidence here

You concede there are errors and that playing strength is a factor, yet there is no lack of confidence?

and I think the guidance is of benefit to its readers. I was thinking of including examples, indeed they would clarify matters considerably. It takes time, and like most Web publications, this is an evolving work. I expect this will happen over the next few months.

It could be done far more quickly if you had Stewart's book and his permission. It would even be worthwhile.

With people like yourself, I can be assured that the minutest inaccuracy will be enormified to the point where it requires immediate attention. With the guidance, I aim to get to a point where the strength of the arbiter is much less of a factor. I have yet to factor in the strength of the players as a consideration. What's this fixation on Stewart's book, do you have some hidden agenda?

Uncertainty is catered for, by allowing the continuation of play.

You wrote:
"Given extremely limited time, the claimant may demonstrate their knowledge of the drawn endgame by explaining to the satisfaction of the arbiter, the drawing technique." Why the "may" rather than "should"? furthermore, even if the player does possess the requisite technique, if he has only seconds
left in an ending of rook and bishop against rook, he is out of luck in most positions. This follows from Stewart's example four.

I say "May", because it depends on whether the arbiter asks for an explanation. Regarding R+B vs R, what you say is interesting. Doesn't it just come down to the fact that there is insufficient time to demonstrate the technique?

This is the case when the claimant of the draw can still win. In 9.6 a win is not possible by either side.

I wrote too quickly in the above, of course it follows automatically from 10.2 itself, my apologies. Nonetheless, I maintain that it takes up space to little purpose. If someone can't understand this from the article itself, what hope is there.

I would say this is not so obvious to some people. As a matter of interest, it seems to be implemented on the Internet chess server "ChessCube" -yet someone has raised a bug on it! See: http://forum1.chesscube.com/forum/posts/list/587.page. Unfortunately, you have to login to see the picture.

Good point, I will change "opponent" to "claimant".

This makes little sense. For instance the player claiming the draw may be asked to explain his *drawing plan*. Indeed, in his example 9 Stewart asks
the claimant to *announce* his drawing method. Of course Stewart states that this is subjective, yet in the example given I should suggest that
failure to award the draw in a game between GMs, say, would bring the game into disrepute, which is given on page 121, but nowhere mentioned, as far
as I can recall, on the West London site.

I've now worded it slightly differently. I'm sorry our site doesn't live up to your expectations, I guess you'd better stick with Stewart's book for a little while longer.

Nevertheless, it reflects what arbiters do in reality. I will refer the reader to earlier posts in this topic.

I hope that they mention the derogation somewhere in the rules of their contest.

They probably do, it is a good point, as organisers should publish it up front.

[E Michael White]

I think Edward Tandi should be applauded for his efforts in trying to make clearer how 10.2 should be applied. After a period of being made available to others for constructive comment I think his guidelines as amended by knowledgeable comment should be adopted as an ECF extension under FIDE rule preface a) b) and c).

I am beginning to think that Simon Spivack is employed by Stewart Reubens publisher judging by the number of times he refers to his book. Much of what Stewart writes on bulletin boards and elsewhere is directed at higher levels of play such as Annand v Kramnick matches and international tournaments.

There is a void in chess literature of supporting detail of how 10.2 should be applied in leagues or w/e events both LP and RP, with and without arbiters.

If anyone doubts this last statement think about a new player who wants to play in his first event, a w/e RP. According to what has been posted here recently, the player has to read the main rules and in addition the blitz rules to figure out by applying elimination logic that a section in the main rules entitled "Quick Finish" actually applies in Rapidplay also. So he has to read about QF and Blitz when he only wants to play in a simple RP. How clear is that?

Simon Spivack is convinced a RP arbiter should pay as much attention to the clock as in QF. Well the arbiters association used to recommend, and maybe still does, that when watching a time pressure game the RP arbiter should position himself so he cannot see the clock, for the reasons already stated in other posts.

Incidentally the most awkward difference arbiterwise between QF and RP is the following sequence, both sides having mating material. - Player A's flag falls just before he checkmates his opponent on the board; nobody speaks during the intervening period. The arbiter and player B observed this event and player B claims the game as A ran out of time before mating. What should the result be ?

I reckon under RP its a win for A and under QF its a win for B. This is because mate ended the game in the RP before B claimed flagfall (according to the rules the flag didn't fall during the game because player B didn't make a valid claim while the game was in progress and the arbiter has to keep quiet). In QF the game ended when the arbiter saw the flagfall before the mate had happened. Of course if the arbiter blinks or sips his coffee the result could be different again. This type of sequence has been discussed on Geurts Chesscafe but not this exact sequence.

10.2 is one of the areas where QF, RP and Blitz rules suffered in clarity when the rules were combined

[Simon Spivack]

I've now worded it slightly differently.

I can see the: "This is not an authoritative work to be referenced during games"

This will serve my purposes. I have actually mentioned the contents of this particular web page to two others; one person stated that you are an inexperienced arbiter and agreed that what was written will not do. The other was rather less flattering when describing what he saw.

I'm sorry our site doesn't live up to your expectations,

I should be grateful if you could provide a citation of where I commented about the *entire* site. I haven't looked at the West London site for a long time, the last time I looked at it, it was rather good.

There is a problem of persistent misrepresentations of what others write. I am not accusing anyone of doing this deliberately. For instance my spies tell me that Michael White is quite a nice chap; unfortunately he completely misreads my posts. I have already corrected one of his posts where he made a number of basic errors, life it too short for chess and the corrections. I suggest, in the nicest possible way, to Michael White, that rather than make a meal out of 10.2; he try to ingest Onions, Fowler and Gowers instead.

I guess you'd better stick with Stewart's book for a little while longer.

There is no hidden agenda here; I have known Stewart since 1971. When it comes to the Laws of Chess there are few better placed to serve as a guide. The reason I quote from his book is that it is the only up to date, authoritative, book I am aware of that is also readily available. If you wish to suggest another, then I should certainly look at it.

I, also, consider you inexperienced when it comes to 10.2. This is not to say that any ruling by you will necessarily be wrong; it is a difficult, subjective, article that even the most experienced of arbiters can mishandle. I should imagine that in a few years time you will be able to tackle this law with greater confidence. A good starting point is a list of examples.


Simon Spivack.

[Edward Tandi]

I, also, consider you inexperienced when it comes to 10.2. This is not to say that any ruling by you will necessarily be wrong; it is a difficult, subjective, article that even the most experienced of arbiters can mishandle. I should imagine that in a few years time you will be able to tackle this law with greater confidence. A good starting point is a list of examples.

There is no debate regarding my experience as an arbiter, it is from my relative inexperience that this topic is borne. Here I collate information from those with more experience, for my own benefit and others. This information I find important to chess players too, not just arbiters.

It is easy to criticise the work of others, harder is to improve on it. You mention others have commented negatively and that's OK, I welcome the criticism, as long as something comes of it. Unfortunately, nothing will come of it, if the criticism is not constructive. Comments like "one person stated that you are an inexperienced arbiter and agreed that what was written will not do. The other was rather less flattering when describing what he saw" do not help anybody. Specifics if you will please.

For those who see value in what I do, there have been a few minor edits, but more interestingly I've added a couple of examples too. More examples are welcome.

http://www.westlondonchess.com/FIDE_10_2

[John Upham]

For those who see value in what I do,
http://www.westlondonchess.com/FIDE_10_2

Edward,

Do not be put off. I (personally at least) very much value this thread and anticipate it will evnetually add clarity to an othewrwise murky area.

Yours and others contributions are invaluable to that process.

I anticpate less scrupulous players (ab)using 10.2 by letting their clock (of whatever persuation) run down to <= 120 seconds and claiming a draw just for the hell of it.

We are taking this issue very seriously in the Surrey Border League and a programme of education is ongoing.

PLEASE correct / rebuke players if they refer to 10.2 using the alias of a so-called "Two Minute Rule".

A clarification in Right Move, Chess Moves, Chess, BCM and elsewhere would be most welcome.

If the Arbiters Association had a web site then that too could be a useful resource.

J.

[Greg Breed]

Player A's flag falls just before he checkmates his opponent on the board; nobody speaks during the intervening period. The arbiter and player B observed this event and player B claims the game as A ran out of time before mating. What should the result be ?

I reckon under RP its a win for A and under QF its a win for B. This is because mate ended the game in the RP before B claimed flagfall (according to the rules the flag didn't fall during the game because player B didn't make a valid claim while the game was in progress and the arbiter has to keep quiet). In QF the game ended when the arbiter saw the flagfall before the mate had happened. Of course if the arbiter blinks or sips his coffee the result could be different again. This type of sequence has been discussed on Geurts Chesscafe but not this exact sequence.

10.2 is one of the areas where QF, RP and Blitz rules suffered in clarity when the rules were combined

I think your example sums things up perfectly.

Article 5.1 (a) Completion of the Game states:
The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent's king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was a legal move.

Also Article 6.8 (a) The Chess Clock states:
During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent's clock. A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the move that was made ends the game. (See Articles 5.1 and 5.2)
The time between making the move on the chessboard and stopping his own clock and starting his opponent's clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player.

Another law I wasn't completely aware of is 6.9 :-
A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect.

I always thought that the players had to claim flag fall. Obviously that's the case in the absence of an arbiter, but I never knew that an arbiter could end the game if he/she sees it happen.

[EDIT] Having read a little further I found the Rapidplay rules which include:-
B7. The flag is considered to have fallen when a player has made a valid claim to that effect. The arbiter shall refrain from signalling a flag fall.

B8. To claim a win on time, the claimant must stop both clocks and notify the arbiter. For the claim to be successful the claimant's flag must remain up and his opponent's flag down after the clocks have been stopped.[END EDIT]

A law I think should be adjusted is Article 10: Quickplay Finish.
Somewhere it should mention what to do in the absence of an independent arbiter (which is almost always in league chess). I believe the rule still has it's place, but it needs modification to prevent abuse (from both parties)!

We don't want people claiming a draw whenever they're down to their last two minutes regardless of position nor do we want people to play on with no intention of trying to win other than on time.

I reckon the rules for QP finish should be the same as for RP (or vice-versa - I'm not sure). After all Rapid-Play is really just an entire game played quickly - including the finish.

[EDIT again] This time I read right to the end and found Section D of the Appendices:-
D. Quickplay finishes where no arbiter is present in the venue.
D1. 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.
He may claim on the basis
a. that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or
b. that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.
In (a) the player must write down the final position and his opponent verify it.
In (b) the player must write down the final position and submit an up-to-date scoresheet. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.
The claim shall be referred to an arbiter whose decision shall be the final one.

In other words - Adjudication.[END EDIT #2]