FIDE Rule 10.2 and "by normal means"

[Edward Tandi]

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.

Hmm, this is a whole other debate. The number of times in blitz I have seen an opponent finish their move before I can press my clock. The answer is to press it anyway, even if the opponent has thumped their side of the clock.

[Greg Breed]

Hmm, this is a whole other debate. The number of times in blitz I have seen an opponent finish their move before I can press my clock. The answer is to press it anyway, even if the opponent has thumped their side of the clock.

True. I should have highlighted the relevant bit:-
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)

[Edward Tandi]

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)

After some reflection, there could be a problem applying it to 10.2. Consider the following sequence of events:

1. Player A is winning, but is running out of time.
2. Player A offers a draw, but it is declined.
3. Player A stops the clock and summons the arbiter.
4. The arbiter decides to add time to the clock and continue.
5. During play, player A manages to checkmate their opponent.
6. The game is declared a win for player A (because of article 5.1 a).
7. Player B cries "unfair"!

Clearly player A would not have been able to win if it wasn't for the extra time. Is the arbiter allowed to overrule article 5.1 and decide upon a draw instead?

[Ian Kingston]

I can't recall whether the following article has been mentioned on this thread or not (I couldn't see it on a quick skim through):

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/organisa ... _nov06.htm

(Guidance on the Quickplay Finish, by David Welch)

[Edward Tandi]

I can't recall whether the following article has been mentioned on this thread or not (I couldn't see it on a quick skim through):

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/organisa ... _nov06.htm

(Guidance on the Quickplay Finish, by David Welch)

Thanks for the pointer. One bit of this confuses me:

Suggestions for the Players
3) If you play for a win, you risk losing unless your opponent could not possibly checkmate you.

So this saying that if one claims a draw under 10.2, one should not continue playing for a win? Or is it saying that when playing a quickplay finish, one should play for a draw?

[Roger de Coverly]

Thanks for the pointer. One bit of this confuses me:
ECF Guidance wrote:
Suggestions for the Players
3) If you play for a win, you risk losing unless your opponent could not possibly checkmate you.

So this saying that if one claims a draw under 10.2, one should not continue playing for a win? Or is it saying that when playing a quickplay finish, one should play for a draw?

Perhaps it's just saying that if you have a potentially winning position but are short of time, then you risk losing unless you offer a draw (or claim one under 10.2)

There's not much in the guidance about whether an arbiter would or should award a draw when the 10.2 claimant has the clearly better position.

[Simon Spivack]

Thanks for the pointer. One bit of this confuses me:
ECF Guidance wrote:
Suggestions for the Players
3) If you play for a win, you risk losing unless your opponent could not possibly checkmate you.

So this saying that if one claims a draw under 10.2, one should not continue playing for a win? Or is it saying that when playing a quickplay finish, one should play for a draw?

Perhaps it's just saying that if you have a potentially winning position but are short of time, then you risk losing unless you offer a draw (or claim one under 10.2)

The usual procedure for an arbiter is to postpone a decision and observe the play. If the player short of time delays making his 10.2 claim then the arbiter has less time to ascertain whether the opponent is trying to win by normal means. At the extrema, a claim is more likely to succeed if the claimant has two minutes rather than one second.

Note that this only applies if an arbiter, or an equivalent, is present.

[Stewart Reuben]

If your opponent claims a draw under 10.2 and you refuse the draw, then you are risking losing unless the opponent does not have mating material.
The opponent has queen and 3 pawns against your queen and two. He claims a draw. You refuse. The arbiter rules play on. You now leave your queen en prise. The opponent takes it. You could stop the clocks and say that you now wish to accept the game as a draw. The arbiter might allow that.
The opponent should have said before taking the queen, I withdraw my draw claim.
I have never seen this scenario actually happen.

Anyway, who cares? Any sensible arbiter uses delay or cumulative mode to obviate the need for 10.2. It was a great rule as it stopped all need for adjudications or adjournments. Digital clocks were a great advance.

Mind you, Armageddon games can end up as a mess as you can't have an add-on there.

Stewart

[Alex McFarlane]

Player A claims a draw under 10.2. This, by the Laws is also an offer of a draw. Should the opponent not accept then there is nothing wrong imho with that player then losing. Player B if he thinks his position is worsening should offer the draw. If player A then declines he risks losing on time as he has negated the protection given by 10.2.

Having not accepted the offer of a draw I would be disinclined to award a draw at a later time if B's position had worsened and he then claimed. Player A could, of course, accept Bs offer and if not would risk losing. I certainly would not automatically give B a draw in the situation outlined by Stewart.

Alex McFarlane
CAA Chief Arbiter

[Stewart Reuben]

Dear Edward and Tim,
How can anybody possibly judge unless the final position was given? It is a judgement call and not supposed to be easy.
Why not put in a digital clock with 5 second delay mode when the situation arose? If the player cannot defend under those circumstances, he does not deserve to win. The game would not last even an extra 5 minutes. The arbiter could count off repetition or 50 moves silently.
Here is one where I claimed a draw.
White King h1. White bishop f5.
Black king b3, bishop g3, pawns c3 and h7.
I told the arbiter when the pawn came to c2, I would sacrifice my bishop for that pawn and then black would have bishop plus rook's pawn of the wrong colour. I also recommended the arbiter not give me the draw simply because of my status. I got the draw.
Stewart

[Edward Tandi]

Why not put in a digital clock with 5 second delay mode when the situation arose?

I think most of us agree that this is the best approach, but if it is employed, 10.2 no longer applies. The main purpose of this thread is to clarify the interpretation/application of 10.2, especially since the use of time increments for the resolution of this problem is not yet official FIDE Law.

I do like what Alex says about this scenario, it all hangs together, so I will try to incorporate this into my gudance text later this evening.

Here is one where I claimed a draw...

Thanks for this, I will use this on my examples page, unless of course, you object.

[Edward Tandi]

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.

Simon, where did you find this? Do you have a date for this game? I presume the claim was rejected.

[Michele Clack]

Last night in a league match where I was acting captain one of my players was low on time but put his opponent in perpetual check. He offered a draw. I was still playing and heard the offer but did not have time to look at the position. The player ( he was the captain of the opposing side) refused the draw and carried on playing. My player assumed he would lose on time if he just kept checking and played a different move and ended up losing anyway.

I have never come across a game where a player in perpetual check insisted on playing on to try and win on time and would like some advice.

(1) Is there any section of the rules which declares this an absolute draw, I couldn't find one?
(2) If the answer to (1) is no then presumably my player should have carried on with the checks until he had 2 minutes left on his clock and claimed a draw under Rule 10.2 as clearly the other player cannot win by normal means if he cannot get out of check.
(3) If a rule 10.2 claim is necessary would I have been entitled as the captain to explain the rule to my player if I had been aware of the situation? Would this be construed as advice on play since clearly had he known the rule he would have carried on with the checks.

[Sean Hewitt]

(1) Is there any section of the rules which declares this an absolute draw, I couldn't find one?

No. And its for exactly the reason that happened in your match, the player giving check may choose at some point not to. If he does continue giving check, he will eventually be able to claim a draw under the 50 move rule (unless a three fold repetition occurs first).

(2) If the answer to (1) is no then presumably my player should have carried on with the checks until he had 2 minutes left on his clock and claimed a draw under Rule 10.2 as clearly the other player cannot win by normal means if he cannot get out of check.

Yes. And there is no doubt that such a claim would succeed.

(3) If a rule 10.2 claim is necessary would I have been entitled as the captain to explain the rule to my player if I had been aware of the situation? Would this be construed as advice on play since clearly had he known the rule he would have carried on with the checks.

I dont think you are entitled to explain this law to your player proactively. Its simply a law of chess like any other, and I guess we expect players to know the laws and rules to which they are playing! No one would expect a captain to tell their player that they can castle, or that they might consider promoting a pawn to a knight! If the players asks if he can claim a draw, then I think it would be reasonable to tell him that he can do so when it is his move and he has less than two minutes on his clock, without any comment as to whether the claim might succeed or not.

[Roger de Coverly]

(

1) Is there any section of the rules which declares this an absolute draw, I couldn't find one?

The game will eventually come to a finite end by three fold repetition or fifty moves without a pawn move or capture. Apart from that "draw by perpetual check" is a shorthand not a rule.

(

2) If the answer to (1) is no then presumably my player should have carried on with the checks until he had 2 minutes left on his clock and claimed a draw under Rule 10.2 as clearly the other player cannot win by normal means if he cannot get out of check.

Absolutely - that's why 10.2 exists.

(3) If a rule 10.2 claim is necessary would I have been entitled as the captain to explain the rule to my player if I had been aware of the situation? Would this be construed as advice on play since clearly had he known the rule he would have carried on with the checks.

I think that depends on what your league rules say or imply about the role of a match captain. A hard-line answer is no - you wouldn't expect the match captain to explain during play how to draw a King and Pawn ending. In competition chess, you have to be able to manage your time. In particular if you have a position where you are trying to draw and your opponent is trying to win, you should use the time before you get to 2 minutes left in creating a totally drawn position so that even if you need to make a 10.2, the ruling is obvious.

I don't know how an independent arbiter would react ( if this arose in a tournament). It might depend on the perceived experience of the questioner. It's unlikely that an arbiter would intervene except on a request from one of the players.