Rule 10.2 (a) AGAIN then

[Roger de Coverly]

So how can an arbiter declare the game a draw just because the defending player has no time left.

The intention of the quick play wording in the Laws of Chess is that a draw may be awarded when the only realistic way for the opponent to win is on time. To my mind that's what happened.

If they said that a player with more time always won, then support for quick-play finishes would erode and we'd want the return of adjournments or adjudications. Proposed changes to the Laws of Chess from 1st July 2013 will allow the substitution of a clock with increments as an option for 10.2 claims. That would have been a preferred solution in the Southend game. What the result would have been is anyone's guess, but it would have been a result in a game played at 5 or 10 seconds a move determined on the board.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... maybe I should've just let my flag fall!

This, to me, is precisely the point. Any rule or ruling that encourages people not to play/which rewards poor clock handling/which encourages people with a sense of entitlement to 'exercise their demands' is at best inadequate and should replaced with something better.

I thought the point of rapid finishes was to replace adjudications.

[Roger de Coverly]

Perhaps we should generalise to a couple of points.

Point 1 is that a player having got the arbiter's attention by making a 10.2 claim proceeds to reach a position known to be a draw by theory. His flag then falls. It is my contention that both the intention and the wording of the Laws of Chess is that a draw should usually be awarded. That's interpreting "unable to win by normal means" as meaning that you can only expect to win by your opponent's time expiring. That obviously applies to positions that are theoretical draws provided the defence is straightforward and known or found by the defender.

Point 2 is as to what constitutes a draw by theory. Tablebases give the exact answer but some defences are by no means straightforward. You might hope that the obvious ones in K+R+P v K+R and K+P v K would be awarded without dispute. Similarly for most opposite bishop endings.

(edit) It occurs to me that "might blunder because tired" applies to both players. So if you don't award a draw because there's the occasional losing move in what is otherwise a tablebase sea of draws, then equally you don't award a win because a fleeting winning chance might arise. The player trying to win might not spot it.

I'd agree that playing with increment avoids these problems, but I would think the two rounds day Southend schedule with six hour games makes that difficult. The notion as used in the Candidates of starting the increment at move 61 is sensible, but FIDE don't help its acceptance by not allowing it for tournaments with Norms.

If a venue is inflexible with closing times, using an increment can be problematic because of the risk of an excessively long game.

(/edit)

[Andrew Bak]

Perhaps we should generalise to a couple of points.

Point 1 is that a player having got the arbiter's attention by making a 10.2 claim proceeds to reach a position known to be a draw by theory. His flag then falls. It is my contention that both the intention and the wording of the Laws of Chess is that a draw should usually be awarded. That's interpreting "unable to win by normal means" as meaning that you can only expect to win by your opponent's time expiring. That obviously applies to positions that are theoretical draws provided the defence is straightforward and known or found by the defender.

Point 2 is as to what constitutes a draw by theory. Tablebases give the exact answer but some defences are by no means straightforward. You might hope that the obvious ones in K+R+P v K+R and K+P v K would be awarded without dispute. Similarly for most opposite bishop endings.

I disagree with your assertions in Point 1.

If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn.

I don't interpret these words to mean that a theoretically drawn position should usually be awarded as a draw.

My interpretation of "by normal means" would be as follows - being able to make moves or achieve plans that achieve some kind of progress towards a victory or to make your opponent's defensive task more difficult.

According to this definition, endings such as KQ vs KQ could be declared drawn as all you can do is continously check the king without making progress. However if the defending queen is badly placed in the corner and the king is trapped on the back rank so certain checkmates might be possible, then no draw should be awarded until the defender can establish he has got out of any reasonable mating threats.

Indeed most endings should not be declared drawn under 10.2 - if you lose on time you should lose the game!

[Roger de Coverly]

My interpretation of "by normal means" would be as follows - being able to make moves or achieve plans that achieve some kind of progress towards a victory or to make your opponent's defensive task more difficult.

FIDE have I think now attempted to clarify that "unable to win by normal means" implies that the only plausible way of winning is on time. So that if the position was reached without time pressure, the likely result would be that a draw would be agreed immediately or when repetition or the fifty move rule forced it.

Indeed most endings should not be declared drawn under 10.2 - if you lose on time you should lose the game!

If that were a general principle applied by arbiters, support for quick play finishes or non increment rapid plays in general would be eroded. It would be wrong in my opinion that a player could win a drawn position by having more time to start with and blitzing moves. As well as the "unable to win by normal means", there's also the "not trying to win other than on time" rule. It seems to me that you are not making progress if you go from one drawn position to another one.

Arbiters seem to have taken cover, views please, if you dare! Players want to know what their options are when defending positions short of time.

[Dan O'Dowd]

Roger, to clarify and repeat what I have said before, an arbiter does not know what a theoretical draw is unless it is some sort of K+B v K+B(!) nonsense where no legal mating position arises. I'm not an arbiter (not official yet), but I've certainly far from taken cover It seems an odd position to take, but the concept is simply that by not overloading the arbiter with a burden of knowledge, the result stays more in the realm of sport as opposed to adjournment science. I guess also that's part of the point - if we had adjournments, both players would be able to book up such positions. We don't, so it isn't fair to borrow the concept from round the back. As for views, it helps to post specific examples or classes therein

The position opposite where you claim that within the spirit of the laws, tablebase draws should come under the protection of 10.2 for the defending claimant who has reached such a position, after a considerable show of play, whose flag falls, is a dangerous one.

For example, I can readily imagine theory-weak titled (or close) players quite validly taking advantage of such a system of adjudication to the detriment of the nominally weaker player who has thus far outplayed his more illustrious contemporary in situations where normally the weaker player might be classed as say a 65-35 favourite to win the game, whether on time or over the board. The arbiter is already expected to show appropriate judgement in the majority of such scenarios. I think perhaps your sentiment more echoes the USCF law about insufficient losing chances. If there is any sophistication of thought required at all to hold what is nominally a book draw, a claim should tend to be rejected until further play has been witnessed.

With respect, if players are so averse to nightmare endgames in a guillotine control, they are best advised to a) study endings, or b) study time management or other weaknesses in their game that cause the problem in the first place.

By normal means, is generally taken to include the normal sporting flow of the game. So if the position is a middlegame, or an ending with complicated tactical resources, it is far more common to let play continue, and in that way give maximum chance for the game to pan out as intended. Arbiters don't like intervention any more than the next man, so the idea of coddling a clock-hugger with a beefy rating, and giving him a nice warm half point for his tea, is only used in clear cases. It simply avoids most controversy that way. You will always get some bod who's tried to pull himself together after having R+(n+2)P v R+(n)P, blowing it, and pushing for twelvety-dozen moves in a symmetrical level ending, before deciding he doesn't care anymore, going on tilt and trying to win K+R v K+R by arguing that he has a moral right to win the game.

[Andrew Bak]

FIDE have I think now attempted to clarify that "unable to win by normal means" implies that the only plausible way of winning is on time. So that if the position was reached without time pressure, the likely result would be that a draw would be agreed immediately or when repetition or the fifty move rule forced it.

I think this is probably sensible as long as you don't define drawn but difficult endgames such as RB vs R as "the only plausible way of winning is on time".

Indeed most endings should not be declared drawn under 10.2 - if you lose on time you should lose the game!

If that were a general principle applied by arbiters, support for quick play finishes or non increment rapid plays in general would be eroded. It would be wrong in my opinion that a player could win a drawn position by having more time to start with and blitzing moves. As well as the "unable to win by normal means", there's also the "not trying to win other than on time" rule. It seems to me that you are not making progress if you go from one drawn position to another one.

Each player has the same amount of time to complete all their moves, it is up to them how to utilise it. Poor clock management should not be allowed to be a "get out of jail free" card to automatically gain a draw.

In John Nunn's endgame notation - "!?" means a good move which makes your opponent's task more difficult while not changing the evaluation of the position. I think there is scope for "making progress" even if the position remains theoretically drawn.

[IM Jack Rudd]

An arbiter writes: I would have rejected the draw claim, because it's possible for black to make plausible moves from that position and end up losing.

[Roger de Coverly]

So if the position is a middlegame, or an ending with complicated tactical resources, it is far more common to let play continue, and in that way give maximum chance for the game to pan out as intended.

In the Southend example, that's exactly what happened. The arbiter allowed play to continue after the initial 10.2 claim and it simplified to what players at least would see as a theoretically drawn position. There's a limit to how many moves can be played in two minutes and so the Black flag eventually fell. The arbiter then has to decide the result of the game and correctly in my view awarded a draw.

If arbiters are going to award wins in drawn positions, that has an impact on time handling for the rest of the game in that you have to allow enough time to make the 10.2 claim in a position where the arbiter can see that it's a draw. It's something I try to do anyway, since in a league context, claiming "unable" in a complex near level position is pointless. Arbiter decisions are arbitrary but there's a school of thought amongst British arbiters placing an emphasis on trying to win as against being able to win. So you get bizarre judgements like awarding draws in R+K v K.

The problem will be reduced in scale if both FIDE's proposed clock substitution rule comes in and if arbiters apply it. It would bother me if running with a modest increment and without scoring, how you would enforce the 50 move part of a drawn ending. FIDE, I think, are clear thinking enough to recognise that a 10.2 decision is intended to replicate a plausible result if the game continued with increment.

[Roger de Coverly]

An arbiter writes: I would have rejected the draw claim, because it's possible for black to make plausible moves from that position and end up losing.

Which posituion though. There was an initial position with R B N against R B P P which without much controversy was required to continue. The game then simplifies to R N against R P which arguably has Black making progress to a draw on the grounds that if he can replicate the tablebase in practical play, he can defend for ever. As that was the position where his flag fell, it is there that the arbiter has to make a decision as to the result of the game.

It's very dangerous for players to have arbiters assert that even if you find a get out of jail and reach a safe haven that is a theory draw with very limited losing chances, that you lose if you run out of time.

[IM Jack Rudd]

An arbiter writes: I would have rejected the draw claim, because it's possible for black to make plausible moves from that position and end up losing.

Which posituion though. There was an initial position with R B N against R B P P which without much controversy was required to continue. The game then simplifies to R N against R P which arguably has Black making progress to a draw on the grounds that if he can replicate the tablebase in practical play, he can defend for ever. As that was the position where his flag fell, it is there that the arbiter has to make a decision as to the result of the game.

The initial draw claim is a pretty clear "play on". The position at flag-fall is a "reject claim" because, although it is a technical draw, there's a plausible chance that black will go wrong (as the Polgar v Kasparov and Rendle v Haslinger cases mentioned earlier show). If the R+N v R ending had been going on for 20 moves or so without any noticeable progress being made, then I'd probably award the draw.

[Peter Shaw]

It is apparent from this thread that no two people have exactly the same view on 10.2. So the sooner increments are used for all games, the better.

I'm not an arbiter but my view on this claim would be: If the game continued with the claimant having 5 seconds per move and the opponent playing perfect chess, is there a realistic chance the claimant would lose?

I guess R+NvR would be won about 10% of the time at GM level, so I would award the opponent a win.

[Roger de Coverly]

Each player has the same amount of time to complete all their moves, it is up to them how to utilise it. Poor clock management should not be allowed to be a "get out of jail free" card to automatically gain a draw.

I agree on the clock management issue, but it affects how you use your time, if for example an arbiter is going to award a drawn position as a win to your opponent. It's not a lot of use using all your time to get a clever draw if it's then disallowed.

If I'm playing an ending where I doubt my opponent will agree a draw because he has more time, then I try to plan the 10.2 claim. So at five minutes out when you stop scoring, you try to reach a position in the next three minutes of your time where a 10.2 claim should succeed without much difficulty. Equally if you have more time and are trying to win a level position, denying the opponent the option to make a plausible 10.2 claim is an objective. Arbiters who will award draws if you so much as repeat a position or retreat a piece are the problem in that circumstance.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The initial draw claim is a pretty clear "play on". The position at flag-fall is a "reject claim" because, although it is a technical draw, there's a plausible chance that black will go wrong (as the Polgar v Kasparov and Rendle v Haslinger cases mentioned earlier show). If the R+N v R ending had been going on for 20 moves or so without any noticeable progress being made, then I'd probably award the draw.

Don't you get possible situations, then, where the player with the extra material (here two pawns) but still losing will be trying to give those pawns up to reach the theoretically drawn ending where they have the chance to demonstrate that their opponent is not making progress, but their opponent will want to avoid taking the pawns, and will instead prolong the game as long as possible to achieve a "win on time". I suppose in most positions, the player with the extra material can give that material up easily (often by force), but not always. I agree that the right point to make the 10.2 claim is the point that the R+N v R arises on the board, so why was the claim made earlier?

And what is "noticeable progress" in R+N v R?

[Roger de Coverly]

The initial draw claim is a pretty clear "play on". The position at flag-fall is a "reject claim" because, although it is a technical draw, there's a plausible chance that black will go wrong (as the Polgar v Kasparov and Rendle v Haslinger cases mentioned earlier show). If the R+N v R ending had been going on for 20 moves or so without any noticeable progress being made, then I'd probably award the draw.

I don't think it's known how long the RN v RP position had been on the board, so there may already have been some play. Arguably it became a draw once the Bishops were exchanged making the underpining ending into R+N v R. Black may have been steering for this when the original 10.2 claim was made.

I don't see that awarding a loss in a drawn position known to be difficult to lose is correct. If you argue the "could blunder by exhaustion" condition to justify a win, you also have the "didn't spot the winning move by exhaustion" condition to justify a draw.

For what it's worth, given the controversy, it would have been better for Black to have managed his clock so as to have two minutes left at RN v RP. Then there might have been twenty moves of going nowhere and the draw could safely have been awarded.