Another 10.2......

[Martin Benjamin]

I reached this position as White yesterday, with Black to move.

8/8/8/8/8/7k/6p1/6K1

The game had just gone ...g2+, Kg1 and I said "draw", my opponent hesitated, may or may not have touched his king, and then noticed my flag had fallen, and claimed a win. I claimed a draw, and the arbiter ruled in my favour. Easy for me to say as White, but I would just have agreed a draw as Black, and it seemed a common sense decision to me. Obviously, after the next move it is either stalemate or K v K. However, was the decision strictly correct in terms of the rapidplay laws?

[Roger de Coverly]

However, was the decision strictly correct in terms of the rapidplay laws?

I would have thought not a valid 10.2 claim unless you had claimed earlier with the flag still standing. Presumably it had been a theory draw? The rule about the arbiter being able to declare a draw even if the flag is down now only applies if a claim has already been made.

[Alex Holowczak]

I reached this position as White yesterday, with Black to move.

8/8/8/8/8/7k/6p1/6K1

The game had just gone ...g2+, Kg1 and I said "draw", my opponent hesitated, may or may not have touched his king, and then noticed my flag had fallen, and claimed a win. I claimed a draw, and the arbiter ruled in my favour. Easy for me to say as White, but I would just have agreed a draw as Black, and it seemed a common sense decision to me. Obviously, after the next move it is either stalemate or K v K. However, was the decision strictly correct in terms of the rapidplay laws?

Black touching the K is irrelevant here. He can win by a series of legal moves after touching the K. E.g. ...Kg4, Kh2 Kf3, Kh3 g1Q, and so on.

The correct decision in Law is that black won on time, because your flag fell, and you hadn't claimed a 10.2 before black noticed that fact. If the details are exactly as you've written, then the arbiter made the wrong decision:

13.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.

The arbiter didn't do that.

However, borrowing a cricketing concept, I might have taken black to one side and asked him to confirm that he wanted to claim the game on time.

[David Sedgwick]

13.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.

The arbiter didn't do that.

12.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

The arbiter seems to have given more weight than you to that Law.

These decisions are far from easy, which is why:

a) I hate them;
b) I favour the use of small increments wherever possible;
c) I don't think Appeal Committees should be outlawed;
d) I tend to duck out of saying what I would actually have done.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Players should know enough to make a claim before their flag falls (if it had been a team match and White had failed to claim a draw before their flag falls, that would have led to some questions from the captain!). But positions like this are a bit silly. Black should really accept the draw. Oh, and touching the Black king is irrelevant, as it is the only Black piece that can move.

The questions should be what happens if Black had moved his king to h4 or g4 and:

(i) White had touched his King, his flag falls and Black claims before White can do anything more.
(ii) White had touched the Black pawn, his flag falls, and Black claims before White can do anything more.

In reality, in situation (ii) White would complete his move (the pawn capture) and press his claims for a draw. Unless an arbiter was watching, not much could be done, and even if an arbiter was watching, a draw might be awarded anyway.

[Richard Bates]

13.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.

The arbiter didn't do that.

However, borrowing a cricketing concept, I might have taken black to one side and asked him to confirm that he wanted to claim the game on time.

The player's decision is final!?

[Alex McFarlane]

Unless I am directly involved in a dispute I usually preface my answer with words such as "in the situation as described". It is surprising how often apparently silly rulings become sensible when either all the facts are known or the other side of the arguement is heard.

I agree with Alex H and also David S. Although I would suggest that it can be impossible for the arbiter to avoid a player bringing the game into disrepute but he can punish him for it. In the above case as described, it could be pointed out to Black that his actions would break 12.1 and as such the result of the game would be 0-0 if the arbiter was asked to decide or .5-.5 if they agreed between themselves.

The 0-0 would be by awarding Black the technical win 0-1 but deducting the point for bringing the game into disrepute.
I've never had one so clear cut before but I have had one or two where I would have had to give 0-1 but after a quiet word as suggested by Alex H and a bit of thought by the player a result slip indicating a draw has been signed by both players.

[Sean Hewitt]

If white had claimed a draw before his flag had fallen, then it would have been given. However, saying 'draw' is not claiming a draw and, has already been pointed out, whote lost the right to claim a draw when his flag fell.

Therefore, we have a flag down and a claim of a win on time. The win must be given unless there is no series of legal moves that can lead to checkmate. As there is such a series of moves, the win must be given.

I do think that the standard of arbiting in this country needs to be addressed though one of the problems appears to the use of unqualified persons of arbiters (don't know if that's the case here of course).

[Paolo Casaschi]

I agree with Alex H and also David S. Although I would suggest that it can be impossible for the arbiter to avoid a player bringing the game into disrepute but he can punish him for it. In the above case as described, it could be pointed out to Black that his actions would break 12.1 and as such the result of the game would be 0-0 if the arbiter was asked to decide or .5-.5 if they agreed between themselves.

I think the politically correctness is getting too far here. The rules about losing on time and about claiming a draw are very clear; White did not take advantage of those options and lost on time; I don't see anything wrong with Black claiming a win here (nothing wrong either in being nice and agree on a draw as well, but that should be at the discretion of Black, not of the arbiter).

Few years ago, in a quick play finish I had a forced mate in two: check, opponent's King only has two options, in both cases check again and mate next, very easy to see. My flag fell two moves short of forced checkmate, my opponent claimed a win on time; I was not happy of the outcome, but I accepted the loss and I don't think my opponent brought anything into disrepute.
Would you have awarded a win to me there instead, considering the forced checkmate?
Or would you have suggested the nonsense of a draw, as suggested by some bystander? A draw here really does not make any sense to me.

In general, the less discretionary decision power is left to the arbiter the better; the articles on the win on time seem to me written to limit as much as possible that discretion, particularly about how "easily" a position is won or draw. Using the "bringing the game into disrepute" clause as suggested above seems a very unwelcome way to bring back this discretionary decision power back to the arbiter.

[Martin Benjamin]

Thanks for the replies. Different shades of opinion, but the consensus seems to be that if the rule is followed rigidly, the win should be awarded to Black in these circumstances. I feel sorry for the arbiter, because he had so many games to watch to a conclusion. I would have accepted a ruling of a loss without making any fuss, and I would not like to go down the path of "bringing the game into disrepute". Although there was no rancour involved, part of me wishes that I had not bothered asking for a ruling and just accepted a loss on time when my opponent insisted on claiming the win, because I agree with David Sedgwick's comments about the difficulty of making these decisions, and I don't like to make life awkward for people. However, I think I was influenced by the fact that in similar and also far less clear cut circumstances on the "winning" side, I have always offered a draw when I think it would be absurd to insist on a win.

In relation to Chris Kreuzer's point, I did not think it right to make a claim while my opponent could still make a winning attempt with his pawn on g3 (e.g by shuffling his king and hoping I would go to the wrong square) , but g2+ could not possibly be construed as a winning attempt. I guess I just assumed he was tacitly accepting it was a draw.

Without getting judgemental, who reading this would have claimed a win as Black, and who would have offered/accepted a draw? It would be interesting to get a feel for what people do in these circumstances.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Without getting judgemental, who reading this would have claimed a win as Black, and who would have offered/accepted a draw? It would be interesting to get a feel for what people do in these circumstances.

To be honest, it depends on the circumstances.
It might be different, for instance, for a game against a good friend in a club tournament or for the decisive game in a team tournament with relegation at stake.
If this was a blitz game I'd probably claim the win without thinking twice; in a rapid game (or a rapid quick play finish) it really depends on the circumstances.

[Roger de Coverly]

In relation to Chris Kreuzer's point, I did not think it right to make a claim while my opponent could still make a winning attempt with his pawn on g3 (e.g by shuffling his king and hoping I would go to the wrong square)

Without getting judgemental, who reading this would have claimed a win as Black, and who would have offered/accepted a draw? It would be interesting to get a feel for what people do in these circumstances.

As defender, I would certainly have claimed in the previously drawn position if really short of time. I would not have automatically expected an immediate award of a draw, but it enables the arbiter to declare a draw on fall of flag.

It's marginally unsporting and a lack of respect for the chess skill of your opponent to continue to play in a drawn King and pawn ending even if you suspect his rule knowledge to be inferior to his K & P technique. There again playing it out is a simple way to agree a draw provided you both have enough time.

On balance then, if both players were short of time, I might have continued to play if I had the extra material, in the expectation that the game would either end of its own accord in stalemate or my opponent would claim, which I wouldn't dispute. But if his time did run out, that was his risk. I don't tend to remind people who fail to press their clocks either, but I wouldn't deliberately not move.

[David Sedgwick]

In relation to Chris Kreuzer's point, I did not think it right to make a claim while my opponent could still make a winning attempt with his pawn on g3 (e.g by shuffling his king and hoping I would go to the wrong square)

Without getting judgemental, who reading this would have claimed a win as Black, and who would have offered/accepted a draw? It would be interesting to get a feel for what people do in these circumstances.

As defender, I would certainly have claimed in the previously drawn position if really short of time. I would not have automatically expected an immediate award of a draw, but it enables the arbiter to declare a draw on fall of flag.

It's marginally unsporting and a lack of respect for the chess skill of your opponent to continue to play in a drawn King and pawn ending even if you suspect his rule knowledge to be inferior to his K & P technique. There again playing it out is a simple way to agree a draw provided you both have enough time.

On balance then, if both players were short of time, I might have continued to play if I had the extra material, in the expectation that the game would either end of its own accord in stalemate or my opponent would claim, which I wouldn't dispute. But if his time did run out, that was his risk. I don't tend to remind people who fail to press their clocks either, but I wouldn't deliberately not move.

Here I will say that I agree completely with Roger for once.

Claim the draw at or shortly after the point where you've reached the drawn K v K+P and then demonstrate that you know the correct technique by moving your King backwards directly in front of the pawn (even before that's necessary). If the opponent's winning attempts consist of shuffling his King around in the hope that you'll lose the plot and move diagonally backwards, then I would expect the arbiter to award the draw before too long.

[Alex Holowczak]

13.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.

The arbiter didn't do that.

12.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

The arbiter seems to have given more weight than you to that Law.

I don't think this is a case of bringing the game into disrepute. The situation is that a flag is down and no 10.2 has been claimed. It can't be disreputable, surely, if the players have acted within the Laws? I certainly couldn't penalise black under 13.4, because he has done nothing lawfully wrong.

[David Sedgwick]

It can't be disreputable, surely, if the players have acted within the Laws? I certainly couldn't penalise black under 13.4, because he has done nothing lawfully wrong.

If that's what you think, ask yourself why Article 12.1 is in the Laws at all.