Normal means in relation to quickplay finishes

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19400
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Normal means in relation to quickplay finishes

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:22 am

Why are the ECF using non-standard rules for its rapid play Girls Championship?

Not only are they requiring score to be kept but absence of "normal means" as in
having a position such that there is a realistic chance of winning the game other than just flag-fall.
isn't present as a means of claiming a draw.

http://englishchess.org.uk/Juniors/girl ... mpionship/

Although national titles are at stake, the lack of reference to membership and grading presumably means that ECF membership isn't required.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4283
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Normal means in relation to quickplay finishes

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sat Oct 19, 2013 1:23 am

Roger, surely you should address your questions to the previous and current Junior Directors. They have obviously copied some earlier rules.

Earlier in this thread I wrote to all readers
Here's a test of your knowledge of the Laws before 1984. It was the European Muscular Dystrophy Championship. K + R v K. After about 40 moves the king was still in the centre. I advised the adult player with the K+R to offer a draw. He was very short of time.

Prior to 1984 it was possible to win on time with a bare king in international events. Had the flag of the player with K+R fallen, I would have had to award a win to the player with the bare king.
This was not the rule in English quickplay finishes. The late Andrew Law in one Evening Standard London Open had K+R v K. His flag fell before he had time to deliver mate. He strode off, obviously upset. I chased after him to make it clear that he had drawn, not lost.

Bill Porter
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: Normal means in relation to quickplay finishes

Post by Bill Porter » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:39 am

Stewart Reuben wrote: The best way is not to say, 'This is wrong,' but to redraft the Law the way you think it should be. There will be a redraft in 2016 to take effect from 2017. It might read
If the arbiter agrees that the opponent cannot win by normal means, or that the opponent has been making no effort to win the game in a positive manner, he shall declare the game drawn.
How about K + B + N v K?

There are plenty of players, even the occasional GM, who can't force checkmate but can make a serious effort to win, sometimes succeeding against an equally ignorant opponent.

It's good to have rules that minimise the discretion required of arbiters, but if you go too far, you are bound to get situations where an arbiter who follows the rules has to make a ruling which everyone thinks unfair.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19400
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Normal means in relation to quickplay finishes

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:06 am

Bill Porter wrote: How about K + B + N v K?
That one should be straightforward. It's a win until the effect of the fifty move rule makes it a draw. So if the defender loses on time it should be a loss unless the number of moves played so far plus the distance to mate exceeds fifty. Even there some arbiters might award the loss.

The more difficult ones are those which are draws in theory but might result in a win in practice. So Rook and Bishop against Rook, Rook and Knight against Rook, Rook against Knight, Rook and Pawn against Rook where the defender has to play with accuracy.

The new Laws also permit clock substitution, where you reset or change the clock to introduce a delay or increment.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4283
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Normal means in relation to quickplay finishes

Post by Stewart Reuben » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:37 pm

K=B+N v K would be a draw in a quickplay finish, if White simply shuffled his king around, making no effort to make progress except on the clock.

Bill Porter
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:20 pm

Re: Normal means in relation to quickplay finishes

Post by Bill Porter » Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:13 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:K=B+N v K would be a draw in a quickplay finish, if White simply shuffled his king around, making no effort to make progress except on the clock.
And if white really tries to win, but doesn't know how to force mate?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19400
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Normal means in relation to quickplay finishes

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:33 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:K=B+N v K would be a draw in a quickplay finish, if White simply shuffled his king around, making no effort to make progress except on the clock.
If the game was played with an increment or repeating time controls, the only way such a game could end would be by threefold repetition of position or by a fifty move claim. In the Laws from 1st July 2014, fivefold repetition and 75 moves have been added, enforced by the arbiter rather than the player.

Why then, should the fact that the game is played under quick-play rules and with a watching arbiter, demand a higher standard of play than otherwise?

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4283
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Normal means in relation to quickplay finishes

Post by Stewart Reuben » Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:37 pm

The increment provides a solution to players just trying to 'clock' their opponents.
With that option not being possible in QPF, there has to be some way of stopping 'clocking'. The QPF Rules achieved that at the cost of over-reliance on the arbiter. But it was a successful system, only being displaced by the better increment system. That has the minor disadvantage of requiring electronic clocks.
I'm not certain it is the players who are so cheap. It may be the administrators who think there is a moral imperative to minimise expenditure.

Post Reply