Claiming a draw with less than 2 minutes on clock.

[Michael Farthing]

Speaking for my own club, where we have a legacy of analogue clocks but sufficient digitals to cover 80% of our requirements, the analogues are used almost exclusively: no one has learned the sequence of presses to achieve the correct programming. When it comes to a new game we all put it off until next time because we want to get started on the chess. Sad eh? Yip! But the truth.

[Ian Thompson]

Absolutely right, a 3 second increment gets rid of this nonsense.

3 seconds is not long enough. It would encourage the player hoping to win to play on because the slightest hesitation from his opponent would mean a loss on time. The unscrupulous player might even be tempted to play a bad move to induce this, because it would be unexpected.

It would also mean a loss on time if a player knocked pieces over while making their move because they wouldn't have time to replace them, except that I suspect many players would illegally stop the clock and try to replace the pieces in their opponent's time.

I'm very much in favour of increments, but not less than 10 seconds per move. Even with a 100 moves game that's only just over half an hour of increments so it really shouldn't be a problem if the initial time allocation is set correctly.

[Michael Farthing]

I agree Ian. 3 seconds turns the whole thing into a Brian Rix farce.
[No offence meant to Nick]

[Brian Towers]

Absolutely right, a 3 second increment gets rid of this nonsense.

3 seconds is not long enough.

FIDE agree with you. If playing with digital clocks and an arbiter present in a quickplay finish then Appendix G.4 applies -

If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that a time delay or cumulative time of an extra five seconds be introduced for both players, if possible. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue.

Incidentally, all this talk of "10.2" is obsolete. 10.2 is dead! Long live G.5 and G.6 -

G.5
If Article G.4 does not apply and the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the chessclock (see Article 6.12 b). He may claim on the basis that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means
a. 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 by normal means, he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible, in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after the flag of either player has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the opponent of the player whose flag has fallen cannot win by normal means, or that he was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.
c. If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes.

G.6
The following shall apply when the competition is not supervised by an arbiter:
a. 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 (1) the player must write down the final position and his opponent must verify it.
In (2) 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.
b. The claim shall be referred to the designated arbiter.

[NickFaulks]

I agree Ian. 3 seconds turns the whole thing into a Brian Rix farce.
[No offence meant to Nick]

My point when suggesting 3 seconds was not that it would allow players to form a deep strategy or calculate long variations. If you need that, with no time left, then you have mishandled your clock and deserve to go wrong. My point was to cut out nonsenses like KRvKR and even ( as has been seen ) KBvKN.

However, I may have been influenced by the fact that 3 seconds feels like a huge amount of time when finishing off a game online - when checkmating with KQvK, even one second per move is quite leisurely. When physically moving pieces and pressing a clock, perhaps five seconds is better. And yet, after a lifetime of playing five minute games, and watching strong players do so very well, in which endings rarely allowed even three seconds per move, I'm not really convinced.

I think the problem here is that many people want the quickplay finish to be played to the same standard as the rest of the game, and that just isn't going to happen.

[Roger de Coverly]

A quickplay finish in a League game tonight almost reached the ending of KBB v KN as defended successfully by Keith at Hastings. It struck me that it's hazardous for the player with the Bishops to continue if short of time himself as if his flag falls, he will lose to the "helpmate" rule.

In the event it was KBBP v KBN, but the defender blundered his Knight. So then you force KBB v K which is at least a draw even if the flag goes. It was a Rook pawn, so the "wrong Rook pawn" ending was also in the background.

[Martin Benjamin]

Having played in the London League for nearly forty years (including some stints as captain) and in the Central London League since its inception a few years ago (again including some stints as captain), experience has demonstrated to me that increments can be used with no problems in terms of a venue closing before a game finishes (provided the time controls have been calculated properly to allow for a very long game e.g. 150 moves). If necessary, one could make a rule allowing for adjudication at closing time, having set time controls ensuring a certain number of moves (e.g. 120) will have been made, but it's going to happen very, very rarely, if ever. Increments are a relief for captains. In the London League, I have seen, experienced or heard tell of in every season several disputes or disagreements (some courteous, some not) about the rules or ethics pertaining to quickplay finishes and it puts me off captaining and playing to some extent. I have not had a single problem in the Central London League apart from a faulty clock, and I have yet to hear of a game being a problem because of overrunning. The nearest our club has experienced to overrunning and causing just a smidgeon of irritation to myself and others waiting to clear up and go to the pub, was someone trying in vain to win with White an almost unwinnable position something like the one below against for me for about twenty minutes, and even then, we still finished inside three and a quarter hours, having made over 120 moves or something of that order.

8/8/8/1k6/p6R/P7/1P4r1/1K6

Getting older, I don't care too much about the results, but I am 100% in support of increments simply because they reduce the possibility of tiresome and unpleasant disputes to nearly zero; also, I think some unpleasantness is fuelled by the nature of the guillotine finish itself which rachets the tension to cause some otherwise very decent people I know to lose their heads and behave out of character. To avoid disputes, I would be willing to purchase my own digital clock and use it in the London League if the rules permitted rather than use the analogue ones.