I don't really get this. If you are the person in most danger of losing on time, how can it ever be to your advantage for your opponent to be given more time? The number of moves is restricted by your own clock, not your opponents.IM Jack Rudd wrote:I believe it's to allow the player to demonstrate that s/he is trying to win. If you are claiming on the grounds your opponent has no practical winning chances, this can only be to your favour: you get more moves to demonstrate the position is dead. If you are claiming he's making no effort to win, it's a trickier call.Richard Bates wrote:
And so in what circumstances could one expect such discretion to be employed? Is the purpose of the extra two minutes to compensate for the disturbance caused by the claim or to allow the player (if necessary) the time to demonstrate that s/he is trying to win? In the circumstances of both players being very short of time, the question of the opponent being given extra time is clearly a material factor to whether to make a claim.
The specific scenario i am thinking of is where the potential claimant has, say 1 minute, and their opponent has, say 1 and a quarter minutes. Because of the precarious clock position the opponent may decide that "shuffling", requiring no thought, is the best way to guarantee victory (on time). If however they are granted an extra two minutes they may then decide they can use the extra time to start 'properly' playing for a win by normal means. The potential claimant, aware of this risk (and unable to summon an arbiter, since they can't stop the clock) may conclude that they are better off trying to make up the 15 seconds than actually making a claim.