FIDE Rule 10.2 misconceptions

Technical questions regarding Openings, Middlegames, Endings etc.
Richard Bates
Posts: 2918
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: FIDE Rule 10.2 misconceptions

Post by Richard Bates » Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:10 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
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.
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.
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.

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.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3942
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: FIDE Rule 10.2 misconceptions

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:18 pm

Richard Bates wrote: 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.
Because if you're genuinely sure your opponent has no practical winning chances, you can bash your moves out practically instantaneously. If he's actually trying to win by normal means, he may spend a bit more time actually thinking about his moves, and so his clock time may be a bigger factor.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18155
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE Rule 10.2 misconceptions

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:28 pm

Richard Bates wrote: 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.
It seems clear that you can stop the clocks provided that "may" means "is allowed to" in this context.
10.2 wrote:If 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 clocks.
Another way to do it is to play your move, offer a draw, and attract an arbiter's attention whilst your opponent is contemplating the draw offer. The point being to escalate your draw offer into a 10.2 claim if your opponent moves thereby declining the draw.

Richard Bates
Posts: 2918
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: FIDE Rule 10.2 misconceptions

Post by Richard Bates » Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:38 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Richard Bates wrote: 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.
It seems clear that you can stop the clocks provided that "may" means "is allowed to" in this context.
10.2 wrote:If 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 clocks.
Another way to do it is to play your move, offer a draw, and attract an arbiter's attention whilst your opponent is contemplating the draw offer. The point being to escalate your draw offer into a 10.2 claim if your opponent moves thereby declining the draw.
I think you've slightly misunderstood my point. The reason i want to summon an arbiter is so that they can observe the "non-trying to win" in advance of the claim being made (thereby heading off the possibility of the arbiter "postponing" their decision and awarding extra time). So the query is whether summoning an arbiter to observe is sufficient justification for stopping the clocks, or do you have to make a claim as well etc.

E Michael White
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: FIDE Rule 10.2 misconceptions

Post by E Michael White » Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:47 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:ETA: As an arbiter, I've dealt with very few 10.2 claims, and none of them have involved a claim of "making no effort to win".
Are you sure about that Jack ? Since 2005 its been possible to claim on both bases. I think it is now automatically on both bases in LP QPF. Also when the arbiter is not present the rule states a claim may be and/or ...

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3942
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: FIDE Rule 10.2 misconceptions

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:02 pm

E Michael White wrote:
IM Jack Rudd wrote:ETA: As an arbiter, I've dealt with very few 10.2 claims, and none of them have involved a claim of "making no effort to win".
Are you sure about that Jack ? Since 2005 its been possible to claim on both bases. I think it is now automatically on both bases in LP QPF. Also when the arbiter is not present the rule states a claim may be and/or ...
OK, let me rephrase that. None of the players who've claimed under 10.2 have specifically said their opponent was making no effort to win, or anything synonymous, whereas they have said something synonymous with their opponent's having no way to win by normal means.

E Michael White
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: FIDE Rule 10.2 misconceptions

Post by E Michael White » Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:21 pm

Player A stops the clock to summon the arbiter while its Bs move in order to make a 10.2 claim as B has been shuffling about in a level position
Player B deliberately makes an illegal move and insists that the arbiter has to give A 2 more mins so cant claim

What would you do Jack ?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18155
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE Rule 10.2 misconceptions

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:48 pm

E Michael White wrote:Player B deliberately makes an illegal move and insists that the arbiter has to give A 2 more mins so cant claim

ROFL
That's a variation on an old ( well last 15 years) piece of Russian or Ukrainian end game theory when using a digital clock. Make an illegal move, gain time while the arbiter reads the manual on how to add two minutes. Hopefully arbiters are now wise to that cheapo and know which buttons to press.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3942
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: FIDE Rule 10.2 misconceptions

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:00 pm

E Michael White wrote:Player A stops the clock to summon the arbiter while its Bs move in order to make a 10.2 claim as B has been shuffling about in a level position
Player B deliberately makes an illegal move and insists that the arbiter has to give A 2 more mins so cant claim

What would you do Jack ?
Inform A that he can't claim while it's B's move. Add the two minutes to A's clock. Stay at the board, watching the game, until the inevitable 10.2 claim comes up for the second time.

After the game, talk to B about the ethics of deliberately making illegal moves, and inform him that I'll be keeping an eye on him from now on.

E Michael White
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: FIDE Rule 10.2 misconceptions

Post by E Michael White » Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:29 pm

Jack - just checked current rules thats right - think it used to say at any time in the last 2 minutes.

Can inactivity be construed as trying to win ?

A has 35 minutes left and B has 2 mins 2 secs.

Sensing a potential 10.2 A spends 20 minutes on his next move -

When the 10.2 comes, A says - I'm making a colossal effort to win by analysing this ultra complicated variation for 20 minutes - what is B bleating about ?

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 3013
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: FIDE Rule 10.2 misconceptions

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:54 pm

"Player A stops the clock to summon the arbiter while its Bs move in order to make a 10.2 claim as B has been shuffling about in a level position
Player B deliberately makes an illegal move and insists that the arbiter has to give A 2 more mins so cant claim "

You deal with the 10.2 claim, then add the two minutes to player A ... (if necessary)

If you don't give the draw straight away, you only add time to the non-claimant's clock for a silly claim. (Like if he's a piece down - and yes that has happened!)

I have had people claiming draws under 10.2 for the opponent "shuffling". On a couple of occasions I was watching the game already, so the decision was easy. I'm a great believer in actually watching the games where possible - in my view too many arbiters never look at the games. Of course you can't be everywhere at once.

I have had occasions where a player has approached me to claim a draw, then we return to the board and his flag is already down. He says he stopped the clock before he searched for me and the opponent must have started it again; the opponent denies it. Some players have asked spectators to fetch me and indeed some spectators have told me they expect a 10.2 claim (which is helpful). I don't regard asking a spectator to fetch the arbiter as seeking advice - it makes sense to avoid the scenario at the top of the paragraph.

A memorable 10.2 from years ago - a female junior (accompanied by her father) came up to me and claimed a draw (we were playing in three different rooms) - off we went, and found the female junior's opponent (also a female junior but much lower-graded) setting up the pieces. At this point the father claimed a win as the opponent had clearly resigned. Luckily, I wasn't falling for that, asked the opponent what was going on and she said she accepted the draw, which of course is what I gave and I reassured her she hadn't done anything wrong, then told the father not to try it on again. It was a standard tactic of this father to shout and scream if a decision went against his children, and he frequently got away with it (but not with me). In fairness to the daughter, I don't think she was trying to cheat.
"Kevin was the arbiter and was very patient. " Nick Grey

John Upham
Posts: 4353
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: FIDE Rule 10.2 misconceptions

Post by John Upham » Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:54 pm

I gather that 10.2 will be given special attention at the arbiters course I have mentioned elsewhere.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1055

Perhaps Berkshire locals would like to discuss their interpretations with the ECF Chief Arbiter?
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Ola Winfridsson
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:26 pm

Re: FIDE Rule 10.2 misconceptions

Post by Ola Winfridsson » Tue Sep 15, 2009 6:03 pm

I'm not sure I agree with you, Roger. In my view, there are a number of cases where a player is perfectly within his right to refuse a draw from an opponent who's down to his last 2 minutes on the clock, but ahead on material or positionally vastly superior. For instance, if it's a team match and a win is the only way to save the match, I don't quite see how one can claim that the other player is more or less obliged to agree to a draw. This, of course, also goes for occasions where prize money is at stake. Since the introduction of quickplay finishes, the clock is very much part of the game (like it or loathe it).

However, having said this, playing with an increment will generally put a stop to most such incidents, and I believe also substantially reduce the number of draws being offered from such a position of strength since the player would be far less worried about the clock situation. With an increment you're also forced to keep score, which naturally helps in cases of threefold repitions and claims under the 50-move rule.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18155
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE Rule 10.2 misconceptions

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Sep 15, 2009 6:30 pm

Ola Winfridsson wrote:I how one can claim that the other player is more or less obliged to agree to a draw
Offer the draw, say in a position with R+2 v R+1 (no passed pawns), opponent declines - his only winning try is on time. Award draw by 10.2

Or Q+R+N v P + B but next to no time - offer draw again if opponent declines then claim draw under 10.2.


I don't buy that watching the play for "progress" isn't a form of adjudication as well. First because it's not unknown to pursue a plan, realise it doesn't work and then go back to an earlier position to try again. So the arbiter is judging the competence of the play. Secondly the arbiter has to be of a sufficient playing standard to identify which moves are subtle ploys to improve the position and which are just moving for the sake of it.

As a benchmark as to an immediate award, consider what would happen if the draw offer had been made in the same position but with equal time and an increment.

Personally I think the arbiting community should build up a library of positions where 10.2 claims had either been granted or not granted. Perhaps players should do it for them by quoting positions where a draw was agreed that they would have claimed or thought their opponents could claim. Here's one for a starter

White has pawns on b4,c3,e4,g3,h4
Black has pawns on b5,c4,e5,g4,h5

White has bishops on e1 and c2
Black has bishops on e3 and c6

White king is on g2
Black King is on g7

Black to move - earlier there had been a rook each so Black with much more time was looking for a win - perhaps by forcing dark square bishops off with Bd2. White was able to force off the rooks and then offered/claimed the draw. Black saw no reason to dispute this.

John Anderson
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 7:54 pm

Re: FIDE Rule 10.2 misconceptions

Post by John Anderson » Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:03 pm

Roger de Coverley said

"...Secondly the arbiter has to be of a sufficient playing standard to identify which moves are subtle ploys to improve the position and which are just moving for the sake of it...."

I am reminded of an incident at the kidlington Congress a few years ago. I was playing an FM (212/215ish in old money) who was well known for getting into time -trouble. I was pressing hard for the win and, with maybe 7 or 8 moves to the time control, my opponent seemed deep in thought. When he stopped the clocks with 2 minutes to spare I assumed he was resigning but in fact he had simply let his clock run down from around 20 minutes down to 2 in order to summon the arbiter to claim a draw.

I was amazed at this but even more so when the arbiter almost instantly wished to declare the game drawn. He made no attempt to look at the scoresheet which would have shown that I had been steadily improving my position for the past 10 moves or so and was on the verge of a breakthough (my opponent reduced to waiting moves) and seemed only impressed by my opponents title and rating(!).

To say I was furious was an understatement and it was fortuitous that my opponent kept a safe distance whilst this was going on.

With the aid of a computer, I would have to conceed that the position was indeed drawish,(my intended beakthrough would probably have failed with perfect defence), yet it was very complicated and I take the view that my FM opponent (shame on you!) decided that his best course of action was to try and employ a 10.2 defence. The arbiter had no concept at all of what was going on, on the board.

I will never forget (or forgive) the ignorance of the arbiter who could have allowed the game to continue for a few moves to verify that I was trying to win by normal means.

Post Reply