Junior County Finals, Telford, 25th Sep

[Nick Thomas]

Not true.

I'm afraid that's wrong Nick, and it is absolutely correct to say that "whether the position is totally winning (or not) is completely irrelevant."

I'll give you an example. K+Q v K. The player with the queen just oscillates his king between two squares. The other player claims a draw on the basis that his opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means. The claim should succeed, despite the fact that the first player is 'totally winning' by any definition.

For your information, your statement that the arbiter

"He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal mean"

is not in fact what article 10.2 says. The correct quote (which I think makes successful claims less likely than your version would) is

If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn.

Of course, I'm making no comment on the game in question as I haven't seen the game score. I'm just trying to right some misconceptions about 10.2

I'm afraid that's wrong Sean. It is relevant whether the game is totally winning or not. If it is then the game can be won by normal means. It's as simple as that. It is relevant to that part of the 10.2 rule. I addressed the other part of the rule separately.
My 10.2 quote is accurate and taken from the FIDE website and relevant to the case in point as the decision was given after the flag had fallen. You have quoted a different part of the 10.2 rule which is not relevant in this case.
Your example is misguided on several points. The most obvious is that the player with just the king would simply claim a draw by repetition rather than invoke 10.2. Ian Thompson's example is similar but more pertinent. In this case however the player should be allowed to try to achieve checkmate even if he doesn't know how. In no circumstances should the claimer benefit in any way from having less rather than more time and the player who is being claimed against should always be given the benefit of the doubt.

[Nick Thomas]

My understanding is that he does not even need to be making progress, just attempting to make progress.

The problem with this is what should you do if the opponent of the claimant has a clearly winning position, but doesn't know how to win it, e.g.

1. A beginner who has K+Q v K and is just making pointless checks with the Q.

2. A better player who has K+B+N v K who doesn't know the winning technique.

Under the current rules both positions should be declared drawn once its clear that no progress is actually being made.

He should be given (up to) 50 moves to try. Why should he be deprived of that opportunity just because his opponent used up too much time?