FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

[Alex McFarlane]

I too have had players claiming a win because an illegal move was played. I cannot remember if they said that was the Law if it happened in the last 5 minutes or the last 2 minutes, however. Further investigation showed that it was not a local Law as both claimed but their misinterpretation of some 'fun' tournament rule which they had superimposed on the Laws of Chess.

As Manager of a junior team I had an Irish arbiter argue with me that the penalty for an illegal move was 1 minute. There was no convincing him otherwise even afterwards when asking him to look at the Laws.

I agree with Sean that we should enforce the Laws as are and lobby FIDE. Going further I think that we should be proposing that the Laws should now be in three parts instead of the current two. The third part would contain all the Laws that should only apply to significant events - probably those with norm chances. If this were the case we could have a more relaxed view on phones for league matches as an example.

[Adam Raoof]

I completely agree. One problem with FIDE rules, however, is that local leagues and events often specify (for instance) 'FIDE rules will apply' - intending (for instance) that the default time should be one hour. Unfortunately the FIDE rules change, and organisers are then stuck with the possibility that a player might insist on a default after 0 minutes. Help!

[Alex Holowczak]

Back in the pre-1993 days, when FIDE had no quickplay finish rules - or so I'm told - the BCF (and presumably Ireland too) had their own rules with how to deal with them. Many of them are what Sean describes here. In England, while we now use the FIDE laws in such situations, many players still remember the old rules and think they're the actual rules. Perhaps Ireland never got around to repealing theirs. The MCCU still referred to them, even though they hadn't existed for 19 years. They'd even amended them to say ECF Quickplay Finish rules in 2004!

[Alex Holowczak]

I completely agree. One problem with FIDE rules, however, is that local leagues and events often specify (for instance) 'FIDE rules will apply' - intending (for instance) that the default time should be one hour. Unfortunately the FIDE rules change, and organisers are then stuck with the possibility that a player might insist on a default after 0 minutes. Help!

You say that "The FIDE Laws of Chess apply in this competition, except where overridden in these rules." You then have a rule later on saying that "In accordance with Article 6.6 of the FIDE Laws of Chess, the default time shall be one hour."

[Adam Raoof]

I completely agree. One problem with FIDE rules, however, is that local leagues and events often specify (for instance) 'FIDE rules will apply' - intending (for instance) that the default time should be one hour. Unfortunately the FIDE rules change, and organisers are then stuck with the possibility that a player might insist on a default after 0 minutes. Help!

You say that "The FIDE Laws of Chess apply in this competition, except where overridden in these rules." You then have a rule later on saying that "In accordance with Article 6.6 of the FIDE Laws of Chess, the default time shall be one hour."

Absolutely - as long as you know in advance what FIDE rules you want to ignore! If I were playing in a tournament run by Alex or Sean I am sure that common sense and fair play would prevail. However I have heard some horrendous stories about decisions made in junior tournaments by arbiters who should know better - standards at junior tournaments should be equal to, if not better than, standards in adult events.

[David Shepherd]

My main difficulty with the 10.2 rule is knowing when to claim. A lot can happen in the last two minutes and a position that was not a draw can turn in to an easily drawn one with just a few seconds left, and even then back again in to a winning position. Or an opponent clearly trying to win with 2 minutes left can then just start playing moves to run you out of time with 45 seconds left.

I think this is a particular problem in leagues where no arbiter is present - how many moves do you need to play to demonstrate the position drawn in those circumstances.

The problem with 10.2 is that it is not a black and white rule and does require arbiters to interpret to at least some extent what is happening on the board . In such circumstances there will always be conflicting opinions. The most sensible answer is increment and I see litttle excuse for it not being used as the norm. Even if the increment is small and only added when the players reach their last few minutes.

[David Shepherd]

I think the illegal move idea may have come from blitz.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think this is a particular problem in leagues where no arbiter is present - how many moves do you need to play to demonstrate the position drawn in those circumstances.

It shouldn't be a problem in leagues (with no arbiter present) because you should make the claim and stop the clock if the claim isn't accepted. You still have to prove to a possibly sceptical league controller etc. that the position is in fact not possible to lose by reasonable play. So advice to players not to make frivolous claims for risk of losing is valid for most league play.

I think some of the arbiters guidelines are themselves incorrect.

At http://www.westlondonchess.com/FIDE_10_2, there is cited a position with a white king on f2, a black king on e5 and a white rook on a4. I hope everyone would agree this is a position which can be won by normal means and if time were not an issue could only be drawn by repetition or the 50 move rule. What then does one make of a ruling that after the moves 1 Rb4 Kd5 2 Ra4 Ke5 3 Rb4 and the defender's flag fell, a draw should be awarded? Why should being short of time in a lost position improve a player's chances to draw?

There was an example in the 4NCL quite a few years ago where one of the players made a draw claim in a position best described as a late middle game. The game continued for not more than another dozen moves or so, at which time the claimant's flag fell and a draw was awarded. There could have easily been another thirty or forty moves available in the position. It was one of those positions where you try a plan, then if it doesn't work, you try another plan. Repetition or fifty moves puts a limit on how much you can try, but at least some of the time you are not obviously making progress. The award of a draw was allegedly because the player moved a piece backwards.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think the illegal move idea may have come from blitz.

It might come from an era where there were no formal rules for rapid-play so tournament organisers had to adapt the then Laws of chess as they saw fit. But as you say, the idea can be borrowed from blitz. If you don't have the requirement for a score-sheet, restoring the position to before the illegality could be in theory be difficult.

[Alex Holowczak]

At http://www.westlondonchess.com/FIDE_10_2, there is cited a position with a white king on f2, a black king on e5 and a white rook on a4. I hope everyone would agree this is a position which can be won by normal means and if time were not an issue could only be drawn by repetition or the 50 move rule. What then does one make of a ruling that after the moves 1 Rb4 Kd5 2 Ra4 Ke5 3 Rb4 and the defender's flag fell, a draw should be awarded? Why should being short of time in a lost position improve a player's chances to draw?

That ruling is the correct one. White was trying to win on time because he was just moving his rook back and forth, rather than carrying out the checkmate procedure. If play continued 1 Kf3, followed by shifting the K in the usual KR v K mating sequence, then it'd be a win.

[David Shepherd]

It shouldn't be a problem in leagues (with no arbiter present) because you should make the claim and stop the clock if the claim isn't accepted. You still have to prove to a possibly sceptical league controller etc. that the position is in fact not possible to lose by reasonable play. So advice to players not to make frivolous claims for risk of losing is valid for most league play.

I had the situation in a league game where I claimed under 10.2 but my opponent felt I should have played on longer to demonstrate the draw (it was a fairly simple king and pawn ending which was clearly very easily drawn with reasonable play). In the end it was agreed on the night when the result on another board meant the match did not depend on it. In hindsight I probably should have played on slightly longer the main problem was the clocks were not digital so I could not tell exactly how long I had left.

The problem with no arbiter present is that they have no chance to observe -which probly means you need to leave it as late as possible to claim, but with non digital clocks that risks losing on time

[Roger de Coverly]

That ruling is the correct one. White was trying to win on time because he was just moving his rook back and forth, rather than carrying out the checkmate procedure. If play continued 1 Kf3, followed by shifting the K in the usual KR v K mating sequence, then it'd be a win.

I have to say I disagree, not least because claiming a draw with a king against king and rook is of itself a frivolous claim. Arbiters try to maintain that 10.2 isn't about adjudicating the position, how can they then try to evaluate the strength or otherwise of individual moves? To return to an earlier question, is it right that running out of time in a lost position should improve your drawing chances?

[Peter Shaw]

At http://www.westlondonchess.com/FIDE_10_2, there is cited a position with a white king on f2, a black king on e5 and a white rook on a4. I hope everyone would agree this is a position which can be won by normal means and if time were not an issue could only be drawn by repetition or the 50 move rule. What then does one make of a ruling that after the moves 1 Rb4 Kd5 2 Ra4 Ke5 3 Rb4 and the defender's flag fell, a draw should be awarded? Why should being short of time in a lost position improve a player's chances to draw?

That ruling is the correct one. White was trying to win on time because he was just moving his rook back and forth, rather than carrying out the checkmate procedure. If play continued 1 Kf3, followed by shifting the K in the usual KR v K mating sequence, then it'd be a win.

I can't believe this can be correct. If you claim a 10.2 and your opponent repeats moves once, you should just sit there until your flag falls and the draw would be awarded?

[Alex Holowczak]

This specific example came up in the Arbiters course.

Roger, the point is white was extending the game. The usual thinking is that a player can't have gained an advantage from running out of time. However, this is usurped here, because white is the one who is stalling for time by repeating moves. He's not trying to win by normal means, even though he can win by normal means.

Repeating moves demonstrates that the player doesn't necessarily know how to win the position, even if KR v K is itself a book win. This is particularly important in junior chess, where most people don't know KR v K.

Peter, no, because you've just sat there. If you only made 2 moves because that's all there was enough time for, then that's different from making two moves and waiting for a minute for your flag to fall.

[Adam Raoof]

What then does one make of a ruling that after the moves 1 Rb4 Kd5 2 Ra4 Ke5 3 Rb4 and the defender's flag fell, a draw should be awarded? Why should being short of time in a lost position improve a player's chances to draw?

I would say that if these are the only moves that have been played, then I would not award a draw, but a win to the player with the rook. The arbiter's duty is not to bring the game into disrepute. The player with the extra material is not at fault, and should not be penalised because the defender is short of time. It's a matter of judgement to decide how many moves should be played before you can say that the winning side has been given a fair opportunity to try to win the game, but I would say that in this case he has not.