FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

[Christopher Kreuzer]

It really is remarkably simple to win the game if it's KR v K in the situation described in scenario (1). Instead of repeating the position, do something else that's vaguely productive with regard to winning the game. Move your King towards the opponent's King. Move the rook to the rank that cuts off the other King from moving forward. Do anything like that - you don't have to play like a tablebase. Just whatever you do, don't repeat the position!

And by awarding a draw, you are encouraging the 'winning' player to go away and find out how to win? Is it better for that player to discover the winning method over the board themselves, or to be taught it? And the player that gets a draw in a lost position, they learn that it is better to try and swindle their opponent rather than do the right thing and resign? As I said, with juniors, you need to be careful that strict applications of the rules are not adversely affecting their perception of how chess should be played.

This is a terrible argument.

(1) Juniors nearly never resign anyway. Even in fully-blown league chess, with adjournments and all, they play everything out until mate.
(2) By awarding a draw, you're following the laws of the game. As an arbiter, I'm there to enforce the laws of the game, not to coach a junior how to play chess.
(3) I actually taught a junior KR v K a few weeks before the Warwickshire Megafinal. During it, KR v K came up, and he was able to execute it. So he won. Admittedly, his section didn't have clocks, but that misses the point in this case. Would it have been better for him to discover it himself? Perhaps. Having coached him, he wouldn't have got it had I not shown him how to do it. Perhaps I accelerated this discovery? Either way, he knows it now, so what's the problem?

Possibly not a great argument, but no need to call it terrible.

(1) Agreed. But what makes them grow out of this?
(2) Was there nothing in the arbitrating course on the spirit of the game as opposed to the letter?
(3) Would it have been better for him to discover it himself? I would say yes, not perhaps. You can guide someone through this, but you certainly shouldn't just show them outright (it's not clear what approach you took). They have to do some of the work themselves. And there are several different ways of approaching this mating pattern, some more useful (applicable to other positions) than others.

I should say here that I was fascinated the first time I realised that arbiters were people you could get to come over and award you a draw if your opponent is not attempting to win or cannot make progress. But that is a difficult concept for a junior to understand. They will often think "wow, I was losing and I was able to get a draw by appealing to the arbiter". Can you see how that can be taken the wrong way?

[Roger de Coverly]

To reply out-of-sequence to the poster wondering why strong players agree a draw rather than get into time trouble, part of the motivation is I suspect to avoid having arbitrators with (usually) less chess acumen then them having to rule on something like a 10.2 claim in their games. Either that, or the strong players themselves hate 10.2 claims, or are strong enough to agree results without needing 10.2 and an arbiter. It seems that asking an arbiter to judge whether an opponent is making any attempt to win is fraught with subjectivity.

I'm sure that's the case. As a League controller in a league with quick-play finishes and no arbiter present, the only games ever referred are opposite colour Bishop endings by "lower" rated players. Whilst games where one or both players run short of time I would suspect are common, in practice the players themselves or their captains resolve any potential disputes. Personally I usually have two or three games a season (out of a hundred) where a draw is agreed because of 10.2 without it (10.2) ever being formally invoked. I also win the odd very dodgy game on time because my opponent neglects to claim.

[Ian Kingston]

The 'making progress' concept isn't in the Laws. It may be considered as evidence that one player is trying to win by normal means (or, conversely, not doing so). However, when the non-claimant is clearly winning, it strikes me that the arbiter should bend over backwards to avoid awarding the draw. A single repetition just isn't enough to justify upholding the claim.

You're right, "making progress" isn't in the rules. The Laws say "making no effort to win the game by normal means" in (a) and "making sufficient attempts to win by normal means" in (b). I used "making progress" for short.

If a position is repeated in the case of (1), by definition, a player is not "making sufficient attempts to win by normal means". Repetition of a position isn't listed in the Laws of Chess as a win for the player with more time on his clock.

I think that 'by definition' is overstating the case. And your final sentence is a non sequitur.

What's the purpose of Article 10.2? It's there to stop a player from undeservedly losing on time in a position in which the opponent has no reasonable way of winning. It was never intended to protect a player from losing on time in a lost position, which is what happened in the example under discussion. That's why so many people object to this interpretation of the rule.

[Richard Bates]

It seems to me that if an arbiter's interpretation of the laws receives the universal contempt of the players who participate under those laws (who could of course either benefit or gain from the interpretation), then the arbiter should review whether they are applying the correct interpretation. If there is a disconnect between what players understand by what it takes to demonstrate that that they are trying to win by normal means, and what arbiters understand by it, then it is very difficult for players to avoid falling foul of a ruling unintentionally and unjustifiably.

It may be that the CAA course is being misrepresented in this thread, and that the K+R vs K scenario was not intended to be taken totally literally, and/or has been misrelated by Alex, but if not then it just creates enormous questions about whether a player can EVER repeat moves when an opponent is short of time. It is also not clear whether Alex thinks that the scenario is a universal one to be applied at any level of chess, or just to be applied between inexperienced/junior players.

Throughout the thread it seems that Alex has been demonstrating an attitude of one who either wants a law for every situation, without needing to apply judgement, and someone who thinks the presumption in 10.2 claims should be in favour of the claimant. He wants to draw inferences from a repetition without understanding that it merely requires waiting one more move to determine the truth - if there is a second repetition then the draw can be claimed as a matter of fact, if there is not then presumably he is happy to decline the claim (that can be deduced by effectively saying that the player with the rook can play ANY OTHER MOVE other than the repitition to avoid a successful claim - they can even presumably, spend a dozen moves making "mysterious" rook moves ). Consequently it seems to me that to even consider the claim a defending player should have to be in a situation where they are unlikely to have enough time to play a further move (maybe a situation where both players are massively short of time and simply making the "shortest" possible moves to avoid being the first to experience flag fall).

[Alex McFarlane]

I haven't had the time to read this thread in the detail which would be needed.

The Law is designed to give some protection to a player who would undeservedly lose on time. It can be argued that if the opponent does not know how to convert a superior position into a win and decides to use the clock as his only means of obtaining that win then the win should not be given. That is the principle that we seem to have been discussing.

I have given K+R v K as a draw. I've also given it as a win. If the bare king shows that he knows how to defend i.e. stays in the middle of the board and the other player is just making random moves or continuing to check etc then I will normally count 50 moves but provided a reasonable number have been made before flag fall I don't see a problem.

When both players are making random moves then a mate is always possible. I would then either need to reach the 50 moves or be satisfied that there couldnot be a mate before 50 to give the draw.

The standard of the players obviously comes into any decision made. But you normally don't have to make such simplistic decisions when the standard is reasonable.

[Richard Bates]

I haven't had the time to read this thread in the detail which would be needed.

The Law is designed to give some protection to a player who would undeservedly lose on time. It can be argued that if the opponent does not know how to convert a superior position into a win and decides to use the clock as his only means of obtaining that win then the win should not be given. That is the principle that we seem to have been discussing.

I have given K+R v K as a draw. I've also given it as a win. If the bare king shows that he knows how to defend i.e. stays in the middle of the board and the other player is just making random moves or continuing to check etc then I will normally count 50 moves but provided a reasonable number have been made before flag fall I don't see a problem.

When both players are making random moves then a mate is always possible. I would then either need to reach the 50 moves or be satisfied that there couldnot be a mate before 50 to give the draw.

The standard of the players obviously comes into any decision made. But you normally don't have to make such simplistic decisions when the standard is reasonable.

A reassuring contribution. I hope i am correct in saying that this post demonstrates both that 10.2 is a matter of judgement (not black and white) and that whilst the law is intended to give the claimant protection, it is not intended to give them an advantage.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I would think it entirely normal to make a move in an opponent's time trouble (or not), to see if he falls into a trap. If he doesn't, then you get back to the previous position and try something else. By offering the opponent the opportunity to blunder, you are trying to "make progress". Remember the Mickey Adams game where his opponent had a few seconds for three moves, and Mickey played the meaningless R1d2 (or some such), which completely confused his opponent and the flag fell. I don't think you should be in a great hurry to award a draw to a player a rook down - Alex M's scenario above makes sense.
I always worry as a player that the arbiter will not understand triangulation in a King and Pawn ending...

[E Michael White]

In the past, probably still now, a claim would fail if the claimant made imsufficient moves.

Lets say the times are player A 20 mins v player B 2 mins.
An arbiter is called who asks for play to continue. Then player A deliberately does not press his clock after making his moves, to show he is not trying to win on the clock by abnormal means.
After a few moves B realises whats going on and doesnt move, with A's clock ticking, for 15 minutes. A then starts pressing the clock and moving.
B's flag falls.

Does any of the foregoing make any difference ?

[Alex Holowczak]

(1) Agreed. But what makes them grow out of this?

Time. They'll get to the age of 14-15, and probably be about 150 standard, and realise they've got no reason to play on when their position is totally lost.

(2) Was there nothing in the arbitrating course on the spirit of the game as opposed to the letter?

There was a section on the Preface to the Laws of Chess. This isn't a case for Preface quoting though; there's a rule to cover exactly this situation.

(3) Would it have been better for him to discover it himself? I would say yes, not perhaps. You can guide someone through this, but you certainly shouldn't just show them outright (it's not clear what approach you took). They have to do some of the work themselves. And there are several different ways of approaching this mating pattern, some more useful (applicable to other positions) than others.

I showed him how to do it outright. I showed the pattern. He did it from the pattern. I then put the pieces on random squares to see if he could do it from there. He could. I don't see how this was any different from how I learnt it - from a book when I was 12.

I should say here that I was fascinated the first time I realised that arbiters were people you could get to come over and award you a draw if your opponent is not attempting to win or cannot make progress. But that is a difficult concept for a junior to understand. They will often think "wow, I was losing and I was able to get a draw by appealing to the arbiter". Can you see how that can be taken the wrong way?

Yes. The point is that the other player doesn't deserve to win if they're not trying to win. Without 10.2, it could turn into a clock-bashing contest. It needs to exist.

[Roger de Coverly]

whilst the law is intended to give the claimant protection, it is not intended to give them an advantage.

It is completely reasonable that if you have a lost position or even just an unclear but worse one, that the watching arbiter awards a loss when the flag falls. This should be a different outcome from flag fall when the position is totally drawn or totally winning. If it seems tough, then the solution is to handle your time better. The other side of this is that the winning player should be given enough time to find the win without individual moves being seized upon by the arbiter as evidence of lack of progress. If no progress is made because no progress is possible, say in an opposite bishops ending, that of itself should be enough to award the draw. If progress is possible but the player isn't very good at it, then the spirit of the fifty move rule should be invoked and the draw only awarded after a high number of non-progressing moves. Three-fold repetition might also arise or appear to arise. So if the CAA guidance had the arbiter noticing a three-fold repetition of position unclaimed by the players, that would be grounds to terminate the game.

[Nick Thomas]

I haven't had the time to read this thread in the detail which would be needed.

The Law is designed to give some protection to a player who would undeservedly lose on time. It can be argued that if the opponent does not know how to convert a superior position into a win and decides to use the clock as his only means of obtaining that win then the win should not be given. That is the principle that we seem to have been discussing.

I have given K+R v K as a draw. I've also given it as a win. If the bare king shows that he knows how to defend i.e. stays in the middle of the board and the other player is just making random moves or continuing to check etc then I will normally count 50 moves but provided a reasonable number have been made before flag fall I don't see a problem.

When both players are making random moves then a mate is always possible. I would then either need to reach the 50 moves or be satisfied that there couldnot be a mate before 50 to give the draw.

The standard of the players obviously comes into any decision made. But you normally don't have to make such simplistic decisions when the standard is reasonable.

A reassuring contribution. I hope i am correct in saying that this post demonstrates both that 10.2 is a matter of judgement (not black and white) and that whilst the law is intended to give the claimant protection, it is not intended to give them an advantage.

I agree. This is the best interpretation of the rule I have seen for some time. If we could clone Alex H (McFarlane, not the other one) then things would improve significantly. It seems to me that he is disagreeing with the view given by Alex Holowczak on the KR V K scenario given earlier in this thread.

[Alex Holowczak]

It may be that the CAA course is being misrepresented in this thread, and that the K+R vs K scenario was not intended to be taken totally literally, and/or has been misrelated by Alex, but if not then it just creates enormous questions about whether a player can EVER repeat moves when an opponent is short of time.

Don't spout such drivel. I'm reporting exactly what the CAA course said. The position was on a demo board with Messrs Welch and Jones explaining it. This exact position! Indeed, in the original link to the game, the person delivering the course is saying exactly what I've repeated here!

It is also not clear whether Alex thinks that the scenario is a universal one to be applied at any level of chess, or just to be applied between inexperienced/junior players.

I have explained clearly when I'd use it and when I wouldn't.

Throughout the thread it seems that Alex has been demonstrating an attitude of one who either wants a law for every situation, without needing to apply judgement, and someone who thinks the presumption in 10.2 claims should be in favour of the claimant.

No I haven't. I don't want a law for every situation. In my judgement, the KR v K scenario is a draw.

He wants to draw inferences from a repetition without understanding that it merely requires waiting one more move to determine the truth - if there is a second repetition then the draw can be claimed as a matter of fact, if there is not then presumably he is happy to decline the claim (that can be deduced by effectively saying that the player with the rook can play ANY OTHER MOVE other than the repitition to avoid a successful claim - they can even presumably, spend a dozen moves making "mysterious" rook moves ).

I realise one more move would determine the truth. I also realise the game has ended, and thus there isn't time for one more move. So you have to make a decision on what's happened. I also realise that in the quoted position, repeating moves - even to switch to another plan - wasn't making progress, because he was diverting to the wrong plan.

They can't make a dozen mysterious rook moves that aren't making progress. If you just move your rook from one side of the board to the other, without moving the King forward, and missing opportunities where the Kings are in opposition to drive the other K back, then clearly no progress is being made. So it's a draw.

[Nick Thomas]

whilst the law is intended to give the claimant protection, it is not intended to give them an advantage.

It is completely reasonable that if you have a lost position or even just an unclear but worse one, that the watching arbiter awards a loss when the flag falls. This should be a different outcome from flag fall when the position is totally drawn or totally winning. If it seems though, then the solution is to handle your time better. The other side of this is that the winning player should be given enough time to find the win without individual moves being seized upon by the arbiter as evidence of lack of progress. If no progress is made because no progress is possible, say in an opposite bishops ending, that of itself should be enough to award the draw. If progress is possible but the player isn't very good at it, then the spirit of the fifty move rule should be invoked and the draw only awarded after a high number of non-progressing moves. Three-fold repetition might also arise or appear to arise. So if the CAA guidance had the arbiter noticing a three-fold repetition of position unclaimed by the players, that would be grounds to terminate the game.

Hitting the nail on the head.

[Alex Holowczak]

It seems to me that he is disagreeing with the view given by Alex Holowczak on the KR V K scenario given earlier in this thread.

Which would be strange, given it's his (?) course that teaches such an interpretation.

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes. The point is that the other player doesn't deserve to win if they're not trying to win. Without 10.2, it could turn into a clock-bashing contest. It needs to exist.

I don't think the general existence of 10.2 is being queried. What we are querying is guidance which appears to award a draw in a lost position on the evidence of a handful of moves. Also that you should not penalise moves which would not be subject to penalty if there was no claim. As the other Alex suggests, much better to watch the game and award the draw on the evidence of the move count. Arbiters insist that 10.2 isn't an adjudication, by the same token they shouldn't try to evaluate the quality of play unless they have evidence of three-fold repetition or a probable overshoot of the fifty move rule.