FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

National developments, strategies and ideas.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18101
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:07 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:We just know that two moves were made from when the claim was made, which could have been with 5 seconds left on the clock.
So with a lone King against a King and Rook and 5 seconds remaining, you make a 10.2 claim. Isn't that by its very nature a frivolous claim?

If you want a claim a draw with King against King and Rook or any lost ending where you doubt the opponent's competence, I would have thought the necessary conditions were that you have a score up to two minutes remaining, so you have the move count and you then summon the arbiter to watch play and potentially count the remaining moves to around 50.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8909
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:09 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:We just know that two moves were made from when the claim was made, which could have been with 5 seconds left on the clock.
So with a lone King against a King and Rook and 5 seconds remaining, you make a 10.2 claim. Isn't that by its very nature a frivolous claim?

If you want a claim a draw with King against King and Rook or any lost ending where you doubt the opponent's competence, I would have thought the necessary conditions were that you have a score up to two minutes remaining, so you have the move count and you then summon the arbiter to watch play and potentially count the remaining moves to around 50.
I would think it a very strange claim to make, so I'd assume there was a motive behind it. So I'd ask play to continue. If it then became clear that the KR was trying to win on time, then it'd be a draw. You might have only got down to KR v K with 5 seconds remaining.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18101
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:14 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: You're trying something you've already tried, again. This is clearly an example of not making making progress.
No, you realise that the first plan you tried isn't going to work. So you try to break through on the queen-side. You realise this won't work, regroup and try the king-side.
Alex Holowczak wrote: If the arbiter deems that no progress can be made within those fifty moves, then he awards a draw. If he deems that progress can be made within the fifty moves, and you're doing your best to make it with moves over the board - as opposed to repeating the position - then he won't.
For arbiters who don't want to adjudicate whether positions are wins or not, this puts a lot of onus on the arbiter having an understanding of the position on the board. Three fold repetition is a draw, two fold isn't. An opponent's time shortage should be a reason to make two fold repetition into a draw.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18101
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:18 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: You might have only got down to KR v K with 5 seconds remaining.
At any sensible level of chess, the K only would resign. Given that players sometimes fool around without penalty when the opponents refuse to resign, why should time shortage make a difference? Would you for example award a draw if someone promoted all their pawns to knights?

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8909
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:21 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote: You're trying something you've already tried, again. This is clearly an example of not making making progress.
No, you realise that the first plan you tried isn't going to work. So you try to break through on the queen-side. You realise this won't work, regroup and try the king-side.
If plan 1 doesn't work, trying plan 2 is fine. If plan 2 doesn't work and you go back to plan 1, then it's hard to show you're making progress.
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote: If the arbiter deems that no progress can be made within those fifty moves, then he awards a draw. If he deems that progress can be made within the fifty moves, and you're doing your best to make it with moves over the board - as opposed to repeating the position - then he won't.
For arbiters who don't want to adjudicate whether positions are wins or not, this puts a lot of onus on the arbiter having an understanding of the position on the board. Three fold repetition is a draw, two fold isn't. An opponent's time shortage should be a reason to make two fold repetition into a draw.
Repeating moves in such a simple position is not making progress. I think that's the fact of the matter.

Anyway, can't we just all buy digital clocks and use an increment? If I can persuade even the Birmingham League to do it for its Rapidplay, and I can use it without problems at the Warwickshire Junior Championship, I don't see why everyone else can.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18101
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:38 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: Repeating moves in such a simple position is not making progress. I think that's the fact of the matter.
I think the point is that it shouldn't matter.

Here's the more complex example from the 4NCL some years ago


[White "xxx"]
[Black "xxx"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C25"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 d6 3.Bc4 Be7 4.d3 c6 5.f4 Nd7 6.Nf3 exf4 7.Bxf4 b5 8.Bb3 Nc5 9.O-O Nf6 10.Qe1 O-O 11.d4 Nxb3 12.axb3 b4 13.Nd1 d5 14.e5 Ne4 15.Nf2 Nxf2 16.Qxf2 Qb6 17.Bg5 Bxg5 18.Nxg5 h6 19.Nf3 Bf5 20.Rac1 a5 21.c3 a4 22.bxa4 Rxa4 23.Ra1 Rxa1 24.Rxa1 bxc3 25.bxc3 Qb3 26.Qe3 Rb8 27.h3 Qc2 28.Rf1 Rb3 29.Rc1 Qa2 30.Rf1 Rb2 31.Rf2 Qa1+ 32.Rf1 Qa2 33.Rf2 Qb1+ 34.Rf1 Qc2 35.Rf2 Rb1+ 36.Kh2 Qe4 37.Re2 Qxe3 38.Rxe3 Rc1 39.Kg3 Kf8 40.Nd2 Rc2 41.Nf3 Ke7 42.Ne1 Rc1 43.Kf2 Be4 44.Ke2 Ra1 45.Rg3 g6 46.Nf3 Ra2+ 47.Nd2 Bf5 48.Ke3 Ra3 49.Ke2 Kd8 50.Rf3 h5 51.c4 Ra4 52.Rc3 Be6 53.cxd5
Bxd5 54.Nf3 Ra2+ 55.Kf1 Kd7 56.h4 Ke6 57.g3 Kf5 58.Re3 Kg4 59.Ng5 Rd2 60.e6 fxe6 61.Nxe6 Bc4+ 62.Kg1 Kf5 63.Re5+ Kf6 64.Nf4 Rxd4 65.Rg5 Bf7 66.Kf2 Rd1 67.Ke3 Re1+ 68.Kd4 Re7 69.Rc5 Rd7+ 70.Ke4 Bd5+ 71.Ke3 Kf5 72.Ra5 Re7+ 73.Kf2 Re5 74.Ra8 Re7 75.Rf8+ Rf7 76.Rd8 Ke5 77.Ke3 Rf6 78.Rd7 Be6 79.Rg7 Bf5 80.Ra7 c5 81.Re7+ Kd6 82.Rg7 Kc6 83.Kd2 Rd6+ 84.Kc3 Kb5 85.Rb7+ Rb6 86.Re7 Rf6 87.Rb7+ 1/2-1/2

The 10.2 draw claim had been made about 10 moves from the end. In my view, the player with the Black pieces had an outside passed pawn and should have been allowed to try to advance it to queen. The precise plan to do this might have involved a certain amount of trial and error. If White had insufficient time to defend the ending, then it was down to his time management and arbiters should not have intervened just because they had spotted a repetition.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8909
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:46 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote: Repeating moves in such a simple position is not making progress. I think that's the fact of the matter.
I think the point is that it shouldn't matter.

Here's the more complex example from the 4NCL some years ago
The key word in what I wrote there was "simple".

Peter Shaw
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:22 pm
Location: Wakefield

Re: FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

Post by Peter Shaw » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:04 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Peter Shaw wrote:Alex, what if Black claims a draw with KR v KQ, White repeats moves once and Black's flag falls. Do you award a draw then?
If the player is winning and claims a draw, you first ask if White accepts a draw. You then pick the clock up, and ask if he still wants to decline the draw offer. I.e. if he wants to play on without a clock. Allegedly, this usually solves the problem. As Alex McFarlane's guidance suggests, this would normally be awarded a draw. I would award it a draw.
I don't understand any of this, as black is losing, not winning.

It is completely ludicrous to award a draw in this circumstance. It is quite normal with Queen v Rook for the White player to make an imperfect move, see it's wrong, and repeat moves to go back to an earlier position. Why should Black get a draw just becuase he's short of time?

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8909
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:17 pm

Peter Shaw wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Peter Shaw wrote:Alex, what if Black claims a draw with KR v KQ, White repeats moves once and Black's flag falls. Do you award a draw then?
If the player is winning and claims a draw, you first ask if White accepts a draw. You then pick the clock up, and ask if he still wants to decline the draw offer. I.e. if he wants to play on without a clock. Allegedly, this usually solves the problem. As Alex McFarlane's guidance suggests, this would normally be awarded a draw. I would award it a draw.
I don't understand any of this, as black is losing, not winning.

It is completely ludicrous to award a draw in this circumstance. It is quite normal with Queen v Rook for the White player to make an imperfect move, see it's wrong, and repeat moves to go back to an earlier position. Why should Black get a draw just becuase he's short of time?
Apologies, I interpreted what you'd written such that white had KR and black had KQ. What I said is true if the winning player is claiming the draw.

If KQ repeats moves, then KQ is not making progress, because you can't be sure whether it's either:
(a) An attempt to repeat the moves to win on time
(b) An attempt to get your attempt to win back on track

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7297
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:25 pm

At the risk of stating the obvious, it is perfectly possible to repeat moves while still having a plan and attempting to make progress. You analyse position A and see that you can follow plan 1 and reach position B where your opponent can either go wrong and lose quickly (maybe falling into a snap mate), or repeat the position to return to position A. You then follow plan 2 and end up with a slight advantage where the win takes a lot longer. Any chess player aware of this and trying to speed things up will try plan 1 first, and then return to plan 2 if that doesn't work.
Last edited by Christopher Kreuzer on Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18101
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:26 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: If KQ repeats moves, then KQ is not making progress, because you can't be sure whether it's either:
(a) An attempt to repeat the moves to win on time
(b) An attempt to get your attempt to win back on track
Players are asking why it should matter.

If the opponent isn't short of time or you are using increments, you can repeat as often as you like subject only to the three fold and fifty move tests. Why should you be penalised by the game coming to a premature end just because your opponent is short of time and you repeat a move or two?

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8909
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:31 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote: If KQ repeats moves, then KQ is not making progress, because you can't be sure whether it's either:
(a) An attempt to repeat the moves to win on time
(b) An attempt to get your attempt to win back on track
Players are asking why it should matter.

If the opponent isn't short of time or you are using increments, you can repeat as often as you like subject only to the three fold and fifty move tests. Why should you be penalised by the game coming to a premature end just because your opponent is short of time and you repeat a move or two?
Because it's a question of making progress. By repeating a position in such a clear cut way as in the diagram position that started this, then you're not making progress. In the KR v K position, white was clearly making no progress. So it's a draw.

With a more cluttered board, whereby it involves a change of plan, then repeating the position 5-10 moves apart with the aim of carrying out that plan isn't a problem.

Simon Brown
Posts: 721
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Sevenoaks, Kent, if not in Costa Calida, Spain

Re: FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

Post by Simon Brown » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:41 pm

So does that mean if you repeat moves in a complicated position, it's OK, but in a simple position, it isn't? Out of interest, how many arbiters would you trust to have the chess ability to be able to distinguish?

Thankfully I don't play any more.....

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8909
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:48 pm

Simon Brown wrote:So does that mean if you repeat moves in a complicated position, it's OK, but in a simple position, it isn't? Out of interest, how many arbiters would you trust to have the chess ability to be able to distinguish?

Thankfully I don't play any more.....
If you provide an arbiter with evidence that you're not trying to make progress, then you can expect such a game to be awarded as a draw.

Ian Kingston
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
Location: Sutton Coldfield
Contact:

Re: FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

Post by Ian Kingston » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:54 pm

In the original KR vs. K position, why would the arbiter simply not reject the claim in the first place? There is an example on p. 122 of Stewart Reuben's Chess Organiser's Handbook, 3rd edn, which strikes me as similar: White Kg7, pawns h3, h7; Black Ka2, Qg3. Black is winning and Stewart's recommendation is to reject White's claim. Then the issue of 'making progress' doesn't arise.

White can of course make another claim if Black starts checking aimlessly or takes the h3 pawn.

Post Reply