English Chess Forum

Ian Kingston wrote:In the original KR vs. K position, why would the arbiter simply not reject the claim in the first place?

Because he could be claiming that he's making no effort to win the game by normal means. I don't think you can reject such a claim without having any evidence to that effect. If a player has an up-to-date scoresheet still, for some reason, then you might be able to. If you've not seen any of the prior game, then what decision can you make other than to defer your decision?

Bob Clark wrote:Please stop this discussion, I find myself agreeing with Roger's posts!!

[like]

OK Alex.

Q & 5 v Q & 4. Q & 4 very short of time. Completely drawn, the extra pawn being doubled or backward. Arbiter tells Q & 5 that he has to try to make progress. He has a think, plays a few unproductive moves, then puts his Q en prise. You don't know if accidentally or on purpose. Q & 4 was moving very quickly, played a check, then about to go back to the original square, when he notices his Q would be en prise, and a split second after that realises that he missed the opportunity to take the Q. Q & 4 then blunders, allowing an exchange to a lost K&P ending.

You are the arbiter. What is your ruling?

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Ian Kingston wrote:In the original KR vs. K position, why would the arbiter simply not reject the claim in the first place?

Because he could be claiming that he's making no effort to win the game by normal means. I don't think you can reject such a claim without having any evidence to that effect. If a player has an up-to-date scoresheet still, for some reason, then you might be able to. If you've not seen any of the prior game, then what decision can you make other than to defer your decision?

If there's no up-to-date scoresheet, OK. Otherwise consult the scoresheet first. But if only a couple of moves can be played before flag fall, as in the case under discussion, I would not give the draw - KR might have been annoyed by the claim and repeating moves to calm down before playing on. Or just plain annoyed. In my view, in this situation the arbiter is doing little more than guessing at what KR is doing, and should give KR the benefit of the doubt.

Simon Brown wrote:OK Alex.

Q & 5 v Q & 4. Q & 4 very short of time. Completely drawn, the extra pawn being doubled or backward. Arbiter tells Q & 5 that he has to try to make progress. He has a think, plays a few unproductive moves, then puts his Q en prise. You don't know if accidentally or on purpose. Q & 4 was moving very quickly, played a check, then about to go back to the original square, when he notices his Q would be en prise, and a split second after that realises that he missed the opportunity to take the Q. Q & 4 then blunders, allowing an exchange to a lost K&P ending.

You are the arbiter. What is your ruling?

[Bites lip with tension]

Of course, any other budding or actual arbiters are welcome to share their opinion.

Simon Brown wrote:OK Alex.

Q & 5 v Q & 4. Q & 4 very short of time. Completely drawn, the extra pawn being doubled or backward. Arbiter tells Q & 5 that he has to try to make progress. He has a think, plays a few unproductive moves, then puts his Q en prise. You don't know if accidentally or on purpose. Q & 4 was moving very quickly, played a check, then about to go back to the original square, when he notices his Q would be en prise, and a split second after that realises that he missed the opportunity to take the Q. Q & 4 then blunders, allowing an exchange to a lost K&P ending.

You are the arbiter. What is your ruling?

A lot going on there. To check the sequence of events:
(1) Q & 4 short of time and claims a 10.2 v Q & 5.
(2) Doubled pawn is backward, game appears drawn
(3) Q & 5 makes no progress, then leaves his Q en prise
(4) Q & 4 doesn't take it, so it remains Q & 5 v Q & 4
(5) Q & 4 blunders and is now lost, not drawn
(6) Now a won K & P ending.
(7) Q & 4's flag falls (which is missing from your sequence of events!)

So the game has progressed to the point where the expected result is completely different from the one when the claim was made. Specifically, it's gone from a drawn position to a win for Q & 5. Thus progress has been made and the game can be won by normal means, so the claimant would lose on time.

If (3) and (4) didn't happen, my decision would have been the same.

Alex Holowczak wrote: If you've not seen any of the prior game, then what decision can you make other than to defer your decision?

If the claimant is making a claim in a position which is completely lost, then you rule it a frivolous claim. Any other decision encourages a belief that draws can be claimed whenever less than two minutes remains on the clock, no matter how bad the position. At the very least, even if you decide to watch, you allow a reasonable number of moves to be played before awarding a draw. You don't award a draw just because of a solitary repetition.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote: If you've not seen any of the prior game, then what decision can you make other than to defer your decision?

If the claimant is making a claim in a position which is completely lost, then you rule it a frivolous claim. Any other decision encourages a belief that draws can be claimed whenever less than two minutes`remains on the clock, no matter how bad the position. At the very least, even if you decide to watch, you allow a reasonable number of moves to be played before awarding a draw. You don't award a draw just because of a solitary repetition.

Alas, this is what the ECF's Chief Arbiter says about the KR v K position. As I say, this is what the CAA course taught us. Maybe people should go an hound the people who set the course, and leave me to get on with the other things I'd planned this afternoon?

Roger de Coverly wrote:

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?

I don't think the lone King would always resign - it depends howmuch time the king and Rook has left, it would be fair to assume that they would not resign if the king plus rook only had a few seconds left and in those circumstances it is very possible the king plus rook would make inaccurate even stupid moves, so why should they be punished for doing so, when they are clearly winning, players make all sorts of strange moves when in extreme time pressure, sometimes just because they have to move while they work out their plan (NB last question not aimed at Roger whose comments I agree with above)

Alex, 7 didn't happen because Q & 4 resigned. But what if Q & 4's flag has fallen after 3, but before 4? Draw, according to your earlier post. Which of course is nonsense.

David Shepherd wrote:sometimes just because they have to move while they work out their plan.

So the moves you make in the mean time would not be making any progress.

If I have 1 minute on my clock and my opponent has 10 seconds, then with KR v K, I could probably do it in the time remaining, and have enough time to make moves that don't just repeat.

If I have 5 seconds on my clock and my opponent has 5 seconds on his clock, and it's KR v K and 20+ moves away from checkmate, I don't think either side could reasonably claim they weren't trying to win on time.

David Shepherd wrote: I don't think the lone King would always resign - it depends howmuch time the king and Rook has left

Of course and if it was K+P v K+R, the player with the rook has to consider whether he's playing for a win as well! That's one, by the way, that being claimed by the Rook should be granted automatically unless the pawn was about to queen.

I come on here for a bit of light relief before the 5pm time control and all i see is everyone giving Alex H a hard time.

Brilliant!!! Keep up the good work.

Self-inflicted though.