FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

[Alex Holowczak]

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.

Tsk. All chess players should know that "with the side with the rook to move, checkmate can be forced in at most sixteen moves from any starting position". Should all chess arbiters know that?

I imagine this would be running through the players minds when they have a combined 10 seconds remaining for the game...

[Christopher Kreuzer]

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.

Tsk. All chess players should know that "with the side with the rook to move, checkmate can be forced in at most sixteen moves from any starting position". Should all chess arbiters know that?

I imagine this would be running through the players minds when they have a combined 10 seconds remaining for the game...

In all seriousness, it might. It is useful to know both the minimum number of moves and the technique. Not so much with analogue clocks, but it is possible to handle digital clocks to within half a second or so. I would expect GMs in time trouble and approaching these sorts of positions to be familiar with the number of moves needed in certain basic positions, but those below that level less so.

[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?

This is a post from last year on another thread. Alex....oh Alex. Don't believe everything they tell you. Ask yourself why this rule was introduced and the real purpose of it. The most important things to remember are that the claimer should in no way benefit from having so little time left and that the opponent should be given the benefit of the doubt. If these 2 things are being ignored or trumped by the claimer's rights then something is going seriously wrong.

[E Michael White]

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......

Illegal moves, when either player had less than 5 minutes, would lose under the BCF Rapidplay rules in force from 1992 (or earlier) to 1997 and in the Birmingham area a little longer. See BCF year book 1993. This sounds likely to be the source of that one. Any former players around then, who have offspring playing now, are likely to have remembered the old rules and passed these down the line.

[Nick Thomas]

I have posted a proposed "fix" to the problems caused by 10.2 in the Chess Questions section.

[Alex Holowczak]

At the risk of reopening the abuse in my direction, I've just been on the phone and discussed this with a Senior Arbiter, which Adam requested earlier. He agreed with me on all three cases! He probably put it in better English than I did at the time, so to reiterate...

He agreed with me that:
(1) The KR v K situation is a draw, because KR isn't making progress, and has had the opportunity to do so.
(2) Q5 v Q4 is a draw, because Q5 made no effort to win the game, and if his Q is en prise when the flag falls, he's not trying to win the game by normal means because his Q is en prise. Indeed, he's unable to win by normal means if his Q gets taken.
(3) The situation with making two plans is different from situation (1), where it's quite acceptable to probe away with different plans within the 50-move rule. If the probing is unsuccessful, or at least unclear as to whether it'd succeed, it'd be a win on time. In (1), there was no probing to do. So the cases are different. Repetition of the position is fine in this case if it's part of probing a non-clear win.

At least I'm not going cuckoo, which I feared I was earlier.

[Nick Thomas]

At the risk of reopening the abuse in my direction, I've just been on the phone and discussed this with a Senior Arbiter, which Adam requested earlier. He agreed with me on all three cases! He probably put it in better English than I did at the time, so to reiterate...

He agreed with me that:
(1) The KR v K situation is a draw, because KR isn't making progress, and has had the opportunity to do so.
(2) Q5 v Q4 is a draw, because Q5 made no effort to win the game, and if his Q is en prise when the flag falls, he's not trying to win the game by normal means because his Q is en prise. Indeed, he's unable to win by normal means if his Q gets taken.
(3) The situation with making two plans is different from situation (1), where it's quite acceptable to probe away with different plans within the 50-move rule. If the probing is unsuccessful, or at least unclear as to whether it'd succeed, it'd be a win on time. In (1), there was no probing to do. So the cases are different. Repetition of the position is fine in this case if it's part of probing a non-clear win.

At least I'm not going cuckoo, which I feared I was earlier.

I haven't read the whole thread but please answer this. Why should a junior be deprived the opportunity of discovering the correct way of mating with K+R against K just because his opponent has used up more rather than less time? If I gave this position to 100 school children with limited talent/ability a significant minority would discover the winning plan (or stumble blindly into it) within 50 moves and win.

[Alex Holowczak]

At the risk of reopening the abuse in my direction, I've just been on the phone and discussed this with a Senior Arbiter, which Adam requested earlier. He agreed with me on all three cases! He probably put it in better English than I did at the time, so to reiterate...


He agreed with me that:
(1) The KR v K situation is a draw, because KR isn't making progress, and has had the opportunity to do so.
(2) Q5 v Q4 is a draw, because Q5 made no effort to win the game, and if his Q is en prise when the flag falls, he's not trying to win the game by normal means because his Q is en prise. Indeed, he's unable to win by normal means if his Q gets taken.
(3) The situation with making two plans is different from situation (1), where it's quite acceptable to probe away with different plans within the 50-move rule. If the probing is unsuccessful, or at least unclear as to whether it'd succeed, it'd be a win on time. In (1), there was no probing to do. So the cases are different. Repetition of the position is fine in this case if it's part of probing a non-clear win.

At least I'm not going cuckoo, which I feared I was earlier.

I haven't read the whole thread but please answer this. Why should a junior be deprived the opportunity of discovering the correct way of mating with K+R against K just because his opponent has used up more rather than less time? If I gave this position to 100 school children with limited talent/ability a significant minority would discover the winning plan (or stumble blindly into it) within 50 moves and win.

I believe we deviated from the subject of whether juniors were involved in the games or not.

I'd argue that a junior who can't do KR v K probably shouldn't be playing in a tournament that's using clocks anyway. Indeed, if the player is losing to someone who can't do KR v K, he almost certainly wouldn't claim a 10.2, because he wouldn't know what that is.

[Nick Thomas]

At the risk of reopening the abuse in my direction, I've just been on the phone and discussed this with a Senior Arbiter, which Adam requested earlier. He agreed with me on all three cases! He probably put it in better English than I did at the time, so to reiterate...


He agreed with me that:
(1) The KR v K situation is a draw, because KR isn't making progress, and has had the opportunity to do so.
(2) Q5 v Q4 is a draw, because Q5 made no effort to win the game, and if his Q is en prise when the flag falls, he's not trying to win the game by normal means because his Q is en prise. Indeed, he's unable to win by normal means if his Q gets taken.
(3) The situation with making two plans is different from situation (1), where it's quite acceptable to probe away with different plans within the 50-move rule. If the probing is unsuccessful, or at least unclear as to whether it'd succeed, it'd be a win on time. In (1), there was no probing to do. So the cases are different. Repetition of the position is fine in this case if it's part of probing a non-clear win.

At least I'm not going cuckoo, which I feared I was earlier.

I haven't read the whole thread but please answer this. Why should a junior be deprived the opportunity of discovering the correct way of mating with K+R against K just because his opponent has used up more rather than less time? If I gave this position to 100 school children with limited talent/ability a significant minority would discover the winning plan (or stumble blindly into it) within 50 moves and win.

I believe we deviated from the subject of whether juniors were involved in the games or not.

I'd argue that a junior who can't do KR v K probably shouldn't be playing in a tournament that's using clocks anyway. Indeed, if the player is losing to someone who can't do KR v K, he almost certainly wouldn't claim a 10.2, because he wouldn't know what that is.

Slippery but insufficient. If you can't answer the question directly then something is seriously wrong with the rule or your interpretation of it. You will see juniors who couldn't easily mate with K+R under pressure in the Under 10 WJCC in November which you are organiseing and others in the same section who would have a crack at invoking 10.2.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'd argue that a junior who can't do KR v K probably shouldn't be playing in a tournament that's using clocks anyway. Indeed, if the player is losing to someone who can't do KR v K, he almost certainly wouldn't claim a 10.2, because he wouldn't know what that is.

Why then does the CAA cite it as an example where a draw should be awarded? Doesn't that just encourage frivolous claims? The fundamental question remains. Why do you penalise a player for poor moves in a winning position just because his opponent is short of time?

[Alex Holowczak]

Slippery but insufficient. If you can't answer the question directly then something is seriously wrong with the rule or your interpretation of it. You will see juniors who couldn't easily mate with K+R under pressure in the Under 10 WJCC in November which you are organiseing and others in the same section who would have a crack at invoking 10.2.

Which is why the Under 10s didn't have a clock last year. So there was no such situation where a 10.2 could arise. It is this year because some of the stronger Under 10s complained.

The direct answer to the question is that it would be awarded as a draw, because whether they know the mating pattern or not, they're not making progress towards it.

[Nick Thomas]

Slippery but insufficient. If you can't answer the question directly then something is seriously wrong with the rule or your interpretation of it. You will see juniors who couldn't easily mate with K+R under pressure in the Under 10 WJCC in November which you are organiseing and others in the same section who would have a crack at invoking 10.2.

Which is why the Under 10s didn't have a clock last year. So there was no such situation where a 10.2 could arise. It is this year because some of the stronger Under 10s complained.

The direct answer to the question is that it would be awarded as a draw, because whether they know the mating pattern or not, they're not making progress towards it.

The question is:" Why should a junior be deprived the opportunity of discovering the correct way of mating with K+R against K just because his opponent has used up more rather than less time"

[Alex Holowczak]

The question is:" Why should a junior be deprived the opportunity of discovering the correct way of mating with K+R against K just because his opponent has used up more rather than less time"

He doesn't need to know how to do KR v K to win on time. If he doesn't repeat moves, the 10.2 claim will fail. It's only the repetition of moves that causes the claim to succeed. If he doesn't repeat moves, he's making progress, be it towards checkmate, or a doomed attempt to checkmate.

[Nick Thomas]

The question is:" Why should a junior be deprived the opportunity of discovering the correct way of mating with K+R against K just because his opponent has used up more rather than less time"

He doesn't need to know how to do KR v K to win on time. If he doesn't repeat moves, the 10.2 claim will fail. It's only the repetition of moves that causes the claim to succeed. If he doesn't repeat moves, he's making progress, be it towards checkmate, or a doomed attempt to checkmate.

I'll try a different question. Do you see something wrong with a junior or a relative beginner having less chance of winning a game of chess if his opponent has less time on the clock rather than more.

[Roger de Coverly]

If he doesn't repeat moves, the 10.2 claim will fail. .

In the normal Laws of Chess, repetition of position has to occur three times for a draw claim to succeed. Why does the CAA guidance invent rules by awarding a draw if a position has only occurred twice? If you have any respect for your opponent and a King against King and Rook, you resign anyway provided your opponent has a sensible amount of time remaining. I don't think arbiters should encourage frivolous claims in lost positions and award draws based on a curious interpretation of making progress.