Claiming a draw with less than 2 minutes on clock.

[David Haydon]

I had a match on Wednesday in the london league. Our position had only just reached king and rook vs king and bishop. I had the rook and I was black. As soon as we got to the endgame my opponent immediately claimed a draw. And at the same time his flag fell. Regardless of that what are the rules if an arbiter is present. I always thought the opponent has to prove his opponent is not trying to win the game by normal means ( let's say 20 moves) before the arbiter and the opponent can claim a draw.

Thoughts on this please?

[IM Jack Rudd]

He may claim at any point between 2 and 0 minutes on his clock, but his flag must be up when he makes the claim.

The arbiter may immediately accept or reject the claim, or postpone his decision and ask the players to play on. Once the flag is down, the arbiter must give a decision; the benefit of the doubt should normally go to the opponent of the claimant.

[David Haydon]

So how would that be accomplished when an arbiter is not present? I find it strange that there are no clear cut answers, apart from the fact that it the decision is completely left with the arbiter - even though there is a possibility it may be a biased/wrong decision.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Thoughts on this please?

In the circumstances that you describe - i.e. that the draw was claimed as soon as the ending was reached - you should be awarded the point.

The fact that the position is a theoretical draw (I assume - some RvBs are wins as I’m sure you know) is irrelevant. He has to prove he knows how to draw it. It’s perfectly possible to lose KR v KB if you don’t know what you’re doing (and even if you do).

Whether you *will* be awarded the point is another matter.

[Roger de Coverly]

In the circumstances that you describe - i.e. that the draw was claimed as soon as the ending was reached - you should be awarded the point..

I would have thought the relevant point being that the flag fell before making the claim. If he claims with the flag standing, then according to the Appendix G rules of the Laws of Chess, with no arbiter deemed present, the game ceases. In practice in "friendly" leagues players and teams will attempt to agree the result. The requirement of the Laws of Chess being that the position goes to an external arbiter. (Article G6)

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article

G.6

The following shall apply when the competition is not supervised by an arbiter:

A player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.
He may claim on the basis:
that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or
that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.
In (1) the player must write down the final position and his opponent must verify it.
In (2) the player must write down the final position and submit an up-to-date scoresheet. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.
The claim shall be referred to the designated arbiter.

Personally I've always thought that it doesn't matter how much effort was being made to win if it wasn't possible in the first place.

The London League may well have its own interpretations, one of them being that the changes made 1st July 2014 were deferred.

So perhaps the older version of these rules would apply, the notorious 10.2.

These also are at the FIDE site,
http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... ew=article

from which

D. Quickplay finishes where no arbiter is present in the venue

D.1


Where games are played as in Article 10, a player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.
He may claim on the basis:

that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or
that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.

In a) the player must write down the final position and his opponent verify it.
In b) the player must write down the final position and submit an up to date scoresheet. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.
The claim shall be referred to an arbiter whose decision shall be final.

These say exactly the same except under the new Rules, there can be an appeal.


The point though is that Appendix G/ 10.2 doesn't apply, as it's necessary for the flag to be standing to make a claim.

(edit) To remove comment about Rook v Knight. Isn't Rook v Bishop even more drawn? (/edit)

[Jonathan Bryant]

Personally I've always thought that it doesn't matter how much effort was being made to win if it wasn't possible in the first place.

Yes, but that’s because you define "possible" as "possible assuming best possible defence at all times" which is, with all due respect, absurd.

Of course, it’s perfectly possible to lose drawn rook v knight positions. De la Villa has an example of Bacrot doing exactly that in 2006.

Anyhoo, what you or I think the laws of chess "should" be is rather irrelevant.

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes, but that’s because you define "possible" as "possible assuming best possible defence at all times" which is, with all due respect, absurd.

I don't think it absurd in the slightest. If you reach a drawn Rook and Pawn ending and you defend adequately, it shouldn't matter how much your opponent huffs and puffs. Similarly with Rook v Knight or Rook v Bishop.

[Jonathan Bryant]

If you reach a drawn Rook and Pawn ending and you defend adequately, it shouldn't matter how much your opponent huffs and puffs.

Maybe it shouldn’t. But it *does*.

E.g.
http://www.streathambrixtonchess.blogsp ... it-ii.html

[David Haydon]

I don't think it absurd in the slightest. If you reach a drawn Rook and Pawn ending and you defend adequately, it shouldn't matter how much your opponent huffs and puffs. Similarly with Rook v Knight or Rook v Bishop.[/quote]

Of course it's absurd, there is a reason why there is a rating scale. You can't say that he would have defended like a computer for instance, especially given the circumstances. Why would a 150 lose against a 200 in a drawn endgame? Because the 200 is superior and would play the endgame much better than the 150.

As for saying it's not really possible to win a rook vs knight or rook vs bishop is absolutely ridiculous to say the least. Many strong/even super GM's have lost in one.

Chess is decided my inaccuracies like anything really, the less inaccuracies the more chance you'll win. Why not prove that your not going to make those inaccuracies by playing on if you think your position certainly can't be lost? Such confidence ey?

[Ian Thompson]

Yes, but that’s because you define "possible" as "possible assuming best possible defence at all times" which is, with all due respect, absurd.

I don't think it absurd in the slightest. If you reach a drawn Rook and Pawn ending and you defend adequately, it shouldn't matter how much your opponent huffs and puffs. Similarly with Rook v Knight or Rook v Bishop.

What you're saying is that if you defend a position accurately for 10 or 20 moves, or however many it happens to be, it should be assumed that you can do that for 30, 40 or 50 moves. The trouble with that is that if you have a look in a database you will find thousands of examples of players who have managed the former, but not the latter, some of them very strong players.

[Roger de Coverly]

What you're saying is that if you defend a position accurately for 10 or 20 moves, or however many it happens to be, it should be assumed that you can do that for 30, 40 or 50 moves.

Throwing this to arbiters, suppose that you are asked to make a decision on a position where a claim has been made of "unable to win by normal means" without an arbiter being present. To what extent, if at all, are the absolute or relative grades or ratings of the two players relevant? Be careful, because a position drawn with ease in a GM v GM encounter might not be the same if both players are 150s.

[Richard Bates]

Well, you could take it all the way to the Supreme Court and you might get a win on the letter of the law.

Or...

you could concede that the position is pretty much a dead draw in reality and agree the result as such. Especially with it being irrelevant to the overall match result.

Of course situations like this illustrate the unsatisfactory nature of quickplay finishes, and are evident justification for individuals who opt for adjournments in preference. I think for quickplay finishes to exist without often descending into dispute, especially without arbiters, it needs a bit of give and take by the players. Personally the moment the game looks like it will be essentially decided by the clock i tend to look for excuses to agree a draw as soon as possible. And realistically you only lose RvB due to the clock.

[Jonathan Bryant]

And realistically you only lose RvB due to the clock.

Even if it were me playing you, Richard? I think not. I could lose that without clock assistance.


Either way, "You can have a draw when you want one/think you should have one if you have two minutes or less on your clock" is not the rule is it?

[Roger de Coverly]

Either way, "You can have a draw when you want one/think you should have one if you have two minutes or less on your clock" is not the rule is it?

It is my view that Leagues conducted in the spirit that Appendix G claims of draws in drawn positions are accepted without a quibble are the better for it. This is from an out of London perspective where adjournments and adjudications were abolished many years ago.

[Richard Bates]

And realistically you only lose RvB due to the clock.

Even if it were me playing you, Richard? I think not. I could lose that without clock assistance.


Either way, "You can have a draw when you want one/think you should have one if you have two minutes or less on your clock" is not the rule is it?

Yes i would agree a draw with RvB "even with you". Although if you don't think you could draw it regardless of the clock perhaps you should look it up!

"Either way", part of the point of my post was that "the rule" is pretty unworkable in evening league chess without neutral arbiters present. And anyway it never works in the situation where the defender has so little time that they aren't able to 'demonstrate they know how to draw it'. But personally if i'm confident they'll draw it, that's usually going to be good enough for me. I'll offer the draw before they have the opportunity to make a claim. Others can take a different approach, of course. Although don't be surprised if they run into the same opponent again and they find them opting for the adjournment option.

I'm genuine when i say i don't like games decided essentially by the clock. So i'll be generous granting draws in drawn positions when opponents are short of time, and will usually seek a peaceable conclusion in situations where both players are down to their last few minutes of the quickplay finish and the result becomes essentially random. I can't recall being involved in a third party involved draw claim since i was about 12. Maybe i've been lucky or maybe the two are not unrelated.