Alex Holowczak wrote:Define "clearly superior" and "significant counterplay". One arbiter's definition might vary from another's.
Ok you have Rook, 6 pawns and 5 minutes. You are facing a Rook, 5 pawns and 15 minutes. You have the chance to force a draw by repetition or play on to overcome the defence . Do you take the draw? It depends a bit on whether you think you would be awarded a draw if you got to Rook + 2 against Rook + 1.
To repeat the point, if in a position where with equal time both players are fully aware that the only likely results are a win or a draw, that a draw offer by the "winning" player should be accepted. Many players would automatically accept the offer in those circumstances. I think a draw declined should give rise to a valid 10.2 claim . In 5 minute chess, there's generally no possibility of a claim, in longer forms of chess there should be.
If there's any real doubt about the position, you don't give the draw. The sort of position I'm thinking about is say where white pawns are on f4 and e3, black pawn on f5, white king on f3 and black king on f6. Rooks say , white on a3 and black on b6. Clearly white can play e3-e4 and force Black to defend a (probably) drawn ending which can be looked up in the tablebases. Equally white could just faff about with his rook. White offers a draw. If Black declines why would you deny a 10.2 claim? If it was Black making the draw claim, the ruling is much more difficult.
There are still players and leagues that have difficulty in accepting the notion that games should be played to a finish. If you don't give reasonable protection against ridiculous results, they will insist on keeping their adjudications and adjournments.