FIDE Rule 10.2 misconceptions

[John Upham]

At a recently attended AGM I heard understandings of FIDE rule 10.2 which I found somewhat disturbing.

The most disturbing was one which went something like this :

"If I am up on material and I have two minutes or less left on my clock then I would expect to be able to claim a draw under FIDE rule 10.2"

More or less suggesting that the above players opponents is morally obliged to offer a draw and even if he / she didn't then a draw claim would be accepted.

It was correctly pointed out that although up on material the first player may either be about to be mated or face a promotion from his / her opponent.

Another disturbing view was that FIDE rule 10.2 was, in some way, an adjudication scenario.

All of this was being used to justify Team Captains not being permitted to act as arbiters.
I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry!

[Paul McKeown]

It never fails to depress me when people start inventing their own rules of chess...

[Roger de Coverly]

If I am up on material and I have two minutes or less left on my clock then I would expect to be able to claim a draw under FIDE rule 10.2

As I was the one who said this, could I clarify that it's a two stage process?

(1) I make a very generous draw offer not least because I'm short of time. It doesn't have to be up on material just seriously better.
(2) My opponent turns it down.

This to my mind is clear evidence that he's only attempting to win on time and thus supports a 10.2 claim. It's quite vital for the practical player to have clarity on this issue since it affects how you play the game earlier on. Part of the general acceptance of giving up adjudication and adjournments in favour of quick play finishes is that completely ridiculous results are prevented.

If I could quote from the Scottish arbiter's guidance

http://www.chessscotland.com/csinfo/arbguide.htm

(f) This claim procedure must be set in motion by a player (say White) who has less than two minutes left on the clock.
(1) If White is clearly superior and Black has no significant counterplay then the Arbiter would be likely to declare the game drawn immediately.

So do you disagree with this?

[Alex Holowczak]

(f) This claim procedure must be set in motion by a player (say White) who has less than two minutes left on the clock.
(1) If White is clearly superior and Black has no significant counterplay then the Arbiter would be likely to declare the game drawn immediately.

So do you disagree with this?

Personally, yes.

Define "clearly superior" and "significant counterplay". One arbiter's definition might vary from another's.

If white has less than two minutes left on the clock, what if black also has less than two minutes left on the clock?

Indeed, the black player might have played quicker, and hence be losing, in order to avoid running out of time.

In my opinion, if you have x minutes to complete the game, you should finish the game within those x minutes. There should be no dispensation in this sort of situation. You're basically giving white more time (in this case). There might as well be a rule saying "You can spend more than x minutes for your game, so long as you're winning in the x - 1th minute, in which case, you'll get a draw." It defeats the whole object of the clock.

[John Upham]

There appears to be a strategy developing amongst some players who do not like a guillotine type finish of letting their clock run down, they stop recording and hope to bale out with a 10.2 claim.

Indeed, amongst less informed players this is known as "The Two Minute Rule".

In a local league match a lowly rated player got down to 2 minutes, got up and announced the game drawn under the "two minute rule".

This nonsense needs to be snuffed out.

[Roger de Coverly]

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.

[IM Jack Rudd]

In my opinion, if you have x minutes to complete the game, you should finish the game within those x minutes. There should be no dispensation in this sort of situation. You're basically giving white more time (in this case). There might as well be a rule saying "You can spend more than x minutes for your game, so long as you're winning in the x - 1th minute, in which case, you'll get a draw." It defeats the whole object of the clock.

The object of the clock is to ensure that games don't last for arbitrarily long amounts of time. This was a direct reaction to a number of games in the 19th century in which some players thought for hours over single moves.

The clock brought an end to that, but it created its own problem: people who couldn't seriously play the position they'd reached for a win, but who were trying to win the game by just carrying on playing until their opponents ran out of time.

There are two ways to deal with that: either you never have a quickplay finish (Fischer timings, Bronstein timings, time controls such as 36/90 +24/60 thereafter) or you bring in a rule like 10.2 - allowing people to claim draws on the basis of their opponent's not trying to win over the board, or having no practical way to play to win over the board.

10.2, incidentally, is a kludge, but it's not totally outside the scope of what else is in the laws. It's similar to the Threefold Repetition Rule and the Fifty-Move Rule in its general intention: to allow a game to be stopped when no progress is being made.

[Alex Holowczak]

My argument is that just one rule, saying "When a player has exceeded the time limit for the game, he loses" would be better, unless the opponent has no legal mate position, in which case I think it should be a draw. It would save the requirement of a rule with vague or potentially ambiguous words in it.

In the situation you describe, if the player with 6P can't finish the player with 5P off in his 5 minutes, then he should lose. He should have played quicker earlier in the game to store time in reserve for such an occurrence.

Personally, I can't see what the problem of trying to win on time is. In my opinion, if you're K & 2R v K & P, and you run out of time, tough. You should have played quicker earlier in the game.

Of course, the whole problem is solved if you have an incremental time control, rather than a finite time control. Since some digital clocks are cheaper than analogue equivalents now, I think in the future digital clocks will be used more universally. Then incremental time controls can be used, and this problem won't exist.

[Alex Holowczak]

In my opinion, if you have x minutes to complete the game, you should finish the game within those x minutes. There should be no dispensation in this sort of situation. You're basically giving white more time (in this case). There might as well be a rule saying "You can spend more than x minutes for your game, so long as you're winning in the x - 1th minute, in which case, you'll get a draw." It defeats the whole object of the clock.

The object of the clock is to ensure that games don't last for arbitrarily long amounts of time. This was a direct reaction to a number of games in the 19th century in which some players thought for hours over single moves.

In which case, I disagree with the point of the clock. I think it should be used as a time limit in which all moves should be made, because I think that's the assumption that most people will make. It's also the assumption that casual observers of the game will make.

[IM Jack Rudd]

In my opinion, if you have x minutes to complete the game, you should finish the game within those x minutes. There should be no dispensation in this sort of situation. You're basically giving white more time (in this case). There might as well be a rule saying "You can spend more than x minutes for your game, so long as you're winning in the x - 1th minute, in which case, you'll get a draw." It defeats the whole object of the clock.

The object of the clock is to ensure that games don't last for arbitrarily long amounts of time. This was a direct reaction to a number of games in the 19th century in which some players thought for hours over single moves.

In which case, I disagree with the point of the clock. I think it should be used as a time limit in which all moves should be made, because I think that's the assumption that most people will make. It's also the assumption that casual observers of the game will make.

It is a time limit in which all moves should be made. Invoking 10.2 can take you out of the time control altogether, which is a separate thing.

[Roger de Coverly]

In the situation you describe, if the player with 6P can't finish the player with 5P off in his 5 minutes, then he should lose. He should have played quicker earlier in the game to store time in reserve for such an occurrence.

Personally, I can't see what the problem of trying to win on time is. In my opinion, if you're K & 2R v K & P, and you run out of time, tough. You should have played quicker earlier in the game.

Here's a quote from the forum of the Mid Sussex league, one of the last bastions of adjudication. http://www.midsussexchess.org.uk/

From the other side those who opt for QPF need to understand what is within the rules, and so not accuse others of being unsporting lightly. For example if you agree QPF, you accept the role of the clock and your opponent is perfectly entitled to play on in a lost position if there may be insufficient time to convert it. However if you offer him/her a draw and it is turned down, you quite properly can feel it unsporting. But a draw claim will probably be available as an antedote.

Many players would share the view that it's unsporting to turn down a draw offer when you are totally lost.

[Alex Holowczak]

Many players would share the view that it's unsporting to turn down a draw offer when you are totally lost.

Well, yes. But if you're about to lose on time, I don't agree that it is "totally lost", because you might win on time. I don't think it would be "unsporting", personally.

I will admit that I'm in the minority (probably of one) on this issue though.

[E Michael White]

Many players would share the view that it's unsporting to turn down a draw offer when you are totally lost.

I will admit that I'm in the minority (probably of one) on this issue though.

You’re not in a minority of 1; its at least 2.

I used to agree with R De C's point of view and now I agree with yours as the least all round evils. The biggest scourge in this situation is different arbiters deciding similar situations in different ways - your view gets around this and if everyone knew in advance they can adjust their play accordingly.

Its like the nonsense over mobiles a few years ago when some said it was unsporting to claim and local League committees ruled against the FIDE rules and still sent in games for ECF rating when not played to FIDE rules.

[Peter Shaw]

I think 10.2 is a far smaller issue than it's made out to be. I've only ever had one game which has involved a 10.2 claim (out of over 1300 I've played under quickplay finsh rules), and my games tend to go on longer than average. I am the last game to finish in probably half the matches I play.

I've seen some arguments against moving from adjournments/adjudications to quickplay finishes because of the 10.2 rule, but that's just nonsense. I'd rather have 1 game in 1000 be the subject of a 10.2 claim than half my games get adjudicated!

My argument is that just one rule, saying "When a player has exceeded the time limit for the game, he loses" would be better, unless the opponent has no legal mate position, in which case I think it should be a draw. It would save the requirement of a rule with vague or potentially ambiguous words in it.

In the situation you describe, if the player with 6P can't finish the player with 5P off in his 5 minutes, then he should lose. He should have played quicker earlier in the game to store time in reserve for such an occurrence.

Personally, I can't see what the problem of trying to win on time is. In my opinion, if you're K & 2R v K & P, and you run out of time, tough. You should have played quicker earlier in the game.

My one game that did involve 10.2 was like this: I was white with Kf4 vs Kf6+Pf5, with about one minute left. We played about a dozen moves from that position, at the end of which his pawn was still on f5. I claimed a draw which was given since he was obviously making no attempt to make progress. Under your rule I might as well resign such a position since he can just play on until my flag falls. I think I prefer the rules as they are!

[Alex Holowczak]

Under your rule I might as well resign such a position since he can just play on until my flag falls.

50-move rule. Or three-fold repetition.