Richard,Richard Bates wrote:If the first position should be given a loss in these circumstances, then any club player would be idiotic to make a claim under the laws in any situation bar one where the alternative is that they are going to lose on time in the next few seconds. Personally i would have thought that "drawn ... bar utterly moronic play" was a subset of "can't win by normal means" rather than the other way around!Paul McKeown wrote:
In the first I would require play to continue otb and hence be minded to reject the claim in the absence of an arbiter; although perhaps drawish there is certainly scope for trying to win by either side. If the claim was that Black made no attempt to win by normal means and the score sheet simply showed mindless shuffling for the previous half dozen or more moves (Bh1-d5-a8-b7-a8-c6-d5 that sort of stuff) then I would however consider the case proven, in which case draw. In all other situations loss, but with a certain heavy heart, it should be drawn if played out, bar utterly moronic play.
I agree that "cannot win by normal means" and "drawn ... bar utterly moronic play" are closely related. However, the convention with 10.2 claims is that, if possible, the arbiter should be shown convincing play that demonstrates the futility of yet further play. Obviously if lack of time precludes this, then with a claim in the absence of arbiter, unlike in the normal otb case in the presence of arbiter, a decision cannot be postponed and a draw retrospectively awarded after flag fall. In which case it would certainly help to be provided with this information (e.g. "22 seconds left or less than half a minute"). A score sheet demonstrating futility with at least half a dozen pointless shuffling moves would also make the case.
Obviously, if I made the claim and my opponent didn't simply shake my hand in agreement of the matter, then I would feel a little aggrieved!