EPSCA two minute rule

[Roger de Coverly]

Something mentioned by Phil Ehr on the Junior Director candidates debate thread.

The ECF’s most important ‘governing’ function is to uphold the Laws of Chess, resisting deviations that make English chess unique from the international standard. Conversely, if we believe a law needs to change for the benefit of children, we should work within FIDE to amend the Laws. EPSCA’s two-minute rule comes to mind as an example of an anomaly that risks our children growing up to think that they won’t necessarily lose on time like the rest of the world. .

10.2 and how it should be interpreted is a frequent subject for discussion on this board. In what way does the EPSCA interpretation differ from that of International and British arbiters? We should bear in mind the strange interpretation already held by some British arbiters that playing inexact moves in a totally won position can cause a draw to be awarded.

[Richard Bates]

I assume this is they:

http://www.epsca.org.uk/rules/epscaquickplayrules06.pdf

Declared Draw
14. A player may claim a draw during the last two minutes on his clock and before his own flag falls. He should offer a draw to his opponent. If it is refused, he must stop the clocks and summon the Arbiter. The Arbiter may then, or subsequently, declare the game drawn if he is satisfied that the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means. The Arbiter may declare the game drawn even after the claimant’s flag has fallen. If the Arbiter considers the claim invalid he may award extra time to the opponent.

15. After a draw has been claimed, the fact that the opponent has mating material does not necessarily mean that he will be awarded a win on time.

Guidance for Players who are short of time (less than 2 mins)
1. If you play for a win, you risk losing, unless your opponent has a bare king.
2. If you are holding a position so that your opponent cannot make progress, offer him a draw. If he rejects the offer, summon the Arbiter.
3. If you wish to claim that your opponent is not making progress, do so immediately you have only two minutes left. Any later and the Arbiter may not be able to observe enough moves to make a decision.

Only material difference i can see is the lack of any reference to the opponent receiving extra time for an incorrect claim, or postponed decision. Whether the rule is interpreted differently in practice is another matter. I'm not sure about the reference to "children believing they can get a draw after their flag has fallen - that can happen under FIDE laws as well i assume".

[Roger de Coverly]

Only material difference i can see is the lack of any reference to the opponent receiving extra time for an incorrect claim, or postponed decision. Whether the rule is interpreted differently in practice is another matter. I'm not sure about the reference to "children believing they can get a draw after their flag has fallen - that can happen under FIDE laws as well i assume".

I can almost see the point.

15. After a draw has been claimed, the fact that the opponent has mating material does not necessarily mean that he will be awarded a win on time.

So you don't win with a won position. I can see why that might lead to coaches instructing children to claim a draw regardless when two minutes remains.

I think this is an undesirable interpretation by British arbiters in general and not specific to EPSCA. I don't think it correct to award a draw in a won position until repetition or a fifty move rule breach is imminent. For the sake of argument you have Knight and Bishop with an arbiter watching. You spend fifteen moves not getting anywhere while you struggle to recall one of the winning methods. With the theoretical distance to mate still within thirty five moves, the arbiter awards a draw. Should they be allowed to do this? Personally I think not.

[Richard Bates]

Only material difference i can see is the lack of any reference to the opponent receiving extra time for an incorrect claim, or postponed decision. Whether the rule is interpreted differently in practice is another matter. I'm not sure about the reference to "children believing they can get a draw after their flag has fallen - that can happen under FIDE laws as well i assume".

I can almost see the point.

15. After a draw has been claimed, the fact that the opponent has mating material does not necessarily mean that he will be awarded a win on time.

So you don't win with a won position. I can see why that might lead to coaches instructing children to claim a draw regardless when two minutes remains.

It doesn't say "won position". It says "mating material". ie. it is saying that if a player has claimed a draw the opponent needs something more than "mating material" to definitely get a win eg. K+p(R) v K. Or alternatively in a scenario where it may be the person who is better/winning making the claim in a non-trivial position. Maybe some sort of pawn race where the opponent of the claimant doesn't bother to push their pawns and the claimant is a queen up when their flag falls. And as more pieces appear it gets more complex. But this is no different to FIDE laws - there is nothing distinct about the EPSCA rules here from what i can see. It is just emphasising the point that once a claim has been made the arbiter doesn't have to make a decision prior to flag fall.

[Alex Holowczak]

This sounds like they've tried to rewrite 10.2 so that A Parent can help out at a local-stage event, which may be necessary in some areas.

[E Michael White]

Without going into detail, the rules Richard Bates appends are 98% the BCF Tournament rules from 1995, including the BCF chief arbiter's advice to players and arbiters, with modifications for some but not all later FIDE changes. These rules were sometimes referred to as BCF Rules For Events Played under its Auspices. Obviously it has been changed to reflect the name ECF. The current FIDE rules do not have similar advice to arbiters and many ECF arbiters are still influenced by the out of date advice.

This situation is a similar to the MCCU rules discussed on this forum by Sean H ( will Sean moderate this bit out !) and AH where similar reference to out of date rules occurred. It is very common in chess organisations to take the latest version of rules, add a few bits and post this as the local organisations rules; Ok until the referenced rules change.

The EPSCA used to have a 25 move rule instead of the 50 move rules, maybe they still do.

Its very important that both adult and junior chess should sing from the same rule book. Unfortunately arbiters like their bit of power and often make up their own rules. Children get very upset if one week they are told one rule and another week a different version so Phil Ehr makes a very good point.

[John Upham]

An amusing example of "different rules for junior chess" is the counting up on points method of deciding UKCC games in some cases.

When I first started running UKCC in various schools I was told by my predecessor that in the case of unfinished games then if the points difference was more than 3 then that would decide the result.

I said what happens if one player has sacced a piece to give mate but the other player refuses to move sitting on the extra points?

Needless to say, I do not employ this nonsense.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"When I first started running UKCC in various schools I was told by my predecessor that in the case of unfinished games then if the points difference was more than 3 then that would decide the result."

I fell foul of an extension to this in a simul against a school some years ago - I played a brilliant queen sacrifice that would have led to mate in a few moves. The board had been cleared when I next came round, so I was impressed that he had seen the mate. I found out later that he had told the teacher he was a queen up and therefore he had won! Nobody told me the rule until we finished, otherwise I would have quickly claimed all the games where I was a piece up in the opening.

I don't see why EPSCA should use a different two minute rule from anyone else. It just causes problems if the players later play in a proper event.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't see why EPSCA should use a different two minute rule from anyone else. It just causes problems if the players later play in a proper event.

You don't always spot what's not there. In the extract quoted by Richard Bates, the notion of a claim that the position cannot be won by normal means is completely missing. In adult play I would hope that there's a general convention that you only offer/claim a draw with less than two minutes remaining when the game is completely winning but you offer a draw because of time pressure or where the game is totally drawn or not possible for the opponent to win.

Any notion that you should only claim under those circumstances seems to be missing from the EPSCA material. I think it's very possible for the EPSCA guidelines to be interpreted in such a way as to demand a higher standard of play from a player whose opponent is down to two minutes left than where both players have plenty of time remaining.

(edit) The EPSCA rules are at http://www.epsca.org.uk/rules/epscaquickplayrules06.pdf

There a piece of philosophy there with which I disagree.

The onus is on the player to win in the time limit.

In quickplay I think you have to accept that it's a win for the player who plays more quickly and part of the sporting ethos of playing without an increment. 10.2 and similar rules should only be regarded as a back-up against completely ridiculous results. If you don't want this, then play with an increment.

So if you have more time in a non-trivial position where winning chances are available for both players, it should be legitimate to just regroup pieces and probe for possible breakthroughs. In other words anything that could cause your opponent to use time. (/edit)

[Kevin Thurlow]

"The EPSCA rules are at http://www.epsca.org.uk/rules/epscaquickplayrules06.pdf"

Hmm, yes... I don't see why you should necessarily win within the time-limit, if the opponent is slowing down in an attempt to claim a draw.

"So if you have more time in a non-trivial position where winning chances are available for both players, it should be legitimate to just regroup pieces and probe for possible breakthroughs. In other words anything that could cause your opponent to use time."

I quite agree - I recall a game against Mark Hebden many years ago, which was level for a long time, he kept playing and regrouped a bit until I made an error, and he pounced. It's part of the game.

EPSCA QP rules say "The Arbiter will award a draw only if: the
player with time left doesn’t have mating material, or is making no attempt
to win, or is forced to defend with no possibility of attack, or the
position is a normally accepted draw, or so blocked that which ever
player tries to break out will lose."

And the definition of "normally accepted draw" is?

[Roger de Coverly]

And the definition of "normally accepted draw" is?

Is this a reference to positions that are "obviously" drawn? Many opposite colour Bishop endings for example. K and pawn against K with the defender on the correct squares. Bishop and wrong colour rook's pawn. King, Rook and Pawn v King and Rook, again with the King and Rook on the best defensive squares.

I'd think though that once the defence becomes "difficult", you might give the attacker the benefit of the doubt. So King, Rook and Bishop against King and Rook would be a problematic call if the defender ran out of time.

or is making no attempt to win,

That's the part of the rule which needs to be trimmed back. Just because the arbiter is watching shouldn't mean that play has to be more accurate. It's fine to declare a draw if it would arise by the fifty move rule or repetition, but not for sub optimal play.