Draw Claims!

[MichaelBaron]

In the blitz marathon Yesterday I reached the following position against David Beaumont (I was black)

W. Kf1 Ra2
B. Kg4 Rb4 p.f4

I had about a min left and David had 2 seconds...and he claimed a draw...to my great surprise the arbiter said that his claim was legitimate as the position was technically drawn!!!. So can you claim a draw in such positions where draw can be achieved with ''best play'' only???

[Kevin Bonham]

Not under the FIDE laws but I do not know whether the MCC events make any claim to be conducted under them.

Firstly in blitz you can only claim a draw under 10.2 if there is "adequate supervision", which means that there has been one arbiter per game from the start. I greatly doubt that was the case in this instance.

Secondly even if white was allowed to claim, the position being technically drawn (which this was) is not sufficient reason to uphold a draw claim. The position must be very easy to hold, such that the opponent cannot win by "normal means" and is relying on flagfall or an implausible blunder for their winning chances. I would not consider awarding a draw with KR against KRP (excluding rook's pawn perhaps) unless I had observed the game for a long time and seen that the opponent was mucking about trying to win on time or that the defender clearly knew exactly how to hold the position.

It's blitz, white is a minute and a pawn behind, why should he get a draw just because he has reached a technically drawn position, unless he has proven that he will draw this position?

[Bill Gletsos]

In the blitz marathon Yesterday I reached the following position against David Beaumont (I was black)

W. Kf1 Ra2
B. Kg4 Rb4 p.f4

I had about a min left and David had 2 seconds...and he claimed a draw...to my great surprise the arbiter said that his claim was legitimate as the position was technically drawn!!!. So can you claim a draw in such positions where draw can be achieved with ''best play'' only???

No.
The arbiter was wrong.
Who was the arbiter?

FEN Viewer

[antichrist]

whose move is it?

[Keong Ang]

In the blitz marathon Yesterday I reached the following position against David Beaumont (I was black)

W. Kf1 Ra2
B. Kg4 Rb4 p.f4

I had about a min left and David had 2 seconds...and he claimed a draw...to my great surprise the arbiter said that his claim was legitimate as the position was technically drawn!!!. So can you claim a draw in such positions where draw can be achieved with ''best play'' only???

Draw? On what grounds???
Article10.2 does not apply for blitz games that does not have adequate supervision (one arbiter per board).

Which rulebook was the arbiter following in awarding the draw anyway? Based on info provided, certainly not FIDE Laws of Chess.

[MichaelBaron]

No.
The arbiter was wrong.
Who was the arbiter?

FEN Viewer

Lets' keep the arbiter's name secret - instead I will tell him via Facebook to take a look at this thread

[Jesper Norgaard]

That draw shouldn't even be given on a 10.2 claim in a classic game!! Or in a rapid game.

The arbiter might consider to postpone a 10.2 decision if it had not been blitz. 1.Ra3! should probably clinch a theoretically drawn position though, as Baron is surely aware of, although it would matter little with 2 seconds on the clock. But put in 1.Ra1?,Kg3! and I think black is totally winning (threat f3 and Rh4).

Without f-pawn, still no draw in blitz. That's what I want to change by the way, but that is another story.

[Capablanca-Fan]

If it were a game where 10.2 applied (unlike blitz), then surely the superior side should be able to try to "win by normal means" for a few moves anyway. The defender should be forced to demonstrate Ra3 then keep the third rank, then the attacker should be allowed to try ... f3 to see if the defender knows to switch to the back rank. Some strong players have misplayed similar positions.

[Kevin Bonham]

If it were a game where 10.2 applied (unlike blitz), then surely the superior side should be able to try to "win by normal means" for a few moves anyway.

Indeed. Deferring the claim to see what happens before white's flag falls is an option in that case even if it will only result in a few more white moves before flagfall. Really when the defender claims with two seconds left in a position like this the arbiter is well within their rights to just reject the claim and let the defender lose on time. That applies unless the arbiter has been watching and has seen that black is not trying to win or that white is demonstrating drawing technique against all black's winning tries.

It is simply not an injustice for white to lose a blitz game on time here.

[Bill Gletsos]

Firegoat7 (David Beaumont) over on the toolbox claims the position was as follows:

FEN Viewer

He goes on to say:

The position is clearly drawn and the rules of the games where explained by the arbiter before the tournament. The arbiter said very clearly that players could stop the clocks and claim a draw if their opponent was shuffling their pieces attempting to take somebody out on time.

Unfortunately the arbiter does not know the Laws of Chess regrading Blitz games.

In fact this had been happening for a while. In the original position W.Kf1 Ra3 B:Kg4 f4 f2 Rb2, Michael had been shuffling his Rook along the second rank, whilst I shuffled along the third. Here I my first draw claim, knowing very well that Michael was attempting to just take me out on time. He then proceeded to give up the f2 pawn and do exactly the same thing, by repeatedly checking on the second and first ranks.

Thankfully the right decision was reached. This is not the first time that Michael has attempted to win games on time by moving his pieces backwards and forwards. In my opinion it is completely against the spirit of the game. More importantly it is clearly against the spirit of what the arbiter announced before the event. In this position Michael can make 49 Rook legal moves before he moves the F pawn. The position is drawn, before and after the F pawn moves. Clearly a case of shuffling the pieces to win on time.

Similarly Beaumont does not know the FIDE Laws of Chess as such behaviour is allowable in Blitz.

[antichrist]

I hope that it was not my mate K STead the arbiter? But if only a local derby are FIDE rules necessarily applicable? They should be followed if not good reason for not doing so.

[Kevin Bonham]

Unfortunately the arbiter does not know the Laws of Chess regrading Blitz games.

Or chooses to apply something else. If Beaumont's account is accurate (something I would never take absolutely for granted) then it sounds like the arbiter was basically declaring before the event that 10.2 or something like it would be applied, although this is contrary to FIDE laws as concerns Blitz events that do not have one arbiter per board. I recall something like this being discussed here concerning MCC allegros before.

But if only a local derby are FIDE rules necessarily applicable?

Well, it's up to the organisers really. If an event is only a club event and isn't rated or any kind of state or national level title, then if they choose to apply something different to the Laws and announce it clearly, that's up to them. But the reason FIDE bans 10.2 from blitz games with inadequate supervision is that without an arbiter constantly watching each board there will always be arguments about what happened - so by allowing 10.2s the organisers are potentially creating work for themselves.

[Paul Cavezza]

The arbiter is probably Grant and I really don't think it's possible for David to muck up the draw in that position- given that, I think the game has reached a conclusive point- stuff the rules.

[Hobbes]

I really don't think it's possible for David to muck up the draw in that position- given that, I think the game has reached a conclusive point- stuff the rules.

Aww, how sweet!

[Desmond]

This is not the first time that Michael has attempted to win games on time by moving his pieces backwards and forwards. In my opinion it is completely against the spirit of the game.

It is a completely legitimate strategy to shuffle for a few moves, trying to bring the opponent into a false sense of security and only then making a winning try. If the opponent has no time to survive this, well whose fault is that.