PDA

View Full Version : Applying 6.10



Oepty
07-09-2006, 07:26 PM
If in a game Player A has a king and a queen, and Player B has a king and pawn. If player A makes the move Queen take pawn, but his flag falls before he presses his clock and completes the move is it a draw or does player A lose on time?
Scott

Bill Gletsos
07-09-2006, 07:59 PM
If in a game Player A has a king and a queen, and Player B has a king and pawn. If player A makes the move Queen take pawn, but his flag falls before he presses his clock and completes the move is it a draw or does player A lose on time?He loses on time.

Edit:Based on discussions later in the thread with Rincewind I concede that my above response is incorrect.

The position is drawn.

Basil
07-09-2006, 08:56 PM
And wouldn't ya be spewin' if rated?

Rincewind
07-09-2006, 11:25 PM
He loses on time.

Bill, are you sure on this?

First I assume Freddy means the move was made (as defined by 4.6) but not completed by pressing the clock.

If the player did not have the queen then it would be a draw provided the move was made before the flag fell. It seems inconsistent to me then that the posession of the queen should be to that player's disadvantage.

Since the move was made (but not complete) my interpretation would be that the made move stands and therefore the clamiant does not have a series of legal moves to mate and hence the game is drawn.

However the scenario does not sound so bizarre that it has not already been discussed at length in Gjissen's column or elsewhere. Perhaps you know of such a discussion.

Bill Gletsos
07-09-2006, 11:57 PM
Bill, are you sure on this?Absolutely.

First I assume Freddy means the move was made (as defined by 4.6) but not completed by pressing the clock.

If the player did not have the queen then it would be a draw provided the move was made before the flag fell.The postion as described by Freddy would still be drawn even if the queen was on the board if the flag fell after the pawn capture as player B then only has the lone King.

It seems inconsistent to me then that the posession of the queen should be to that player's disadvantage.

Since the move was made (but not complete) my interpretation would be that the made move stands and therefore the clamiant does not have a series of legal moves to mate and hence the game is drawn.Incorrect. The move is not complete. As such the player still has the pawn.

However the scenario does not sound so bizarre that it has not already been discussed at length in Gjissen's column or elsewhere. Perhaps you know of such a discussion.I think he has but cannot cite the relevant column.

Rincewind
08-09-2006, 12:09 AM
Absolutely.
Incorrect. The move is not complete. As such the player still has the pawn.
I think he has but cannot cite the relevant column.

Do you agree that if the queen was not on the board and the player took the remaining pawn with his king and the flag fell before clocking that the game would be drawn?

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2006, 12:17 AM
Do you agree that if the queen was not on the board and the player took the remaining pawn with his king and the flag fell before clocking that the game would be drawn?No.
The move is still incomplete. As such the opponent still has the pawn and thus can mate.

Rincewind
08-09-2006, 12:37 AM
No.
The move is still incomplete. As such the opponent still has the pawn and thus can mate.

Bill, this is not correct. According to 9.6 when a dead position arises this immediately ends the game and there is no need to clock. (refer guert65.pdf Answer 2.2)

I remain unconvinced by your argument therefore because the move was incomplete that the claimant is still in possession of the pawn. I believe since the move was "made" the pawn is gone and the position on the board stands, notwithstanding that the move was not completed before the flag fall.

6.10 says

Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay. (emphasis added)

I agree the move was not completed however as the move was made the position is such that the claimant has no path to mate and therefore the game should be drawn.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2006, 01:15 AM
Bill, this is not correct.Agreed. Although I had considered 5.2(b) in Freddy's scenario I had overlooked it in yours.
According to 9.6 when a dead position arises this immediately ends the game and there is no need to clock. (refer guert65.pdf Answer 2.2)I cant see any mention of 9.6 in in geurt65.pdf.

I remain unconvinced by your argument therefore because the move was incomplete that the claimant is still in possession of the pawn. I believe since the move was "made" the pawn is gone and the position on the board stands, notwithstanding that the move was not completed before the flag fall.

6.10 says

Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay. (emphasis added)

I agree the move was not completed however as the move was made the position is such that the claimant has no path to mate and therefore the game should be drawn.In the case of K V K+P where the King captures the pawn before the flag falls but before the clock is stopped then the game is drawn under Article 5.2 (b) and also 9.6.

However in Freddy's example 5.2(b) does not apply nor does 9.6.
Thus A loses.

Rincewind
08-09-2006, 01:34 AM
Agreed. Although I had considered 5.2(b) in Freddy's scenario I had overlooked it in yours.I cant see any mention of 9.6 in in geurt65.pdf.

Sorry, my typo, it is guert64.pdf


In the case of K V K+P where the King captures the pawn before the flag falls but before the clock is stopped then the game is drawn under Article 5.2 (b) and also 9.6.

Ok, so we agree on this.


However in Freddy's example 5.2(b) does not apply nor does 9.6.
Thus A loses.

Your misunderstand my argument here Bill. I didn't say 9.6 applied but the the salient feature is the wording and in particular the use of the concept of a "position".

9.6 says
The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled play. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing this position was legal.

Now if we agree about the case without the queen then you would have to conceed that the move does not have to be completed, only made, for a position to be reached, since 9.6 can be applied before a player clocks.

Comparing this with the working of 10.6
Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay.

Therefore my interpretation is player not completing the move determines whether 10.6 is applied but in applying this article, it is the position that determines whether the game is awarded as a win or a draw to the claimant. The fact that the move was not completed is irrelevent in this consideration since in 9.6 we have a clear example of a made but incomplete move effecting a change of position.
Therefore, the game is a draw.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2006, 03:07 AM
Sorry, my typo, it is guert64.pdfOk.

Your misunderstand my argument here Bill. I didn't say 9.6 applied but the the salient feature is the wording and in particular the use of the concept of a "position".I didnt misunderstand it.

9.6 says
The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled play. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing this position was legal.

Now if we agree about the case without the queen then you would have to conceed that the move does not have to be completed, only made, for a position to be reached, since 9.6 can be applied before a player clocks.5.2(b) says The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent`s king with any series of legal moves.
As such 5.2(b) does not apply when one player can checkmate. Clearly the same condition is implicitly true in 9.6 otherwise a player could claim a draw as soon as he was left with a lone King irrespective of what material his opponent had.
It is for this reason I dismissed 9.6 as not being applicable.

Comparing this with the working of 10.6
Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay.

Therefore my interpretation is player not completing the move determines whether 10.6 is applied but in applying this article, it is the position that determines whether the game is awarded as a win or a draw to the claimant. The fact that the move was not completed is irrelevent in this consideration since in 9.6 we have a clear example of a made but incomplete move effecting a change of position.
Therefore, the game is a draw.I concede you are right :clap: and I am wrong and that Freddy's original position is drawn.

However I dont agree with your reasoning. ;)

Neither 5.2(b) nor 9.6 apply.
In fact after the Queen capture of the pawn the game is not immediately ended under any section of Articles 5 or 9 (as was the case in your K V K+P scenario) or any other Article.
The move is not complete as the players flag has fallen before he stopped the clock.

The only relevant question therefore is:
Does the capture count.

If it does then the game is drawn.
If it doesnt then the the player with the pawn wins.

It wont count if the pawn is still on the board or the rook isnt on e5.
It will count if the move has been made and only the clock hasnt been presseed.

Now when I was considering Freddy's original question I was trying to remember where I had seen this sort of thing discussed and was recalling the position4r3/8/8/4P1k1/1B6/8/K7/8 b - - 0 1
where Black plays Rxe5+.

This position is actually in Reuben's handbook in reference to 6.8(a).
Unfortunately I remembered it incorrectly. :doh: :wall:
The move intended was Rxe5+ but was not made.

Reuben says:
"Black touches the pawn on e5 but before he can complete the move, his flag falls. Perhaps the rate of play is 40 moves in 2 hours and this was move 39. He loses even though the rule will require him to play 1...Rxe5. He has not completed his move. If you have any doubt over this matter consider it to be a race between the clock and thinking time."

Now Reuben uses the words "completed his move' when he should be saying made his move since Article 6.8(a) makes it clear that a move is only completed after the player stops his clock.

In Reubens example even if Rxe5+ was played and the clock stopped beforthe flag falls 5.2(b) and 9.6 still dont apply.

The lesson from this is simple.
I should have actually considered the actual ramifications of the position rather than trying to base my answer on a mis-remembered example. :wall: :wall:
Iwont make that mistake again.

I have edited my original response in post #2 to save others who may not wish to read thru all the following posts.

Rincewind
08-09-2006, 09:48 AM
I concede you are right :clap: and I am wrong and that Freddy's original position is drawn.

Well I'm glad about that.


However I dont agree with your reasoning. ;)

From what you say below I still think there is a misunderstanding since "your" reasoning is exactly my reasoning. ;)


Neither 5.2(b) nor 9.6 apply.
In fact after the Queen capture of the pawn the game is not immediately ended under any section of Articles 5 or 9 (as was the case in your K V K+P scenario) or any other Article.
The move is not complete as the players flag has fallen before he stopped the clock.

Yep I agree with all that. Since one player still has a path to mate and so 9.6 cannot be applied.


The only relevant question therefore is:
Does the capture count.

If it does then the game is drawn.
If it doesnt then the the player with the pawn wins.

Yep.

To reiterate since it still seems unclear I never said 9.6 applied. It was relevant for two reasons.

Firstly there is an argument from natural justice. Had the player not had a queen 9.6 would have applied and therefore the game would have been immediately drawn. So it seems unfair to me to effectively penalise someone for having a queen. However, this is just an inductive support argument and not the main thrust of the discussion.

The second consideration is exactly as you say above, "does the capture count". I interpreted your original take on it that if the move is not completed then the capture doesn't count. My contrary position was once the move is made the position has been changed, even before the move is completed, and therefore the capture does count. In this context 9.6 provided an example of a made move affecting the position even before the move is complete.

I believe my style of argument by appeal to natural justice and using examples from other laws, which while not directly applicable can still be relevant, is supported by the preface which states in part:

The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations, which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. (emphasis added)

In short, I'm glad we now agree. Also thanks to Freddy for supply such an interesting scenario. I was suprised that I could not find this exact case discussed somewhere by Guert.

Kevin Bonham
08-09-2006, 11:06 AM
I agree the move was not completed however as the move was made the position is such that the claimant has no path to mate and therefore the game should be drawn.

I agree with this - it's a draw.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2006, 03:24 PM
Firstly there is an argument from natural justice. Had the player not had a queen 9.6 would have applied and therefore the game would have been immediately drawn. So it seems unfair to me to effectively penalise someone for having a queen. However, this is just an inductive support argument and not the main thrust of the discussion.If in the endgame with K+Q+B V K+Q+P the player with only the pawn captures the Queen and has his queen recaptured leaving K+B V K+P and his flag falls he he loses because The playert with the B can still mate by the underpromoting of pawn. There hardly seems any natural justice in that but thems the rules.

The second consideration is exactly as you say above, "does the capture count". I interpreted your original take on it that if the move is not completed then the capture doesn't count. My contrary position was once the move is made the position has been changed, even before the move is completed, and therefore the capture does count. In this context 9.6 provided an example of a made move affecting the position even before the move is complete.The answer is far simpler and you dont have to even look at complicating it that way.
If the move has been made and all requirements of the move have been met (i.e. for a capture the captured piece removed and the capturing piece released on the square) and the move is legal then any subsequent considerations are based on that position irrespective of whether the flag is has fallen or not.

I believe my style of argument by appeal to natural justice and using examples from other laws, which while not directly applicable can still be relevant, is supported by the preface which states in part:

The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations, which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. (emphasis added)If I want a lesson in sucking eggs you will be the first one I call. ;)

In short, I'm glad we now agree. Also thanks to Freddy for supply such an interesting scenario. I was suprised that I could not find this exact case discussed somewhere by Guert.Check out geurt81.pdf first page.

Rincewind
08-09-2006, 04:39 PM
If in the endgame with K+Q+B V K+Q+P the player with only the pawn captures the Queen and has his queen recaptured leaving K+B V K+P and his flag falls he he loses because The playert with the B can still mate by the underpromoting of pawn. There hardly seems any natural justice in that but thems the rules.

That position is not analogous since there is the consideration of what the pawn might promote to. There is no such situation in the scenario we are considering.


The answer is far simpler and you dont have to even look at complicating it that way.

I wasn't complicating it I was providing justifying my position with an argument by analogy.


If the move has been made and all requirements of the move have been met (i.e. for a capture the captured piece removed and the capturing piece released on the square) and the move is legal then any subsequent considerations are based on that position irrespective of whether the flag is has fallen or not.

I agree with this assessment and at first you did not. 9.6 provides weight to this position even though it is not directly applicable.


If I want a lesson in sucking eggs you will be the first one I call. ;)

Well in paragraph 1 you say seem to discount the appeal to natural justice, however the I interprete the preface's reference to fairness as supporting this sort of argument.


Check out geurt81.pdf first page.

Yes I did see that but that does answer the question here as to whether a move made, but not complete, stands.

Denis_Jessop
08-09-2006, 05:13 PM
This matter seems to have been well and truly resolved so it only remains to observe that Art 6.10 is yet another FIDE Law that is not well drafted.

It applies to the case in which "... a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time ...".

Art. 6.2a says that "... each player must make a minimum number of moves or all moves in an allotted period of time...".

"all" is not a number so that strictly speaking Art. 6.10 would not apply to, say, "game in 90 minutes".

Art. 6.10 pretty obviously is meant to apply to "game in 90 minutes" and, no doubt would be so applied by an Arbiter but its drafting is sloppy and I have known an appeals committee to come up with a bizarre interpretation (though not of this Article) before.

DJ

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2006, 08:46 PM
That position is not analogous since there is the consideration of what the pawn might promote to. There is no such situation in the scenario we are considering.No. You referred to the idea of natural justice within the chess rules. I'm pointing out that isnt the case by citing an example.

I wasn't complicating it I was providing justifying my position with an argument by analogy.Your opinion. I disagree.

I agree with this assessment and at first you did not.True.

9.6 provides weight to this position even though it is not directly applicable.Your opinion. I disagree.

Well in paragraph 1 you say seem to discount the appeal to natural justice, however the I interprete the preface's reference to fairness as supporting this sort of argument.That is a spurious claim as I hadnt mentioned natural justice at all prior to your post #12 where you quoted the preface.

Rincewind
08-09-2006, 09:19 PM
No. You referred to the idea of natural justice within the chess rules. I'm pointing out that isnt the case by citing an example.

And as I pointed out your example is not applicable to the matter at hand.


Your opinion. I disagree.

Well you can't be right all the time. ;)


True.

Proof of above.


Your opinion. I disagree.

Ditto.


That is a spurious claim as I hadnt mentioned natural justice at all prior to your post #12 where you quoted the preface.

No it was in the same post, however this does not make the claim spurious. Just that the evidence that you did indeed need to be shown how to suck eggs on that point had only just become obvious.

The reason I quoted the preface was was substantiate my argument that both arguments by analogy and appeals to fairness are supported by the Laws of Chess. It seemed that you may still be contending this point.

Bill Gletsos
08-09-2006, 09:58 PM
And as I pointed out your example is not applicable to the matter at hand.No you were claiming the use of natural justice in interpreting the rules. I'm pointing out that is a fallacy as there are areas where natural justice dont apply in the rules.

Well you can't be right all the time. ;)Neither are you. ;)

No it was in the same post, however this does not make the claim spurious.You first mentioned natural justice in post #12 and it was the same post where you quoted the preface. I commented on natural justice in post #14 and also made the suck eggs comment in post #14. It was then in post #15 you defend your quoting the preface in post #12 by my comments in post #14. As far as I am concerned that is a totally spurious defence.

Just that the evidence that you did indeed need to be shown how to suck eggs on that point had only just become obvious.No, I just dont agree with your analogies.

The reason I quoted the preface was was substantiate my argument that both arguments by analogy and appeals to fairness are supported by the Laws of Chess. It seemed that you may still be contending this point.What I'm disagreeing with is your analogies.

Bottom line is we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Rincewind
08-09-2006, 11:54 PM
You first mentioned natural justice in post #12 and it was the same post where you quoted the preface. I commented on natural justice in post #14 and also made the suck eggs comment in post #14. It was then in post #15 you defend your quoting the preface in post #12 by my comments in post #14. As far as I am concerned that is a totally spurious defence.

Actualy a caerful reading of post four would see that I introduced the idea there. Though I just termed it an "inconsistency". It is the same idea as I have been arguing all the way through.

Basil
08-09-2006, 11:55 PM
I see pedantry is not the exclusive purvey of the CAQ, gentlemen! :);)

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2006, 12:31 AM
Actualy a caerful reading of post four would see that I introduced the idea there. Though I just termed it an "inconsistency". It is the same idea as I have been arguing all the way through.You can argue what you like, I dont agree with you.

Rincewind
09-09-2006, 12:31 AM
I see pedantry is not the exclusive purvey of the CAQ, gentlemen! :);)

Perhaps it is an affliction of state association presidents. ;)

Bill Gletsos
09-09-2006, 12:35 AM
Perhaps it is an affliction of state association presidents. ;)If thats the case, what is your excuse. ;)

Rincewind
09-09-2006, 12:51 AM
If thats the case, what is your excuse. ;)

Seems I'm surrounded by them and have learnt their vices. Still doesn't make me a president, or even a vice-president. :)

Basil
09-09-2006, 03:25 PM
Perhaps it is an affliction of state association presidents. ;)
15 HCDs


If thats the case, what is your excuse. ;)
20 HCDs

Oepty
09-09-2006, 04:04 PM
Thank you for your answers.
Scott

Denis_Jessop
09-09-2006, 08:29 PM
Thank you for your answers.
Scott

Scott: I'm sure you must have been enlightened beyond all expectation as we all were :rolleyes:

Thank you for asking the question without which none of this would have been possible :clap: :hmm:

DJ

Oepty
11-09-2006, 05:45 PM
Scott: I'm sure you must have been enlightened beyond all expectation as we all were :rolleyes:

Thank you for asking the question without which none of this would have been possible :clap: :hmm:

DJ

I was actually a little worried the answer was obvious, I was strongly leaning one way, but had a bit of doubt.
Scott