PDA

View Full Version : Articles G4-G6 (was Rule 10.2)



Kevin Bonham
08-07-2004, 03:29 AM
We used to have a thread for this rule on the old BB and I just thought I'd start one up again to celebrate a special occasion - the first time I have ruled the claimant lost for not playing enough moves after the draw claim! :lol:

In a game I refereed tonight White had a crushing attack but instead of playing a glorious and winning knight sac, moved the knight backwards and simply lost it for nothing to a bishop capture. This left White two pawns and a piece down. Black, with eight minutes of his original 90 left on his clock, spent four minutes staring at the knight before deciding it was safe to rip it off. Then a few moves later with about 1:30 left on his clock Black claimed a draw. White, clever chap, didn't want a draw despite being two pawns and a piece down with his attack virtually fizzled out, so they played on. Except that Black only made one more move and was reaching out to play a second when his flag fell, so I awarded the game to White on time immediately, without bothering to assess the position or the play, as it's generally agreed that the claimant has to play some moves, not just sit there thinking.

I would be interested to see some cases of positions in Aus events where other DOPs have or have not awarded draws under this rule, to see what kinds of standards are generally used around the country. Shaun had some interesting comments on this in the Tasmanian Open thread where I gave a couple of examples.

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2005, 02:19 PM
10.2 rule incident from Hobart Weekender (G60 flat). Comments welcome.

1k6/4r3/1K6/P5p1/4B3/8/7P/8 w - - 0 1

This is O'Mara-V Horton. White is down to seconds, Black is just below 10 minutes. Despite the 1000-point ratings gap, O'Mara has been getting caned by the junior for much of the game and has only just recovered a pawn for the exchange. White played 1.a6?? and Black, needlessly freaked out by the pawn, played 1...Ra7?? instead of (something very obvious) At this point O'Mara claimed a draw by 10.2. In my view 2.Bb7 destroys all chance of Black winning by normal means (in fact it wins by force) but I thought O'Mara should prove he had seen it especially after his shocker the previous move, so I immediately said "play on". There followed 2... g4 3.Kc6 Rxb7 4.axb7. At this point I remembered that the new Laws allow the arbiter to step in and award the draw before a flag falls (rather than having to wait until after) and I was wondering whether I should indeed do this as Black clearly cannot win by normal means anymore. However, Black made that decision superfluous by resigning - which was doubly unlucky as (i) you can lose a game after a 10.2 has been claimed by the other side, (ii) it was not at all clear O'Mara would have had time to complete the mate in 6. Unfortunately Horton jnr wasn't aware that a draw claim is also a draw offer and that he should accept the draw claim if he doesn't want to risk losing. He knows now.

I have to say that I don't like that part of the change to 10.2 (naturally I like the other bit, since it was my doing!). To have the arbiter able to make decisions to stop the game between claim and flagfall puts the arbiter in the position of having to make a real-time decision about the position every single move and actually makes things harder and not easier.

pax
14-09-2005, 04:36 PM
I awarded the game to White on time immediately, without bothering to assess the position or the play, as it's generally agreed that the claimant has to play some moves, not just sit there thinking.

But presumably the draw may be awarded on the spot if it is very clear that the opponent cannot win by normal means? I can claim a draw on 10.2 just before my flag falls yes?

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2005, 07:08 PM
But presumably the draw may be awarded on the spot if it is very clear that the opponent cannot win by normal means? I can claim a draw on 10.2 just before my flag falls yes?

Yes - but it has to be very clearcut - if the arbiter needs to think about it at all they should say "play on". Also some arbiters will take a dim view of a player waiting til the last possible second to claim a draw when this was not necessary - eg sitting on the position to avoid being made to play moves.

In the position mentioned in the first post, although the claimant was a piece and two pawns up, the position was still winnable by normal means as the board was still relatively full of pieces.

Kevin Bonham
26-01-2006, 11:49 PM
Fascinating item in The Closet Grandmaster (http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com/) today. Hope Amiel won't mind me quoting it in full:


Just a few moments ago, controversy erupted here at the New Zealand rapid-play championships. The players in question were NZCF president Bob Smith and Aussie junior Andrew Brown. The latter held a theoretically won position with K+B+2P (f and c), while Smith had only K+B.

With 7 seconds remaining, to Andrew's 27 seconds, Bob then claimed a draw. Amazingly, kiwi IA Bob Gibbon declared the game drawn!

New Zealander FM Stephen Lukey then pitched in and questioned the decision. Other players also disagreed. How could the arbiter make such a decision? The discussion went on for some time with Lukey and Bob finally checking the rule book.

Meanwhile, Andrew Brown still remained seated at the board looking at the position. At this point, a couple of international masters joined him and showed the correct winning method. Andrew, as is permitted by the local rules, appealed.

FM Bob Smith returned, while he and Andrew were given 2 minutes flat each to continue play. Of course, Andrew now won.

"All it proves is that he plays better at 2 minute chess", was Bob Smith's comment in the end.

A number of points on this. From Amiel's report it sounds like a total fiasco and an object lesson in how not to do it, but I would welcome any further clarifications from anyone there.

1. The only grounds on which Smith's claim could be taken seriously is if Brown was not making realistic attempts to win the game by normal means, eg if he was piece-shuffling mindlessly to try to win on the clock. Unless that was happening, no arbiter would uphold the draw immediately in any OCB position where the opponent was two pawns up, because even if the position was technically drawn (which few arbiters could be sure of instantly anyway) there would still be chances of winning by normal means if the defender made mistakes. The correct decision in such a case is "play on" with the award of a draw to be considered (very sceptically) after a flag (probably the defender's) has fallen.

It is important to stress for the zillionth time that you do not get a draw under 10.2 just because the position is technically drawn. Even some IAs do not understand this simple fact and hence get into trouble with this rule. I think FIDE should actually state words to the effect of "you do not get a draw under 10.2 just because the position is technically drawn" in the Laws. In bold. In 36-point. Underlined. With 500 euro fines for anyone reading it and failing to get the point. etc. :rolleyes: (OK, the last bit was mildly flippant. Mildly.)

2. Having apparently made a mistake, the arbiters made a further and more serious error in failing to quarantine a game still under debate from sources of outside interference and advice. Having allowed Brown to receive tuition in the winning method they have unfairly deprived Smith of any chance of drawing on account of his opponent's lack of technical knowledge of that endgame, and also of any slim chance he had of winning on time if Brown thought too much about how to win.

3. Smith's comment as reported is suboptimal. He was behind on time in a materially disadvantageous (and reportedly lost) position and was given extra time he didn't deserve by the arbiters to try to save it. Apart from the interference he did not in any way deserve a draw, unless Brown had been floundering around prior to the draw claim with no sign of attempting to win.

4. This situation provides a good example of why FIDE's decision to remove appeals against 10.2s is silly. It encourages players on the receiving end of 10.2 decisions that are clearly wrong as opposed to subjectively disagreed with, to take more extreme measures like withdrawing from tournaments in protest. It is very good that local rules permitted an appeal.

Please note these comments above assume Amiel's report is factually accurate in all regards - I am happy to reconsider them if any facts are in dispute.

eclectic
27-01-2006, 03:09 AM
what right did those 2 ims have to pitch in and show the winning method if the decision is in dispute?

Kevin Bonham
27-01-2006, 04:46 AM
The IMs may not have been aware of the local rule and may have assumed the game was over with no appeal possible as is usually the case under 10.2.

gambitcrazy
27-01-2006, 06:28 AM
The IMs may not have been aware of the local rule and may have assumed the game was over with no appeal possible as is usually the case under 10.2.

It doesnt sound like either the IMS or Andrew intentionally did anything wrong, they probably thought the game was already decided.

But once the help had been given, then it became very unfair to Bob Smith to restart the game, but of course there probably isnt a rule that says anything about unfairness ;)

When an arbiter makes a mistake, I guess the appeals committee has to step in (I've never seen the appeals committe in action in any tourney I've been in) .. what powers do they have?

GC

arosar
27-01-2006, 07:07 AM
Hope Amiel won't mind me quoting it in full:

No Problem.



A number of points on this. From Amiel's report it sounds like a total fiasco and an object lesson in how not to do it, but I would welcome any further clarifications from anyone there.

1. The only grounds on which Smith's claim could be taken seriously is if Brown was not making realistic attempts to win the game by normal means, eg if he was piece-shuffling mindlessly to try to win on the clock. Unless that was happening, no arbiter would uphold the draw immediately in any OCB position where the opponent was two pawns up, because even if the position was technically drawn (which few arbiters could be sure of instantly anyway) there would still be chances of winning by normal means if the defender made mistakes. The correct decision in such a case is "play on" with the award of a draw to be considered (very sceptically) after a flag (probably the defender's) has fallen.

It is important to stress for the zillionth time that you do not get a draw under 10.2 just because the position is technically drawn.

Exactly! This was Lukey's point of contention.


2. Having apparently made a mistake, the arbiters made a further and more serious error in failing to quarantine a game still under debate from sources of outside interference and advice. Having allowed Brown to receive tuition in the winning method they have unfairly deprived Smith of any chance of drawing on account of his opponent's lack of technical knowledge of that endgame, and also of any slim chance he had of winning on time if Brown thought too much about how to win.

This problem of Brown having received tuition was acknowledged by Bob. I was there in front of him when he said to Andrew (words to this effect), "My problem now is that you may already have been shown how to win this position". Which, of course, shows how stupid the initial decision was.


3. Smith's comment as reported is suboptimal. He was behind on time in a materially disadvantageous (and reportedly lost) position and was given extra time he didn't deserve by the arbiters to try to save it. Apart from the interference he did not in any way deserve a draw, unless Brown had been floundering around prior to the draw claim with no sign of attempting to win.

We have this whole 2-minute continuation on video!!

At the finish, Smith continued to analyse the position with Brown in an attempt to show that it was drawn. He couldn't find a way.


4. This situation provides a good example of why FIDE's decision to remove appeals against 10.2s is silly. It encourages players on the receiving end of 10.2 decisions that are clearly wrong as opposed to subjectively disagreed with, to take more extreme measures like withdrawing from tournaments in protest. It is very good that local rules permitted an appeal.

I just call it "local rules". It could be in their tournament regulations or whatever. Funny thing was, to make an appeal, you have to pay NZD$20. I swear! But I don't think they took Andrew's money actually. He did have it in his hand all set to pay.

AR

arosar
27-01-2006, 07:11 AM
It doesnt sound like either the IMS or Andrew intentionally did anything wrong, they probably thought the game was already decided.

Exactly right!

In fact, IA Gibbon, while arguing with Lukey, was quite adamant that he'd made his decision and that was final. So we all stood there looking at this position analysing it.

There was no interference, no cheating, no nothing. The game was apparently finished. I'd never seen this business of giving both players 2 mins flat and continue play.

AR

gambitcrazy
27-01-2006, 08:07 AM
Exactly right!

In fact, IA Gibbon, while arguing with Lukey, was quite adamant that he'd made his decision and that was final. So we all stood there looking at this position analysing it.

There was no interference, no cheating, no nothing. The game was apparently finished. I'd never seen this business of giving both players 2 mins flat and continue play.

AR


However, even though nothing was intentionally done, assistance was provided - Andrew Brown received both the knowledge of how to win the ending, and enough extra time to play the win out. Once this assistance has been provided it cant be taken back (unlike the Arbiters incorrect draw decision which could, and was)

I would not have been happy to be on the other side of the board!

What happens when the arbiter accidently assists a player? eg in rugby if the ref touches the ball, he has to blow his whistle and play starts again with a free kick. I wonder if the FIDE rules say anything about what to do in the case of arbiter mistake??

Also, what should have been the correct decision when Smith made the incorrect draw claim? Is it "no, play on" or "no play on, and Brown gets 2 mins extra because you made an incorrect claim"?

GC

pax
27-01-2006, 08:10 AM
Many years ago, I had an argument with a very experienced arbiter.

He swore blind that K+B+N vs K was a theoretical draw (I can't remember if he had made a 10.2 ruling on this basis, but he certainly intended to if the position arose). I was unable to persuade him with normal means, so I went away and learned the ending and came back and proceeded to beat him three times in the ending. And after all that, he still claimed it was a theoretical draw (he just made a mistake, he said)!!

PHAT
27-01-2006, 08:22 AM
10.2
If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter.

If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.

1. [b]If the IA was watching, and observed Brown to be shuffling pieces about willy-nilly, then the Draw claim by Smith was legit and the ruling of a draw was legit and non negociable.

2. If during the last two minutes of play, the IA had formed the "the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means," then there is no grounds for on which Brown could appeal - other than corruption or incompetence.

So, I ask was the IA whatching the game?

On the issue of a reversal of the draw declairation and an addition of 2 minutes to both clocks, it was an admission by the IA of either corruption or incompetence - most certainly the later.

Ian Rout
27-01-2006, 09:40 AM
no arbiter would uphold the draw immediately in any OCB position where the opponent was two pawns up,

A consequence of this is that no player would normally claim the draw, it has no chance of success and just gives your opponent a break to compose themselves. Perhaps the arbiter is known for creative/perverse decisions which led Bob Smith to believe it was worth a punt?

Is an IA title for life or are IAs required to periodically take written tests, peer reviews or other form of re-examination to keep practising?

shaun
27-01-2006, 11:23 AM
The IMs may not have been aware of the local rule and may have assumed the game was over with no appeal possible as is usually the case under 10.2.

I wouldn't be suprised if the assistance was given on the grounds that Bob Smith was one of the players involved.

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2006, 11:23 AM
A consequence of this is that no player would normally claim the draw, it has no chance of success and just gives your opponent a break to compose themselves. Perhaps the arbiter is known for creative/perverse decisions which led Bob Smith to believe it was worth a punt?

Is an IA title for life or are IAs required to periodically take written tests, peer reviews or other form of re-examination to keep practising?FA and IA titles like GM titles etc are for life.

It is interesting to note that International Organiser and Trainer titles like GM titles etc are according to regulation B01 0.4 for life.
For all these titles the following applies:

0.41 Use of a FIDE title or rating to subvert the ethical principles of the title or rating system may subject a person to revocation of his title upon recommendation by the Qualification Commission and final action by the General Assembly.

The FIDE regulations in B01 used to cover FA/IA titles but no longer do so.

Since the rewrite of the regulations in late 2004 FA/IA titles have been covered by their own regulations in section B06. (on the FIDE website this is referred in the contents as B05 but internally is listed as B06).

Section 1.1.4 of the regulations for Arbiter titles states "the titles are valid for life from the date awarded or registered."
However there is no equivalent section in the new arbiter regulations equivalent to 0.41.
I suspect this omission is more of an oversight than a deliberate change as 0.41 used to apply to arbiter titles prior to the rewrite of the handbook.

Now although B01 which applies to trainer titles states they are for life it appears that when FIDE issued Trainer titles late last year they that although some were awarded for life in the vast majority were only for a limited number of years. This seems to contradict the regulations as written.

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2006, 11:25 AM
I wouldn't be suprised if the assistance was given on the grounds that Bob Smith was one of the players involved.Care to expand on why that would be the case?

shaun
27-01-2006, 11:27 AM
Care to expand on why that would be the case?

No. Not on this forum.

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2006, 11:31 AM
No. Not on this forum.Ok, fair enough.

Alan Shore
27-01-2006, 11:38 AM
No. Not on this forum.

PM or Coffee Lounge please?

Kevin Bonham
30-01-2006, 01:22 PM
Also, what should have been the correct decision when Smith made the incorrect draw claim? Is it "no, play on" or "no play on, and Brown gets 2 mins extra because you made an incorrect claim"?

Actually although I wrote above that an immediate "play on" is the best response, rejecting the claim outright would also be fair enough and would further discourage players from using 10.2 to fish for draws. (Some players claim 10.2s in roughly even positions hoping to get a "play on" call so that if they then get a clearly-drawn-under-10.2 position by flagfall they will get the draw.) I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to your question but the simple rule is if the arbiter is in doubt about whether to reject (which may depend on their level of experience and understanding of the position) then just say "play on".


1. If the IA was watching, and observed Brown to be shuffling pieces about willy-nilly, then the Draw claim by Smith was legit and the ruling of a draw was legit and non negociable.

Correct, but "making no effort" has to be exceedingly blatant. If the player is making some effort but not very much, no draw. If the player is making considerable effort but clearly doesn't have the foggiest clue (you sometimes see this with juniors checking and checking and not bringing their king up in endgames) no draw. If "play on" is called, the test becomes whether the opponent "was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means".

arosar
30-01-2006, 07:45 PM
Video is now available of the notorious Smith - Brown 2 minute continuation. However, for special reasons, we cannot provide the link for download. But there is another video of a bullet session for your entertainment.

Enjoy!

AR

pax
30-01-2006, 09:06 PM
Video is now available of the notorious Smith - Brown 2 minute continuation. However, for special reasons, we cannot provide the link for download.

So when you say it's 'available', you mean it's available to you??

arosar
30-01-2006, 09:13 PM
So when you say it's 'available', you mean it's available to you??

Technically, it's available to the whole world! My mate uploaded the video...

AR

Alan Shore
30-01-2006, 10:45 PM
Technically, it's available to the whole world! My mate uploaded the video...

AR

Talk about hype... if you're not giving us a link then it likely doesn't exist! Why would anyone be filming something like that anyway?

WhiteElephant
30-01-2006, 11:00 PM
Just a few moments ago, controversy erupted here at the New Zealand rapid-play championships. The players in question were NZCF president Bob Smith and Aussie junior Andrew Brown. The latter held a theoretically won position with K+B+2P (f and c), while Smith had only K+B.

With 7 seconds remaining, to Andrew's 27 seconds, Bob then claimed a draw. Amazingly, kiwi IA Bob Gibbon declared the game drawn!

New Zealander FM Stephen Lukey then pitched in and questioned the decision. Other players also disagreed. How could the arbiter make such a decision? The discussion went on for some time with Lukey and Bob finally checking the rule book.

Meanwhile, Andrew Brown still remained seated at the board looking at the position. At this point, a couple of international masters joined him and showed the correct winning method. Andrew, as is permitted by the local rules, appealed.

FM Bob Smith returned, while he and Andrew were given 2 minutes flat each to continue play. Of course, Andrew now won.

"All it proves is that he plays better at 2 minute chess", was Bob Smith's comment in the end.

AR

Sounds like a sad case of an FM with political clout trying to pull a fast one against a junior. Sounds like a sore loser as well after that comment at the end. I'm glad Andrew won the game.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-02-2006, 03:55 PM
What was a time control? More specifically, was there any increment? If yes, what was the increment?

Bill Gletsos
20-02-2006, 04:00 PM
What was a time control? More specifically, was there any increment? If yes, what was the increment?If there was an increment this whole debate regarding the Smith V Brown game wouldnt be an issue as Artcile 10.2 does not apply when an increment is in effect.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-02-2006, 04:31 PM
I remember the arbiter in Brisbane talking about claimung a draw before rapid championship (which had 10c increment) and saying the players must play on before ligthening championship (no time increment), which I found a bit strange, to say the least.

I also noticed that article 10 defines quickplay as "the last phase of a game, when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time". It does not mention increment at all.

Does 1c increment make remaining time unlimited? If not, what must it be?

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2006, 05:15 PM
I remember the arbiter in Brisbane talking about claimung a draw before rapid championship (which had 10c increment) and saying the players must play on before ligthening championship (no time increment), which I found a bit strange, to say the least.

Was he talking about other draw claims, like triple repetition, perhaps?

I also noticed that article 10 defines quickplay as "the last phase of a game, when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time". It does not mention increment at all.


Does 1c increment make remaining time unlimited? If not, what must it be?

Any increment however small makes the remaining time unlimited and removes 10.2. 10.2 only applies if you are below 2 minutes and there is no way you can get any other time during the game.

Bill Gletsos
20-02-2006, 05:16 PM
I remember the arbiter in Brisbane talking about claimung a draw before rapid championship (which had 10c increment) and saying the players must play on before ligthening championship (no time increment), which I found a bit strange, to say the least.

I also noticed that article 10 defines quickplay as "the last phase of a game, when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time". It does not mention increment at all.

Does 1c increment make remaining time unlimited? If not, what must it be?If an increment is in effect even a 1 second increment then 10.2 does not apply.

However in blitz(lightning) 10.2 does not apply irrespective of whether there is an increment or not.

Article C2 from the Blitz rules:


C2. Play shall be governed by the Rapidplay Laws as in Appendix B except where they are overridden by the following Laws of Blitz. The Articles 10.2 and B6 do not apply.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-02-2006, 08:36 AM
Any tournaments in australia using gillotione finish?

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2006, 10:39 AM
Any tournaments in australia using gillotione finish?

Quite a few still do. In Tasmania we are only just approaching the stage where some clubs have sufficient digital clocks to avoid guillotine finishes. Most of our events are flat G90s or flat G60s. The upcoming Tasmanian Championship is likely to use increments but even then they are apparently going to be capped after a certain point if games run overtime. (Long and messy story). I understand some NSW tournaments use 36 or 40 moves in 90 mins plus 30 to finish where increments are not possible because the venue has to be vacated after 4 hours.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-02-2006, 12:44 PM
shortage of digital clocks can be a problem. As for time constraints, short increment alleviate the problem (say 10c increment mins at least 3 moves per minute, 60 moves in 20 minutes and 180 moves required to use up an hour).

In this case having 90+10 guarantees the round to be finished in 4 hours.

pax
21-02-2006, 01:23 PM
Unfortunately, a 10sec increment is not very useful since players are not compelled to record their moves. This means resolving draw claims etc is still very difficult with the 10sec increment. If it's 30sec, then everybody keeps score all of the time and it's much easier.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-02-2006, 01:28 PM
Unfortunately, a 10sec increment is not very useful since players are not compelled to record their moves. This means resolving draw claims etc is still very difficult with the 10sec increment. If it's 30sec, then everybody keeps score all of the time and it's much easier.

True. Most of the games are finished by move 60, so adding an hour is a pretty safe bet. There are some exceptional cases though, but even 120 moves game would require extra 2 hours. And they are not likely to blitz all the way to the end.

Ian Rout
21-02-2006, 01:47 PM
Unfortunately, a 10sec increment is not very useful since players are not compelled to record their moves. This means resolving draw claims etc is still very difficult with the 10sec increment. If it's 30sec, then everybody keeps score all of the time and it's much easier.
Although this is true, the other side to the equation is that a 30-second extension takes more time so that the initial time allocation has to be cut back. Hence the game becomes more rather than less guillotine-like, since people are being rushed from an earlier point, and people finishing their short fast games wait round forever for the one Q+PvQ to finish. It's a question of getting a balance.

I think the argument of people recording, hence validating draw claims, is relatively less significant. Most repetitions are obvious or forced (Qg6-h6-g6 etc) or undisputed, of the others some occur before time trouble, and there shouldn't be so many others that an arbiter and deputies can't normally handle them.

Kevin Bonham
27-03-2006, 03:13 PM
Gijssen just continues not to get it. This from his latest:


Question Hi Geurt, I have recently been appointed arbiter at my local chess club and, even after reading the FIDE rules and trawling the archives of your columns, there are a number of scenarios I would like clarified.

[snip]
II. Article 10.2
I have read many debates on this rule, but I am still unsure about how to determine whether or not a player is trying to win by “normal” means. For example, say, Player A claims a draw under 10.2, and I defer my decision and observe the game as it progresses. Player B plays passively, but insists that he was playing to win “by normal means” after Player A’s flag falls. Should the arbiter then ask Player B to justify his assertion? Where is the burden of proof in this rule? Does Player A need to prove that Player B was only trying to win on time? This rule seems so ambiguous that it will inevitably cause animosity on the part of whichever participant is ruled against. Thanks in advance, Neil Benn (Norway)

[snip]

Answer II The easiest way to avoid any controversy connected with Article 10.2 is to use Fischer-mode in the final phase of the game. Yet, this is too simple an answer, and I realize there are fewer digital clocks than mechanical ones.

I agree that it is almost impossible to satisfy everyone when applying Article 10.2. However, the arbiter should never ask the players’ opinions or discuss his decision. Moreover, the position on the board is irrelevant. The only thing the arbiter has to do is observe whether the non-claiming player is trying to make progress. Admittedly, there are situations where it is (almost) impossible to make a clear-cut decision.

The bit in bold is complete nonsense and exactly what my amendment to 10.2, accepted by FIDE, exists to prevent.

I have advised him of this.

WhiteElephant
27-03-2006, 08:24 PM
Any tournaments in australia using gillotione finish?

Bring back the guillotine finish!!! There is nothing like it to get your heart racing at the end of a long game.

arosar
27-03-2006, 08:34 PM
So the arbiter is allowed to judge the position?

AR

Kevin Bonham
27-03-2006, 10:24 PM
Definitely. In fact under the new Laws once there is a claim and the arbiter postpones the decision, the arbiter can step in and declare a draw at any time when the arbiter is totally satisfied that the opponent cannot win by "normal means". The arbiter need not wait for a flag fall to do this.

antichrist
27-03-2006, 11:13 PM
Any tournaments in australia using gillotione finish?
Only the Sydney Easter Cup that I can think of. I don't know about Doberl.

ElevatorEscapee
27-03-2006, 11:20 PM
Wasn't some other bugger whinging about exactly the same issue only a month or so ago? ;)

http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=85012&postcount=163 :owned:

I dare say he was rightfully dismissed as being "confused" by those who know better. :P :lol:

Bill Gletsos
27-03-2006, 11:35 PM
Wasn't some other bugger whinging about exactly the same issue only a month or so ago? ;)

http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=85012&postcount=163 :owned:

I dare say he was rightfully dismissed as being "confused" by those who know better. :P :lol:Theoretically drawn is not the same thing as cannot win by "normal means".

All positions where cannot win by "normal means" are theoretically drawn but not all positions that are theoretically drawn cannot be won by "normal means" with regards 10.2. :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
27-03-2006, 11:40 PM
Wasn't some other bugger whinging about exactly the same issue only a month or so ago? ;)

http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=85012&postcount=163 :owned:

I dare say he was rightfully dismissed as being "confused" by those who know better. :P :lol:

He remains so because he is mixing up two issues. In his previous post he discussed the issue of whether the arbiter is required to judge whether the position is theoretically drawn (the answer being: no.)

In this discussion the issue is whether the arbiter, having postponed his decision, is require to judge whether the position can be won by normal means (the answer being that the arbiter can attempt to judge this at any point after calling "play on", and will be required to should a flag fall without the game first resolving itself some other way).

ElevatorEscapee
02-04-2006, 02:10 AM
Yes, you are of course correct, I was confusing your comments with the Mollusc's interpretation. ;-)

Perhaps my question should have been: "Should arbiters really be asked to ascertain whether or not a position is capable of being won by "normal" means?"

Of course, if they are, then arbiters would then have to ascertain what "normal means" means.

What would you esteemed gentlemen consider to be a definition of "normal means"?

For example if you were an arbiter in the following situation:

Player A has a many pieces but is short on time, Player B has only a pawn left, and is playing swiftly, and rejects Player A's draw offer.

Do you believe that Player B is trying to win by "normal means"?

If the answer is "no, he is only trying to win on time", then what do you, as the arbiter, use to make that decision? Is it your evaluation as a chess player of the position?

If so, then is it fair to ask arbiters to evaluate such a situation?

An arbirter may have knowledge of a "theoretically drawn" position, (eg King and rook pawn versus King on the queening square of the pawn). If the player with only his King left complains that his opponent is "not trying to win by normal means", should the arbiter knowing that it is a "theoretical draw", make his decision based on that?

Or should he consider that the opponent may not know that it is theoretically drawn, and is genuinely playing on in the hope that he might be able to queen the pawn?

pax
02-04-2006, 03:45 PM
Player A has a many pieces but is short on time, Player B has only a pawn left, and is playing swiftly, and rejects Player A's draw offer.

Do you believe that Player B is trying to win by "normal means"?


I'd say if player A has insufficient time on his clock to force a draw with many pieces against a single pawn, then he probably doesn't deserve the draw.

In this situation, the arbiter is likely to postpone the decision. If they only have time for a couple of moves before the flag falls, the game will most likely be awarded to B on time.



If so, then is it fair to ask arbiters to evaluate such a situation?

It is expected that arbiters will err on the side of 'play on'. It is generally not good enough for a player to claim a draw under 10.2 just before they run out of time.

ElevatorEscapee
02-04-2006, 04:08 PM
Thank you for your response, fellow clarinetist Pax. :)

I think the point I was trying to make (albeit, I did so rather badly) was that at some point the arbiter must use his or her particular judgement of a chess position to work out whether a player has been playing for a win from the position (ie trying to win by "normal means"), or just trying to win on time.

Would a theoretically impartial chess arbiter, with no chess knowledge, be able to determine if a player was "trying to win by normal means" from a given position? I suggest that he or she would be unable to do so.

Given that arbiters in chess are normally chess players who have some idea of the game, then I ask, "is it fair to ask an arbiter to judge a position to determine if a player has been trying to win by 'normal means'"?

My personal response to such a question would be "no". I don't think it fair that the arbiter must judge whether or not a player is trying to win "by normal means" or "on time", simply because it implies a certain level of understanding of chess positions by the arbiter.

In my opinion, to be impartial, an arbiter must reserve all of his or her personal judgements of a particular chess position before making any such decision.

Otherwise, an arbiter who is a skillful player may run the risk of judging differently to an arbiter who is an average chess player.

Perhaps the question I am trying ask is whether or not an arbiter's chess ability should be employed when determining whether or not a player has been "trying to win by normal means".

My personal opinion is: no, it should not, as different arbiters will have different chess abilities...The arbiter's chess ability should not be a variable when determining whether or not a player is "trying to win by normal means".

Anyway, just my two penneth worth. Thank you all for reading my post. :)

Kevin Bonham
02-04-2006, 04:48 PM
Perhaps my question should have been: "Should arbiters really be asked to ascertain whether or not a position is capable of being won by "normal" means?"

Of course, if they are, then arbiters would then have to ascertain what "normal means" means.

What would you esteemed gentlemen consider to be a definition of "normal means"?

OK, this is mine:

A position cannot be won by normal means if the opponent could only win on the board as a result of active co-operation from the claimant (eg helpmate) or as a result of blunders so elementary that no player but a total novice would make them whatever the time on the clock (eg leaving/moving pieces en prise for no reason, or making no attempt to block an opposing pawn.)

If the defence of the position requires any real skill or thought - even if the position is theoretically dead drawn - then the position can be won by normal means.


For example if you were an arbiter in the following situation:

Player A has a many pieces but is short on time, Player B has only a pawn left, and is playing swiftly, and rejects Player A's draw offer.

Do you believe that Player B is trying to win by "normal means"?

Irrespective of whether player B is trying to win on time, the position cannot be won by normal means and I'll award a draw immediately once player A has made a valid claim, unless player A is extremely weak in which case I will say play on just to make sure A knows what to do.


If the answer is "no, he is only trying to win on time", then what do you, as the arbiter, use to make that decision? Is it your evaluation as a chess player of the position?

It is unnecessary to work out whether he is trying to win by normal means if he clearly cannot do it. A decision about whether a player is trying requires observation of several moves of the game. It is usually extremely obvious when a player is not trying, as opposed to trying but failing. A player is entitled to make unsuccessful attempts.


An arbirter may have knowledge of a "theoretically drawn" position, (eg King and rook pawn versus King on the queening square of the pawn). If the player with only his King left complains that his opponent is "not trying to win by normal means", should the arbiter knowing that it is a "theoretical draw", make his decision based on that?

That is is a theoretical draw is not very relevant because there are many theoretical draws that can be won by normal means.

The arbiter can award the draw on the grounds that the position cannot be won by normal means and it is not necessary to consider whether the opponent is trying. However when dealing with inexperienced players I would first postpone the decision to make sure the claimant knows to keep the king in the corner. Once the claimant demonstrates that I would award the draw.


Or should he consider that the opponent may not know that it is theoretically drawn, and is genuinely playing on in the hope that he might be able to queen the pawn?

The opponent may well be trying to win. Again it does not matter because the position cannot be won by normal means if the claimant has any clue about it at all.


Would a theoretically impartial chess arbiter, with no chess knowledge, be able to determine if a player was "trying to win by normal means" from a given position? I suggest that he or she would be unable to do so.

If the arbiter is not sure they should postpone their decision. However in my experience it is extremely obvious when a player is not trying. Signs of this include rapid pointless piece-shuffling, obviously paying more attention to the clock than the board, etc, all over several moves. Very little chess understanding is required to see when this is going on.


In my opinion, to be impartial, an arbiter must reserve all of his or her personal judgements of a particular chess position before making any such decision.

Otherwise, an arbiter who is a skillful player may run the risk of judging differently to an arbiter who is an average chess player.

If both understand the rule correctly there should not be any difference in application. The strong player has an advantage in knowing whether the position is theoretically won or drawn, but that is irrelevant. The draw under "cannot be won by normal means" should only be applied where the position is so easily held that even arbiters who are weak players will see that it is easily held. Arbiters below 300 ACF playing strength might not, but such people probably shouldn't try to be arbiters in serious tournaments.


I'd say if player A has insufficient time on his clock to force a draw with many pieces against a single pawn, then he probably doesn't deserve the draw.

Player A may have been doing his best to clean up all Player B's pieces in time after acheiving a won game very late in the game. With seconds on his clock he realises that he will not clean them all up in time but only in the last few seconds has he captured enough to eliminate B's normal winning chances. In this case player A does deserve a draw IMO and I would award it.

Kevin Bonham
19-04-2006, 12:55 PM
This from Geurt's column. I wrote:


Question Dear Geurt, in reply to a reader’s question about 10.2, with reference to cases where the arbiter postpones his decision, you wrote:

Moreover, the position on the board is irrelevant. The only thing the arbiter has to do is observe whether the non-claiming player is trying to make progress.

Whether or not this was true before the 2005 laws, it is certainly not the case now. The new Article 10.2b states:

The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.

Whether the arbiter thinks the final position can or cannot be won by normal means is something to which the position on the board is clearly relevant. Furthermore, because the arbiter can declare the final result before a flag has fallen, the position on the board is always relevant once a claim has been made. As soon as the arbiter is sure the game cannot be won by normal means, the arbiter can stop it and declare a draw.

I was the person who proposed the change in wording that was accepted in the 2005 Laws, and the reason I did so was that if you only care whether the opponent is making progress or not, then the claimant might need to make repeat claims as the position changes (in a case where the opponent is trying very hard to win but has no real hope of doing so). I get the impression that few international arbiters have much experience using this rule, and they are unaware of how much trouble and confusion it causes beginning club-level arbiters trying to interpret it. There is a need for “normal means” to be better defined in the Laws. Kevin Bonham (Australia)

Geurt's response:


Answer You are completely correct that arbiters, who are involved in international tournaments, have little experience regarding Article 10. I myself have never had such a claim, simply because, in almost all international tournaments, Fischer mode is applied during the last period of a game. I also agree that the term “normal means” is quite unclear. Or perhaps referring to Article 9.6 is sufficient:

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.

Finally, to be honest, I had the impression that the most important change in 2005 was that the arbiter does not have to wait for a flag fall to take action, which allows him to observe other games that are still in progress and need his attention.

As he does not dispute my correction I shall hope he has been successfully disabused.

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2006, 10:18 PM
Interesting case and opinion from Geurt's latest column:


Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, I was the arbiter during a rapid play tournament where one player claimed a draw under Article 10.2 with two seconds left on his clock. The other payer had ten seconds left. I ruled that the claim came too late, and the claimant lost the match on time. The player who made the claim had a king, rook and knight, while the opponent had a king and rook. Was my decision correct? Best wishes, Werner Frehen (Germany)

Answer It depends. If you had been observing the game for some time and were of the opinion that nothing much had changed for many moves, then it is reasonable to declare a draw. But if you were not following the game, your decision was correct.

For the material balance Geurt gives I would be inclined to award the draw no matter what (as opposed to KR claiming vs KRN in which case the claim should in general be rejected as pointed out by Reuben in his 1st edition).

But if the material balance was more even then my thinking would be the reverse of Gijssen's. If a player has been playing on til the last second when they could have claimed a draw earlier then why should they be given a draw? Whereas if the player has only succeeded in reaching the claimable position within the last few seconds, the claim should be upheld providing there are now definitely no real winning chances.

Oepty
04-12-2006, 05:00 PM
Kevin. Could you argue that a player being aware that the arbiter is watching the game played on because of this. If the arbiter was not watching then they might have called the arbiter by making a claim. Also if the arbiter has not been watching the game how do they know that the material balance has just be reached?
Scott

Denis_Jessop
04-12-2006, 10:43 PM
I find this example rather strange. Why does it matter how much time the claimant has? Art 10.2 is directed at the behaviour of the opponent, not of the claimant. In the case in point the claimant, having the material advantage, may have been playing on in the hope of winning but, with a couple of seconds left, decided to claim a draw under 10.2. The position may not have justified the upholding of the claim but it's rejection on the ground that is was made "too late" seems bizarre. I assume that "and the claimant lost the match on time" was a consequence of the rejection of his claim so that he had to play on, not a ruling of the arbiter. Incidentally, the term "normal means" is dreadful and on a par with " trade, commerce and intercourse among the States...shall be absolutely free" (Consec 92).:evil:

DJ

Kevin Bonham
06-12-2006, 09:05 PM
The main reason why some arbiters care when the claim is made is that when the claim is first made, the arbiter must make a very quick decision: accept, reject or defer ruling on the claim. If it is at all unclear the arbiter will typically defer the ruling. Then the player has to keep playing and when a flag falls the arbiter makes a decision. However if the player plays on quickly they may blunder and reach a lost position meaning that they will not get the draw when their flag falls.

This gives rise to two different classes of 10.2-rorters.

The first class claims the draw with two minutes on their clock in a position they reckon the arbiter will, with thought, declare drawn because the opponent cannot win by normal means. Having been told to play on they then simply wait for their flag to fall believing the arbiter will award them a draw without playing any more moves.

The second class wait til the very last second to claim so that they cannot be required to play any significant number of further moves.

In either case the player is taking a big risk that the arbiter will not see it their way, whereas had they shown they knew how to draw the position in their sleep over a dozen or so subsequent moves it could be very different. It is probably to specifically deter players from making claims and then providing no further evidence that they know what to do, that some arbiters disallow both the above antics and require that the player should make the claim a reasonable time out and then play a reasonable number of moves unless a claim-worthy position has arisen suddenly just before flagfall.

In my view the first class totally deserve to lose on time, because if they knew the position was trivially unloseable they could have demonstrated that in their remaining two minutes. The second class also deserve to lose on time except in the case Denis mentions, where the player making the claim has a material (or other) advantage and was playing for a win.


Incidentally, the term "normal means" is dreadful and on a par with " trade, commerce and intercourse among the States...shall be absolutely free" (Consec 92).

Totally agree; FIDE needs to codify it in some at least vaguely more objective fashion.


Could you argue that a player being aware that the arbiter is watching the game played on because of this.

Seems reasonable.

In that case the arbiter should consider whether a late-breaking claimant has demonstrated by those moves that the arbiter has seen, that they know how to draw the position in their sleep.

antichrist
06-12-2006, 10:34 PM
Now listen my fellow nabobs, you already know what I think of increment time, well the same goes for the complexity of these rules. That I have not bothered reading by the way. Some people who know that I teach the game ask me about such and such rule. I have to explain about 6 different scenarios to them over about ten minutes and they qualify it by saying that actually that is only a small portion of the rules and that they go on forever if they chose to follow this board.

This is just not good enough if we want to drag the crowds in. Who loves the tax act??

eclectic
06-12-2006, 10:39 PM
This is just not good enough if we want to drag the crowds in. Who loves the tax act??

Hold on!

Just think of the corporate sponsorship chess could get if its laws were seen to have as many rorts or loopholes as the tax act!!

:owned: :owned: :owned:

Kevin Bonham
06-12-2006, 10:40 PM
Now listen my fellow nabobs, you already know what I think of increment time, well the same goes for the complexity of these rules.

Unfortunately one of the biggest problems with not having increments is that it makes complex rules like this necessary.

Chang
10-06-2007, 01:47 AM
Hi all,

I’ve a few questions…
Regarding 10.2 in FIDE Law of Chess, suppose a situation, player A has one rook, one bishop, one knight and pawns while player B has only one rook, one bishop, if player A has less than 2 minutes without increment, can he claim a draw under 10.2? It’s obvious that player B is not the one who playing for win in an usual way.

I was an arbiter in a women tournament. One player raised her hand, without stopping the clock, and asked me if it’s legal to make the move she wanted. Did I have to answer her question? I think it’s not the arbiter’s role to explain Law of Chess to any player. Did she deserve punishment for disturbing opponent? Or, she can consult arbiter because her time is running?

Thanks and regards,
Chang

eclectic
10-06-2007, 10:26 AM
The player is meant to stop the clocks before asking the arbiter any questions. Otherwise their opponent would be free to call flag fall once thier time ran out I would assume.

I expect this thread to be merged with more substantive 10.2 threads.

What concerns me in 10.2 situations such as this is:

If player A has 8 min and has sufficient material to win while player B has 3 min and insufficient material, there being no increments, is player A necessarily forced to actively seek a win or is their securing a flagfall from their opponent replete with on board mating conditions sufficient?

As an analogy if Italy scores a goal two minutes into a football match against Germany does Germany have the right to seek a draw if Italy doesn't make any attempt to score a goal for the rest of the match?

Often a player with superior material with more time is trying not to stumble into stalemate.

Why should we imply that because the disadvantaged player is under 2 min that their opponent won't find mate in their remaining 7 min ?

I hold that the person with the material or mating advantage has every right to prosecute the game until the flagfall and that the disadvantaged player will secure the draw they seek if there is no mating conditions present on the board once flagfall occurs.

Rincewind
10-06-2007, 12:31 PM
The player is meant to stop the clocks before asking the arbiter any questions. Otherwise their opponent would be free to call flag fall once thier time ran out I would assume.

6.13(b) A player may stop the clocks only in order to seek the arbiter`s assistance, for instance when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not available.

I don't think asking the arbiter for clarification on the rules of chess qualifies as seeking assistance. If necessary players should do this on their own time.

Bill Gletsos
10-06-2007, 02:59 PM
Hi all,

I’ve a few questions…
Regarding 10.2 in FIDE Law of Chess, suppose a situation, player A has one rook, one bishop, one knight and pawns while player B has only one rook, one bishop, if player A has less than 2 minutes without increment, can he claim a draw under 10.2? It’s obvious that player B is not the one who playing for win in an usual way.You apparently misunderstand the meaning of the words "normal means" in 10.2.
It does not mean that just because a player is down in material they cannot win by normal means. As such the arbiter would not rule it a draw based simply on the material imbalance.

I was an arbiter in a women tournament. One player raised her hand, without stopping the clock, and asked me if it’s legal to make the move she wanted. Did I have to answer her question? I think it’s not the arbiter’s role to explain Law of Chess to any player. Did she deserve punishment for disturbing opponent? Or, she can consult arbiter because her time is running?There are a couple of possibilities. Stop the clock and summon the arbiter to her board or leave the clocks running and get up from her board and approach the arbiter.
In the case of stopping the clocks she runs the risk the arbiter deems she had no valid reason to stop the clock and thus gets penalised.

Using the last option could be unwise if she is in time trouble even if she originally got up from the board whilst her opponents clock is running.

Also one would need to take into account the experience of tournament play of the player concerned.

Bill Gletsos
10-06-2007, 03:03 PM
6.13(b) A player may stop the clocks only in order to seek the arbiter`s assistance, for instance when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not available.

I don't think asking the arbiter for clarification on the rules of chess qualifies as seeking assistance. If necessary players should do this on their own time.
Article 6.13(d) is also relevant.

6.13(d) If a player stops the clocks in order to seek the arbiter`s assistance, the arbiter shall determine if the player had any valid reason for doing so. If it is obvious that the player has no valid reason for stopping the clocks, the player shall be penalised according to article 13.4.

Bill Gletsos
10-06-2007, 03:26 PM
What concerns me in 10.2 situations such as this is:

If player A has 8 min and has sufficient material to win while player B has 3 min and insufficient material, there being no increments, is player A necessarily forced to actively seek a win or is their securing a flagfall from their opponent replete with on board mating conditions sufficient?

As an analogy if Italy scores a goal two minutes into a football match against Germany does Germany have the right to seek a draw if Italy doesn't make any attempt to score a goal for the rest of the match?

Often a player with superior material with more time is trying not to stumble into stalemate.

Why should we imply that because the disadvantaged player is under 2 min that their opponent won't find mate in their remaining 7 min ?

I hold that the person with the material or mating advantage has every right to prosecute the game until the flagfall and that the disadvantaged player will secure the draw they seek if there is no mating conditions present on the board once flagfall occurs.That last statement is incorrect. The disadvanted player may well secure the draw even if a mating conditions exist if the player with the advantage was making no effort to win by "normal means".

Of course the words advantage/disdavantage have no relevance to article 10.2 .

In your example neither player can claim until they drop to under tweo minutes. If player B drops first then they could make a claim under 10.2.

However they would have to show that player A was making no effort to win by "normal means" or that he cannot win by "normal means".

What cannot win by "normal means" means is essentally that the position is something like R V R or Q V Q or B V B. In most other positions the cannot win by "normal means" claim does not apply.

As for making the claim no effort to win by "normal means" this is usually occurs where the opponent is only trying to win on time. This is more complex as it requires the arbiter to judge if the player is indeed "making an effort".

Rincewind
10-06-2007, 03:34 PM
Article 6.13(d) is also relevant.

6.13(d) If a player stops the clocks in order to seek the arbiter`s assistance, the arbiter shall determine if the player had any valid reason for doing so. If it is obvious that the player has no valid reason for stopping the clocks, the player shall be penalised according to article 13.4.

I agree.

If I was the arbiter I would not classify a normal rule clarification as a valid reason. The players should know the rules and listen to the announcements at the start of tournament and start of round. However, although I can't think of a black and white scenario off the top of my head, in some exceptional circumstances it might be warranted. Generally it should just be to make claims, locate a piece for promotion if the required piece is not readily available, report something requiring the arbiter's attention (e.g. distracting spectator, fault clock, flickering light, etc).

Denis_Jessop
10-06-2007, 05:06 PM
I agree.

If I was the arbiter I would not classify a normal rule clarification as a valid reason. The players should know the rules and listen to the announcements at the start of tournament and start of round. However, although I can't think of a black and white scenario off the top of my head, in some exceptional circumstances it might be warranted. Generally it should just be to make claims, locate a piece for promotion if the required piece is not readily available, report something requiring the arbiter's attention (e.g. distracting spectator, fault clock, flickering light, etc).

As Bill remarked it may depend on the experience of the player concerned. I have been arbiter in a few primary schools team events in which it has been clear that many of the players don't know the finer points of the rules and probably could not be expected to know them. A frequent question is "Is this checkmate?" and other common questions involve the validity of castling, for example with the K and R in the middle of the board, and the en passant rule which fascinates juniors though adults rarely encounter it. In all of those cases where the kids are clearly very inexperienced, I would usually answer them but I wouldn't in a normal adult event. About the best I have received in those is a claim that the game is drawn because the position is a theoretical draw which was met with the response that it deserved.

DJ

Aaron Guthrie
10-06-2007, 05:22 PM
As for making the claim no effort to win by "normal means" this is usually occurs where the opponent is only trying to win on time. This is more complex as it requires the arbiter to judge if the player is indeed "making an effort".And a good endgame player sometimes will make it appear as though he is not trying to win, to lull the opponent into a false sense of security.

Kevin Bonham
12-06-2007, 07:55 PM
What cannot win by "normal means" means is essentally that the position is something like R V R or Q V Q or B V B. In most other positions the cannot win by "normal means" claim does not apply.

There are a range of interpretations in the absence of FIDE's willingness to give an explicit definition. While some DOPs will only award draws in really simplified cases like that, some others will follow the test given by Reuben in his book (1st edition): "would a loss on time in this position bring the game into disrepute"? So:


Regarding 10.2 in FIDE Law of Chess, suppose a situation, player A has one rook, one bishop, one knight and pawns while player B has only one rook, one bishop, if player A has less than 2 minutes without increment, can he claim a draw under 10.2? It’s obvious that player B is not the one who playing for win in an usual way.

Some arbiters might give draws in cases like this depending on the position but extremely critical judgement needs to be applied because of the possibility of a swindle. Player A only needs to lose their knight to a trick and then it will be KBR vs KR+Ps. If B then can win all the pawns we get KBR vs KR which in some positions is a forced win and in others is difficult to hold.

I would generally not award a draw in the case you mention. However, I would say "play on" and reserve the decision until after flagfall.



Often a player with superior material with more time is trying not to stumble into stalemate.

This counts as playing to win so a claim of not playing to win under 10.2 would fail. Similarly a player is entitled to make failed, even misguided, attempts to force a win, and to repeat the position while trying to work out what to do. A player who is material up but under fire is entitled to ward off an attack on their way to trying to win. A player is entitled to maneuver in a way that has no objective threat but gives the opponent a chance to mess things up. etc

That part of the rule is reserved for the sort of player who gets in a winning situation on the clock and then just blatantly piece-shuffles back and forth, typically over dozens of moves.

Capablanca-Fan
13-06-2007, 10:52 AM
There are a range of interpretations in the absence of FIDE's willingness to give an explicit definition.

Pathetic!


While some DOPs will only award draws in really simplified cases like that, some others will follow the test given by Reuben in his book (1st edition): "would a loss on time in this position bring the game into disrepute"?

I would follow Reuben. But my club has abolished time controls where this rule applies anyway. I have been the arbiter for years, and until Solo joined I was by far the stronges player, but I still didn't want this job where it involves a judgement on a chess position rather than enforcing clear laws.



Regarding 10.2 in FIDE Law of Chess, suppose a situation, player A has one rook, one bishop, one knight and pawns while player B has only one rook, one bishop, if player A has less than 2 minutes without increment, can he claim a draw under 10.2? It’s obvious that player B is not the one who playing for win in an usual way.


Some arbiters might give draws in cases like this depending on the position but extremely critical judgement needs to be applied because of the possibility of a swindle. Player A only needs to lose their knight to a trick and then it will be KBR vs KR+Ps. If B then can win all the pawns we get KBR vs KR which in some positions is a forced win and in others is difficult to hold.

But the original situation was KRBNPs v KRB, so Black would have to lose two pieces to tricks.


That part of the rule is reserved for the sort of player who gets in a winning situation on the clock and then just blatantly piece-shuffles back and forth, typically over dozens of moves.

Some maneuvring can actually be purposeful (as you noted), but may not appear to be so to a low-rated arbiter.

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2007, 11:32 AM
Pathetic!

I agree totally. I have made this point to Gijssen a few times, that while the rule is OK in strong tournaments where the IAs all know other IAs and where virtually every relevant position would be agreed drawn anyway and where the time controls it relates to are nearly extinct, it is a different kettle of fish when it is applied at local levels by arbiters with limited experience and understanding. That's especially so when the players don't understand the rule either, when the players are more prone to blunder, and when

That said, the point needs to keep being made in pretty much every post that the arbiter need not evaluate the position as to what its outcome is with best play. They only need to make a judgement about whether it is possible for the position to be won by "normal means".


But the original situation was KRBNPs v KRB, so Black would have to lose two pieces to tricks.

Ooops. I forgot about the extra piece. Even so I would say play on and wait for a flagfall before deciding, and I would take the skill level of the players into account. I myself when aged 15 and rated 1035 lost a rated game where I had K+R+N+6P vs K+R+2P - not through simply leaving pieces en prise but by trying an over-fancy rook swap that involved putting my rook en prise then forking with the knight - only to find the number of squares between king and rook was one greater than when I first considered the combination so I had simply thrown away a rook. This left me with K+N+6P vs K+R+2P but he had a passed pawn which with my rook off the board became unstoppable. (Or maybe my endgame play was pathetic; I don't know - it was the only time I have ever thrown a scoresheet away in disgust.)


Some maneuvring can actually be purposeful (as you noted), but may not appear to be so to a low-rated arbiter.

Yes, this is a potential issue although I am not aware of a case where a draw has been incorrectly awarded on the not-playing-to-win side of the rule.

I am certainly aware of draws that have been clearly wrongly awarded at club level; for example in one event I heard of a player with KR vs KRN claimed and was awarded a 10.2.

Garvinator
13-06-2007, 11:45 AM
I would generally not award a draw in the case you mention. However, I would say "play on" and reserve the decision until after flagfall.That said, the point needs to keep being made in pretty much every post that the arbiter need not evaluate the position as to what its outcome is with best play. They only need to make a judgement about whether it is possible for the position to be won by "normal means".
Would you say that a fair way of judging 'normal means' would be that if you believe the player is trying to win the position 'over the board' then say play on. If you think they are only trying to win by the clock, then call draw?


I would generally not award a draw in the case you mention. However, I would say "play on" and reserve the decision until after flagfall. Do you mean 'postpone' in these cases?

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2007, 12:12 PM
Would you say that a fair way of judging 'normal means' would be that if you believe the player is trying to win the position 'over the board' then say play on. If you think they are only trying to win by the clock, then call draw?

A fair test for the "not trying to win" ground is that if you're sure they're only trying to win by the clock, it's a draw. But that doesn't work for the "unable to win" ground. Some juniors will try to win and think they can still do it with K+B vs K until you step in and tell them it's a draw. :doh:


Do you mean 'postpone' in these cases?

Yes although unless you are needing to deal with several games at once there is rarely any reason to award the draw between the claim and flagfall.

Ian Rout
14-06-2007, 11:11 AM
This sounds like a marginal case. Personally I would probably not give the draw, at least initially, as there is plenty of opportunity for mistakes, either by a pure blunder or by A coming up a with a brilliant tactic that sacrifices material to remove B's rook and finding it has a flaw. B should be given the opportunity to procure a blunder - there's no point having a guillotine finish, which requires a player to move instantaneously and suffer the consequences of errors, and then relieving the player of that obligation.

I think my criterion would be that a draw should be awarded only if the mechanism to hold is fairly clear and there is little opportunity to set problems or create tricks.

Kevin Bonham
05-07-2007, 06:17 PM
Very good discussion of 10.2 by Gijssen in his latest column.

First position illustrated is

8/8/p7/2KQ1k2/8/8/8/8 b - - 1 10

Second position illustrated is

8/8/8/2KQ4/5k2/p6p/8/8 w - - 1 10

and white has 3 seconds left in each case

Gijssen argues that:

* if white claims in the first position the claim is disallowed as it is black's move
* move black K to f6 in same position and 3 seconds should be enough time for white to kill the pawn (he does not say what decision should be made in this case, but I suspect he thinks the claim can be refused or "play on" called, as the claim is unnecessary)
* in the second position:


White is completely winning, but there is no time to take two pawns within 3 seconds. Some arbiters would agree to the draw and others would prefer to wait before making a decision. I would wait for White's next move, and if he played Qa2, Kb4, Qh1 or something similar, I would agree.

It is clear from this that Gijssen agrees with Reuben that the award of a draw need not be confined to a restricted set of typically pawnless positions.

And I agree with him - I would also say "play on" in this situation so that the player can demonstrate that they do know how to draw the position.

Kevin Bonham
11-10-2007, 10:37 PM
Unfortunately Gijssen has made a mess of it again in his September column:


Question Dear Sir, I am having difficulty understanding the correct interpretation of the 10.2 draw by adjudication rule. I have asked several arbiters and international players to explain it clearly, but I have received various definitions for the term “win by normal means.”

In some of your articles you have used the term “with the most unskilled play” which is very self explanatory; however, “normal means” is not so clear. Can you please define this term in the simplest way possible and cite examples so that I may obtain its true definition. Thank you, Deborah Richards (Jamaica)

Answer I am afraid that my answer may not satisfy you. Nevertheless, I will try. First, in general the arbiter should not judge the position. The term “10.2 draw by adjudication” is erroneous in my opinion, with one exception. The exception is if the position is such that the opponent cannot win, even with the most unskilled play; for instance, if the opponent only has a king. Other examples are: K+Q vs. K+B, K+Q vs. K+N, K+R vs. K+B, but not K+R vs. K+N. Here is an example of this last case.
If White plays 1 Rg8, then Nf7 is mate. But in the other cases the player with less material cannot win “by normal means.” So the only possibility is to win the game on time when the player who has the superior position oversteps the time limit.

He is missing the point here because in all the positions where "the opponent cannot win, even with the most unskilled play" there is no reason for a draw claim since the player who cannot be mated gets a draw upon flagfall anyway.

I think what he is trying to say when he says "in general the arbiter should not judge the position" is that the arbiter should not try to decide the outcome of the position with best play, which is true. But he doesn't express himself very well, because the arbiter should examine the position (and not just the moves being played) for the purposes of 10.2.

He also doesn't express himself clearly re the point of KR vs KN. If he's saying KR shouldn't get a 10.2 draw against KN if there is the possibility of mate next move with a blunder that's one thing, but he can easily be read as saying that KR shouldn't get a 10.2 draw against KN fullstop, which is silly.

Fortunately this rule is becoming less and less necessary with the widespread adoption of increments - I would not want to play in a G60 guillotine time control event at which Gijssen was arbiter.

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2008, 07:31 PM
From the Nalchik incident discussion:


I'm rather confused on the definition of "normal means", perhaps you can clarify them? What if one day in a similar situation, my opponent claims that his interpretation of "normal means" also includes a win on time? After all, in a sudden death game, wins on time are not uncommon or abnormal rulings.

As noted by various posters on the Nalchik thread 10.2 does not apply to blitz.

However I thought I'd answer this question for those time limits to which 10.2 does apply (bearing in mind that interpretations do vary slightly).

All remotely competent arbiters would agree that "normal means" does not include the following:

* winning on time (this is primarily what the "normal means" concept is set up in opposition to)
* opponent losing the game through rule violations such as repeated illegal moves or misbehaviour
* active and deliberate co-operation from opponent (eg the only way a checkmate can occur is if the opponent deliberately aims to be mated)

It's also widely agreed that KR vs KR can and should be ruled drawn under this rule (except if there is a forced win on the board) although it is not covered by any of the above. Thrashing out exactly what else (beside the above) is not "normal means" is where the rule gets a bit subjective. My current understanding of what else is not "normal means" is as follows:

* one or more elementary blunders from the claimant, such as throwing pieces away, failing to stop immediate mate with an obvious counter, or making no effort whatsoever to prevent a pawn from promoting, that are such basic blunders that the claimant would absolutely never make them except under very extreme time pressure.

Kevin Bonham
28-01-2010, 07:06 PM
There is an article about my pet Article by Trevor Stanning in the Box Hill/Canterbury newsletter here (http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/e2010/news/201003.pdf) (PDF download). The main problem with the article it is it doesn't actually spell out what a "quickplay finish" actually is, and could easily lead to the punters confusing rapid with quickplay and making claims at time limits to which 10.2 does not apply. Just to be clear: 10.2 does not apply to any game with indefinite increments or topups.

Trevor also says: "The sort of position that [sic] this can occur is for example a fully blocked pawn chain with each King locked behind their pawns and no chance of attacking the base of the opponent pawn chain."

Actually if it is a fully blocked pawn chain and there is no way at all of breaking through the chain or helping the other player to do so (not even a stupid way involving throwing away some other piece) then the game is a draw by dead position.

A better example is someone playing on and trying to win on time with King and Rook vs King and Rook.

Garvinator
28-01-2010, 07:51 PM
A better example is someone playing on and trying to win on time with King and Rook vs King and Rook.
Or Knight v Knight ;)

Kevin Bonham
28-01-2010, 08:06 PM
Incidentally there was a case in the Aus Juniors, mentioned on that thread but worth repeating here, where the new extension of 10.2 to some blitz games could have been used.

This was in the first blitz (5/0) playoff game for the U16 Rapid title, between Bobby Cheng and Eugene Schon. Eugene had been behind on the clock and struggling for much of the game but put in a superb effort to get it down to rook vs rook and rook's pawn and then force the win of Bobby's pawn. At this point Eugene was still well behind on time and so there was potential for Bobby to "clock" him by just playing meaningless moves until his flag fell. However instead once he saw his last pawn would fall, Bobby sportingly offered a draw, which was accepted.

Under the new blitz rules the game (which had a single arbiter) was defined as adequately supervised and therefore Eugene could have successfully claimed a draw once it got to KR v KR. However Eugene was not aware of this rule change and I'm not sure if anyone else there (other than me) was.

Kevin Bonham
30-01-2010, 11:12 AM
*sigh*

There has been extensive clueless trolling nattering by MOZ and Axiom about post 76 in the other shoutbox so it seems like I need to spell this bit out for the uninformed ones:


5.2 b. 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. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was legal. (See Article 9.6)

(Curiously Article 9.6 now says exactly the same thing and is redundant.)

So if something like this:

k7/8/3p3p/p1pPp1pP/PpP1PpP1/1P3P2/8/4K3 w - - 0 1

appears on the board and there is no en passant capture possible then there is no need to worry about 10.2. The reason there is no need to worry is that once such a position appears on the board the game is immediately drawn and the arbiter is compelled to stop it without waiting for a claim or flagfall.

And yes 10.1 defines what a quickplay finish is ("the phase of a game when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time.", - in some cases that phase is the whole game). However, MOZ's article discussed quickplay finishes without any reference to either the existence of 10.1 or its implications. The term "quick play finish" was employed without the slightest indication as to its (somewhat counterintuitive) technical meaning, and if MOZ's club now gets some bogus 10.2 claims in rapid games with increments he will only have himself to blame.

FM_Bill
08-02-2010, 08:32 PM
A better example is someone playing on and trying to win on time with King and Rook vs King and Rook.

I once saw Eddie Levi win (on position) with K+R v K+R on position, against a 1500 player in a weekender, and the 1500 wasn't that short of time.

I also recall Tony Wright adjudicating games in a Vic Junior so the next round would start.

He would look at a position for a few seconds and say "win or white",
if it was roughly even in material he would say "draw".

I mention this this to highlight potential problems of third parties interfering with games. There is a saying "chess is a game for 2 players".

I know a game in which an 1800 player lost with K v K+P (in a drawn position).

I think there is a difference between
(a) a player is dead lost, but tries to win with P v Q say (Gijssen Pos 1)

(b) game is drawn (unless someone puts a piece en prise etc)

(c) player has no mating material

In Gijssen Pos 1, I personally think if white cannot take the pawn in 2 moves
in 3 moves, he deserves to lose on time.

In Gijssen Pos 2, white can draw by winning both pawns in a few moves.
With 3 seconds left people do blunder and make random moves. Ive won worse positions that than.

A case could be made than when one side has absolute overwhelming superiority, he has the responsibility of removing all mating material.

I think a theoretical draw is a very different situation. Where to draw the line is really tough.

I have seen Ian Rogers move around for ages in apparently drawn positions and win.

Jesper Norgaard
09-02-2010, 02:25 AM
I think a theoretical draw is a very different situation. Where to draw the line is really tough.
I think letting the arbiter do any position evaluation concerning 10.2 leads to wildly different results in similar positions. The problem is of course different chess strength and different criteria of different arbiters, but also simply how open-ended the 10.2 rule is phrased. If you have potential mating material (like a pawn) then you can win by normal means, can't you? The supposed answer is "No" and I still think it's rubbish.

There is an easy solution which FIDE uses in all its tournaments - just use increment. 2 seconds for blitz, 10 for rapid and 30 for normal games. It just kills any attempt to win on time (alone). If the position is a draw, and the players continue, they will get to a situation where there is simply no more attempts to win - and agree to a draw. If not before, forced by the 50 moves rule. It can be applied in blitz too, although you need an arbiter that (rightly) wants to stop the nonsense as well as one of the players.

MichaelBaron
26-02-2011, 06:42 PM
Ok, a lovely story from today's Allegro.

I am playing a certain chess player (you can guess who he is ..let me give you a hint - he was previously banned by ACF for a year for participating in a fight during Doebrl Cup some years ago). I am a winning position and my opponent starts talking to me over my time offering a draw and screaming out that he wants to claim a draw.

This really puts me off and I miss an obvious winning move. After this the position becomes drawn, however, it is still not kind of position where a technical draw can be claimed. My opponent stops the clock and claims a draw. An arbiter is confused. Finally he finds some chess rule on the internet that my opponent should be given 2 extra minutes because he made a claim of a draw. It takes a while to explain to him that its me who should be given 2 minutes according to the rule....of course i get no extra time :).

Part 2 of the story....i am being asked to show to the arbiter how i am going to play for win....Ok fine....it turns out that showing to the arbiter is not good enough as i need to show to some other players too cause the arbiter is not ''strong enough''...but if the position is a technical draw - any arbiter of any playing strength should be able to recognize it...

Finally, i show the position to a group of players...and explain my plan..then the game continues with my opponent having 15 sec on the clock.....I am shifting pieces around so i can win few more seconds before i try the main trick that i was playing for...My opponent had a chance to analyze the ending while I was busy showing my ''tricks'' to the arbiter as well as explaining to the arbiter that there is nothing in the rules of chess that whoever makes a claim that a position is technically drawn should get 2 minutes extra!!!!

So with 6 sec on his clock in order to avoid triple repetition ..i am about to play my ''last trick''. Would Fired Goat have no chance to analyze the position ...chances of him falling for the trick would be not that low (given the time on his clock..no time to think at all). but with all the analysis...he could have seen it..and I have already explained to the arbiter that once position becomes technically drawn..(bishops of opposite colors would make it quite transparent) - i am going to agree to a draw even if my opponent has 1 second left!!! Yet, FG makes another draw claim..and this time the claim is successful.

I decided not to withdraw from the tournament..even though I could not play properly from their onwards, however the questions are:

1) can my opponent talk to me over my time, repeatedly offer draws, scream out that ''the position is drawn etc.
2) should he get 2 mins extra just for making a claim
3) should I be the one to show winning plan to the arbiter? while he is shamelessly analyzing the position?
4) how can a position where i have 2 passed pawns (drawn of course) and still a trick (ok, a simple one but with 6 secs..anything happens) be proclaimed a draw?
and 5) FG has history of making noises during tournament games, unauthorized withdrawals etc. should not something be done about it?

Garvinator
26-02-2011, 07:07 PM
Ahh 10.2. Got to hate it!


10.2 If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b)

a. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.

b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.

c. If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes time.

d. The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to (a), (b) and (c).


1) can my opponent talk to me over my time, repeatedly offer draws, scream out that ''the position is drawn etc.Stop the clocks and call for the arbiter, Stop the clocks and call for the arbiter, Stop the clocks and call for the arbiter!!. Stop the clocks. Oh hang on, I already said that ;)

You have every right to call the arbiter over and claim that your opponent is distracting you. If the arbiter agrees, then it is normal to warn the offending party and to give you time compensation in return.

However, if you stop the clocks and the arbiter thinks you have stopped the clocks unnecessarily, then you may be time penalised for stopping a game in progress.


2) should he get 2 mins extra just for making a claimFor 10.2, no. It is the opponent who may receive the extra 2 minutes. From my understanding, the 2 minutes is rarely applied though. But it can be.

For 10.2, the claimant never receives any extra time.


3) should I be the one to show winning plan to the arbiter? while he is shamelessly analyzing the position?The arbiter needs to work out if you are trying to win by 'normal' means. Of course in the laws of chess 'normal' is not defined, but it generally means that you are attempting to win the position on the board, rather than by time alone. It does not mean that you have to find the fastest way to win, but are still trying to win.


4) how can a position where i have 2 passed pawns (drawn of course) and still a trick (ok, a simple one but with 6 secs..anything happens) be proclaimed a draw?This is one of the biggest differences between being a player looking at a game and being an arbiter. To an arbiter there is no such thing as a technically drawn position. All that matters is if the position is DEAD drawn or not.

Dead drawn is very different to technically drawn.


5) FG has history of making noises during tournament games, unauthorized withdrawals etc. should not something be done about it?Stop the clocks, call the arbiter.

Another suggestion, do not play guillotine time controls. Use 10 + 5 or 15 + 2 instead. 10.2 does not apply then and a lot of the other issues go away on their own with a tiny increment rather than guillotine.

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2011, 07:12 PM
If Michael's account given above is correct (note the proviso since there may be different versions of the story from others) then:

1. If there were increments, firegoat had no right to claim a draw at all. There is no right to claim a draw just because you have a theoretically drawn position.

2. If there were no increments (which I believe to be the case) then:

* firegoat could claim a draw under rule 10.2 once his time fell below 2 minutes.

* At that point the arbiter must decide whether to accept the claim, defer it or reject it. Unless the decision is instantly obvious, the arbiter should choose defer. Having chosen to defer, the arbiter may give MB two extra minutes, but doesn't have to.

* It is completely wrong for the arbiter to ask MB to show how he is going to win when the game is not finished. It is up to MB to show that he is trying to win, and the opponent to show that he knows whatever he needs to know to defend the position. These things must be shown over the board with the clock running, not with the game halted to argue the point. Unless MB clearly isn't trying to win, or unless there is clearly no chance that MB can win, then the opponent needs to show that he knows what he is doing before flagfall.

* firegoat cannot claim the same draw again. He must continue the game until it is drawn naturally, somebody's flag falls, or the arbiter upholds his existing claim. If a flag falls then the arbiter rules on the previous claim, based on the position on the board and whether MB has been trying to win. Note that the arbiter does not decide whether the position is drawn - what the arbiter has to decide is whether there is any realistic chance with normal play (even with mistakes from the opponent, so long as they're not completely loopy ones) that MB could win the position. If MB is trying to win and there are still tricks in the position when the opponent's flag falls then MB wins on time.

My answers to MB's questions:

1) No - but it is your responsibility to stop the clock immediately when he does this and complain.

2) No.

3) No. There should be no showing of plans to the arbiter except by continuing the game.

4) It shouldn't, even if it is objectively drawn.

5) Quite possibly but people need to complain to the sanctioning bodies of the tournaments he plays in. Which in this case is the MCC since it's not all that likely CV or ACF are going to get involved in an internal club allegro that isn't even submitted for ACF rapid-ratings.

MichaelBaron
26-02-2011, 10:21 PM
* firegoat cannot claim the same draw again. He must continue the game until it is drawn naturally, somebody's flag falls, or the arbiter upholds his existing claim. If a flag falls then the arbiter rules on the previous claim, based on the position on the board and whether MB has been trying to win. Note that the arbiter does not decide whether the position is drawn - what the arbiter has to decide is whether there is any realistic chance with normal play (even with mistakes from the opponent, so long as they're not completely loopy ones) that MB could win the position. If MB is trying to win and there are still tricks in the position when the opponent's flag falls then MB wins on time.

.

And that is another important point!
The arblter for the tournament is also a member of Chess Chat and so are some of the witnesses so may be they could comment on the accuracy if my account and correct me if i am wrong!

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2011, 10:31 PM
This is an interesting bit:


then the game continues with my opponent having 15 sec on the clock.....I am shifting pieces around so i can win few more seconds before i try the main trick that i was playing for...

This isn't strictly the same thing as "not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means" but it could well look very much like it.

MichaelBaron
27-02-2011, 12:02 AM
This is an interesting bit:



This isn't strictly the same thing as "not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means" but it could well look very much like it.

good point - but in this case you can argue that Karpov and Andersson never attempt to win any position LOL :)

jhughes
27-02-2011, 07:08 AM
As the arbiter for this event I would sincerely apologize for my many mistakes made in my arbiting role. I grant that my decisions were inaccurate, and to Michael I apologize for interpreting your shuffling of the position as 'not trying to win by normal means' as it seems that it does not qualify as such.

If nothing else I believe this emphasizes the necessity for a lawbook concerning the Allegro tournament; as otherwise rules and arbiting decisions will vary greatly for each Allegro (e.g. Deniz Tuncer and showed the position on a board to Grant, and he stated that he would have instantly proclaimed it a draw). This would of course have to be approved by the Allegro community, as it would likely have a few significant changes from the FIDE Lawbook. Does anyone else agree? Or would it solve less problems than it would raise?

MichaelBaron
27-02-2011, 10:20 AM
This would of course have to be approved by the Allegro community, as it would likely have a few significant changes from the FIDE Lawbook. Does anyone else agree? Or would it solve less problems than it would raise?

I think Fide Lawbook should be good enough. Also I was told today (I have not checked it myself yet, but I will today) that FG was admitting on the other forum that his draw offers and the supporting noises were aimed at putting me off :).

Paul Cavezza
27-02-2011, 12:35 PM
Common sense approach- add 20 seconds to both clocks, still playing under time pressure but the game has to run it's course.

I can understand Michael's frustration though as I think he comes at this from an entirely different angle- The Baron forced me to play out this exciting end game with 5 seconds left:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/jeanpaulsartre/ridiculous.png

Which later became 2 sets of 2 passed pawns.

I think a decent allegro rules would be:

1. White has to show a winning idea that doesn't involve black making a ridiculous move.
2. If a position is obviously drawn but there is still a chance for for a trick or a mistake, just add 20 seconds to the clocks and play out the game.

Garvinator
27-02-2011, 12:38 PM
Common sense approach- add 20 seconds to both clocks, still playing under time pressure but the game has to run it's course.
The best approach is to play all these games with a 2 second increment. It could even be a 5 second bronstein/time delay increment, rather than using guillotine.

Ahh it is good having no antichrist :owned:

Kevin Bonham
27-02-2011, 12:50 PM
firegoat has claimed that the position was something like this (it is a little confusing as he has reversed the colours; I have unreversed them)

8/8/3kP3/3Pb3/8/5Kp1/1p6/1B6 b - - 0 1

Black (MB) has just played Bf6-e5 and white (firegoat) claims a draw.

Assuming this is the correct position then it at first glance it doesn't look like black can win by normal means. But to uphold the claim the arbiter needs to be sure there is no trick that white might blunder into, so the correct first decision is to call play on, and this should be done immediately, or at least within 10-20 seconds. Unless MB is very short of time himself there is no need to award MB extra time.

Having called play on the arbiter should then watch the play and wait until firegoat's flag falls. At that point firegoat still has rights from his deferred draw claim and at this point the arbiter can consider the moves that have been made and the final position, and decide whether (i) MB has made sufficient attempts to win by "normal means" (ie not just on the clock) (ii) there is any real chance to win the final position by "normal means". If yes to both MB wins on time, otherwise it is a draw. The advantage of this is that because the flag has fallen the arbiter can take as long as he likes, and he can seek assistance from stronger players who are not involved in the game if he thinks he needs it. In my experience, it's easiest to just take the board and any record of the moves away into another room and make the decision. Don't let the players "lobby" and argue back and forth because that's when things get messy.

My view is that, at their level, black just cannot win the position above (if it's the correct position) by normal means. It's just too obvious that only the g-pawn can win, and it needs to be shepherded by the king, and that the king can't get near it without the g-pawn dropping , if necessary by use of white's e-pawn as a decoy. A 1900-ish player won't miss this stuff, even when short of time. So most likely (if that was the position) then whatever happened later a draw was the correct result, even if reached by an incorrect path.

A few comments about firegoat's comments in the other place:


My understanding was that if [Black] couldn't prove a winning plan then the arbiter can intervene and say he is just trying to win on time and declare a draw.

If the arbiter is satisfied that MB has just been trying to win on time the arbiter can declare a draw as soon as the claim is made.

But if the arbiter is not sure that is true, then the arbiter says play on and watches to see if MB is just trying to win on time. MB doesn't have to prove a winning plan or even have one, but he does have to try to win.


You said it was a draw, now you are saying it has winning chances. The position is a draw, everybody in the room could see this.

It is easy to get confused here between the concept of a forced draw and the sort of draw claimed under this rule. It doesn't matter whether the position is a forced draw. The issue is whether it is still practically possible for the defending side to stuff up and lose. Technically drawn positions sometimes do have practical winning chances - but I don't think the one above does (if it is correct). Rather it looks exactly like the sort of position the Law exists to protect players from losing on time in.

Paul Cavezza
27-02-2011, 12:51 PM
The best approach is to play all these games with a 2 second increment. It could even be a 5 second bronstein/time delay increment, rather than using guillotine.

Ahh it is good having no antichrist :owned:

Also a good shout- eliminates most of these problems.

Garvinator
27-02-2011, 12:54 PM
Also a good shout- eliminates most of these problems.My bolding- do you mean antichrist being banned eliminates most problems, or the use of increments ;) :cool:

Kevin Bonham
27-02-2011, 01:10 PM
Common sense approach- add 20 seconds to both clocks, still playing under time pressure but the game has to run it's course.

It does surprise me that FIDE have never included an extra-time option in 10.2. It could solve a lot of problems.


I can understand Michael's frustration though as I think he comes at this from an entirely different angle- The Baron forced me to play out this exciting end game with 5 seconds left:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/jeanpaulsartre/ridiculous.png

Which later became 2 sets of 2 passed pawns.

You don't say whether you had black or white but in my view although that position is drawn, it is still possible that black might win by normal means. The main trick for black here is to get his king to d4 and hope white puts his king on a silly square, unaware of the danger of ...Ke3 when both sides queen (and in some lines white gets mated).

I would also play on if I was black in this position and white was very short of time.

MichaelBaron
27-02-2011, 01:12 PM
Ok here come the trick :). I am going to play Kd4 - Black's only way to draw is to sacrifice both pawnswith d2 to get the b6 pawn. In this case - its dead draw bishop and pawn vs. bishop!

Re: getting Pablito to play out that endgame he mentiones: Would he play h4 and exchange on g5. I would be happy to proclaim the game drawn! but this was not played..In fact from memory, Pablito managed to lose on te board as well as on time ;)

Paul Cavezza
27-02-2011, 01:12 PM
hehe- I was black!

and yes- the shame is great, i lost that position.......................................... ................

back to your game!

So you were going to play

1. Bf4, Kg2
then eventually get the bishop to d6 and bring your king to support the pawn?

Yeah- there's definitely play left in that position and it's arguable whether even a very strong blitz player like Dave would find the moves with 15 seconds left. It all comes down to the fact that you've got yourself into that time trouble and now you have to assume the responsibility for it- in any case- it's a ridiculous position to put a junior player into to rule on. Someone like Jack should just come and enjoy his chess without that pressure. We should have an increment and just agree that the 4 strongest players at the allegro are the arbiters if need be.

MichaelBaron
27-02-2011, 01:16 PM
Btw, may be we can move this discussion in to the arbiting thread, or FireGoat disqualification thread

Kevin Bonham
27-02-2011, 01:31 PM
Ok here come the trick :). I am going to play Kd4 - Black's only way to draw is to sacrifice both pawnswith d2 to get the b6 pawn. In this case - its dead draw bishop and pawn vs. bishop!

Not very much of a trick though. You're depending on that when you take on d5 with your king, he's failed to notice that e7 decoying the bishop allows him to take the g-pawn with his king.

I did find an amusing swindle though, the sort of disaster that just might happen in a real game with one player very short of time:

8/8/3bP1B1/3P4/3k4/5Kp1/1p6/8 b - - 0 1

Black has executed a plan to bring his king to d4. White has been shuffling his bishop between b1 and g6 and black plays ...Ke5. White grabs the pawn with Kxg3?? and loses after ...Kf6+.

jhughes
27-02-2011, 02:22 PM
It does surprise me that FIDE have never included an extra-time option in 10.2. It could solve a lot of problems.
Does this not strengthen the case for an Allegro lawbook? As I am certain that there are several other improvements that could be made, and having such a lawbook would mean that disputes such as these would be solved more quickly.

Kevin Bonham
27-02-2011, 03:08 PM
Does this not strengthen the case for an Allegro lawbook? As I am certain that there are several other improvements that could be made, and having such a lawbook would mean that disputes such as these would be solved more quickly.

It's up to you (ie MCC) to decide if you want to adopt more or different rules. After all since your events aren't rated by anyone except MCC, there's no reason you can't do so if you want to.

Probably a good starting point is:

* either decide that all FIDE laws as they are are going to apply, or

* decide that certain FIDE laws don't apply or will be applied differently, and say FIDE laws apply except for (list of exceptions).

mikesguns
27-02-2011, 03:23 PM
It's up to you (ie MCC) to decide if you want to adopt more or different rules. After all since your events aren't rated by anyone except MCC, there's no reason you can't do so if you want to.

Probably a good starting point is:

* either decide that all FIDE laws as they are are going to apply, or

* decide that certain FIDE laws don't apply or will be applied differently, and say FIDE laws apply except for (list of exceptions).
Well no one seems to follow the FIDE rules as phones constantly go off during matches, but no one is forfeited, so if MCC is going to adopt FIDE rules then this will need to change as well.
Personally i think MCC should make some exceptions including what Pablito said about giving 20 seconds to each player

Garvinator
27-02-2011, 04:24 PM
It does surprise me that FIDE have never included an extra-time option in 10.2. It could solve a lot of problems.How would this work?

Kevin Bonham
27-02-2011, 04:52 PM
How would this work?

There are various options but one would be to always add 2 minutes to each clock if there is a play-on called. It's extremely likely that if the position is dead drawn the defender will be able to demonstrate it in that time thus reaching the right result.

However if this was adopted I'd suggest that it should not be possible for the claimant to win the game.

Garvinator
27-02-2011, 05:16 PM
I think a better local rule would be to abolish 10.2 and just use blitz rules for 15/0 :hmm:

jhughes
27-02-2011, 05:25 PM
Well no one seems to follow the FIDE rules as phones constantly go off during matches, but no one is forfeited, so if MCC is going to adopt FIDE rules then this will need to change as well.
Personally i think MCC should make some exceptions including what Pablito said about giving 20 seconds to each player
We tend to leave out this rule because in a 15 minute game the player who has been called will be handicapped significantly, and as such it seems there is no need for further punishment.

Garvinator
27-02-2011, 05:29 PM
We tend to leave out this rule because in a 15 minute game the player who has been called will be handicapped significantly, and as such it seems there is no need for further punishment.It might direct the opponent, but it creates a distraction for everyone else.

Hobbes
27-02-2011, 11:07 PM
1) can my opponent talk to me over my time, repeatedly offer draws, scream out that ''the position is drawn etc.
2) should he get 2 mins extra just for making a claim
3) should I be the one to show winning plan to the arbiter? while he is shamelessly analyzing the position?
4) how can a position where i have 2 passed pawns (drawn of course) and still a trick (ok, a simple one but with 6 secs..anything happens) be proclaimed a draw?
and 5) FG has history of making noises during tournament games, unauthorized withdrawals etc. should not something be done about it?

Surely the best way to find out which of you was right would have been to settle it with a fist fight then and there?

Jesper Norgaard
01-03-2011, 12:18 PM
The best approach is to play all these games with a 2 second increment. It could even be a 5 second bronstein/time delay increment, rather than using guillotine.
I agree on that.


There are various options but one would be to always add 2 minutes to each clock if there is a play-on called. It's extremely likely that if the position is dead drawn the defender will be able to demonstrate it in that time thus reaching the right result.

However if this was adopted I'd suggest that it should not be possible for the claimant to win the game.

The first part is reasonable (even for FIDE to include in the official laws about 10.2), but I'm not sure about the second part since that implies that the opponent can make a major poker-gamble maneuver with extra chances to win without the risk, and if it is refuted then he can just "reclaim the draw" from the claimant even if he is now lost in the position. As you know the claimant of a draw via 10.2 in the current rules can also win the game if his opponents blunders badly.


I think a better local rule would be to abolish 10.2 and just use blitz rules for 15/0 :hmm:
Not in my book, for instance that would mean that an illegal move loses? It would of course also mean that MB would have won this game on time flat out, from a drawn position most likely.



It is easy to get confused here between the concept of a forced draw and the sort of draw claimed under this rule. It doesn't matter whether the position is a forced draw. The issue is whether it is still practically possible for the defending side to stuff up and lose. Technically drawn positions sometimes do have practical winning chances - but I don't think the one above does (if it is correct). Rather it looks exactly like the sort of position the Law exists to protect players from losing on time in.
If you only require that a player can still stuff up, then it means that all non-dead positions can be won. It is possible to make move selection with a dice. It would not be difficult to find a winning strategy against that, for instance chasing a bishop all over the board with the king just to see if at some point it is left hanging. From that point of view, I think no claims that a sufficiently drawn looking position should be a draw is valid - better just let the players sweat it out on the board with 2 minutes extra each player. I suppose there would be an arbiter at the board just counting moves, to see if the 50-move rule is reached.

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2011, 07:01 PM
The first part is reasonable (even for FIDE to include in the official laws about 10.2), but I'm not sure about the second part since that implies that the opponent can make a major poker-gamble maneuver with extra chances to win without the risk, and if it is refuted then he can just "reclaim the draw" from the claimant even if he is now lost in the position. As you know the claimant of a draw via 10.2 in the current rules can also win the game if his opponents blunders badly.

My concern was that with a top-up you could get this situation: a player in a won position but with only a few seconds on their clock claims a draw under 10.2. The opponent then has to either accept the draw immediately, or else allow the claimant two extra minutes to beat them in. I don't think this is really fair to the opponent and I think many opponents would suffer if they did not understand the rules clearly enough. Thus if there were topups I think the claimant should not be able to win the game. If this means the opponent can get a draw from a lost position then that's the price of getting short of time and having to claim a draw at all.


It would of course also mean that MB would have won this game on time flat out, from a drawn position most likely.

Agreed; firegoat would have had no way to draw this in a blitz game.


If you only require that a player can still stuff up, then it means that all non-dead positions can be won.

Not really. There are some positions that can only realistically be lost by deliberately (and with some skill) playing for a loss, including underpromoting in order to lose. There are others where the sort of stuff-up required is one which no experienced tournament player would make (such as making no attempt whatsoever to stop a passed pawn from promoting when it is clearly the only way that the other side can win. These sorts of positions are different from those that are objectively drawn but can be lost by persistently bad play or by blunders.


From that point of view, I think no claims that a sufficiently drawn looking position should be a draw is valid - better just let the players sweat it out on the board with 2 minutes extra each player. I suppose there would be an arbiter at the board just counting moves, to see if the 50-move rule is reached.

I also considered suggesting this - just get rid of the idea that you can get a draw by claim altogether, and only allow a claim to trigger some kind of overtime where the claimant has to reach a draw by some other method.

The problem is that there are some extremely drawn positions where the player playing for a win on time will wait til the 50-move clock is nearly up and then move a pawn. Even if they can only do this a small number of times, if the opponent ends up needing to play 148 moves in 2 minutes to draw they probably won't be able to do so.

Garrett
02-03-2011, 06:37 PM
We tend to leave out this rule because in a 15 minute game the player who has been called will be handicapped significantly, and as such it seems there is no need for further punishment.

Jack, good on you mate for having the guts to have a go at arbiting ! :clap: :clap:

For anyone who hasn't met Jack, he is an intelligent, very polite, well spoken, and well mannered young man of whom I have had the privilege to have met (his Dad is a good bloke too).

Best wishes.

cheers Garrett.

Keong Ang
02-03-2011, 11:13 PM
Claims under Article 10.2 should only be used by players whose opponents are playing to win on time. The "normal means" clause really empowers the arbiter to determine if the claimant's opponent is trying to win by checkmate or is mucking around till the claimant's time to runs out.

Trouble is, many claimants abuse this clause in an attempt to swindle a draw.

The arbiter needs to remember that basically the winner in all chess games is the one who makes better moves, faster. Those who think slower would get into time trouble and lose on time.

Usually the 2 minutes extra time to the claimant's opponent is added when both players are in similar time trouble. Otherwise it is better to not give additional time as the claimant could use the time that the arbiter spends adjusting the clock to analyse the position. Of course, if the arbiter rejects the 10.2 claim, 2 minutes extra time must be given to the claimants opponent.

When the arbiter postpones the decision, all that needs to be done is to observe if the claimant's opponent is playing "normally". Normal play includes playing in the hope of a blunder. Usually the player whose time runs out loses. The whole idea is that it should be difficult to successfully claim a draw under 10.2.

There is no need for either player to show the arbiter how the position is winnable or drawn. That is shown to the arbiter in the remaining time when the game is resumed if the arbiter postpones the decision.

Unless the scoresheet clearly demonstrates the validity or otherwise of a 10.2 claim, the arbiter should postpone the decision so that a fair one can be made.

It is ridiculous to claim that an arbiter's playing strength is insufficient to evaluate the position. The arbiter is not playing the game and should never evaluate the position except to see if it's dead drawn, in which case 9.6 applies and 10.2 is redundant. Usually the situation is where the claimant is the weaker player. The last thing the claimant would want is the claim being rejected and 2 extra minutes given to the similar strength opponent because the GM strength arbiter automatically saw a win (that the opponent could be oblivious to). As arbiter decisions under 10.2 are cannot be appealed, in the interest of fairness, the arbiter should not evaluate the position and leave it up to the players to slug it out on the board.

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2011, 09:22 AM
When the arbiter postpones the decision, all that needs to be done is to observe if the claimant's opponent is playing "normally". Normal play includes playing in the hope of a blunder. Usually the player whose time runs out loses. The whole idea is that it should be difficult to successfully claim a draw under 10.2.

The arbiter also has to consider whether the final position can be won by "normal means". Indeed I asked FIDE to change the rule, and they did, precisely because some arbiters (like IA Gijssen) were saying that the final position didn't matter and I didn't agree with that.

The rule as written following the change (which was made several years ago) reads:


If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.

[my emphasis]

The last sentence was the one that I asked FIDE to insert, and they did.

The reason for this change is that very often when the initial draw claim is made the arbiter is not immediately sure if the position can be won by "normal means" or not, and therefore wants to say "play on" quickly so that neither player gets free analysis time. But if all the opponent has to do is try to win by "normal means" then that generally means the claimant will lose. After all a player can "try" to win anything.

I realise many arbiters would like it if all the opponent had to do was try to win, but that's not what the Law actually says. The arbiter still has to judge whether the final position is winnable by "normal means" (taking into account whatever the players may have demonstrated they know about it in the time).


The arbiter is not playing the game and should never evaluate the position except to see if it's dead drawn, in which case 9.6 applies and 10.2 is redundant.

The arbiter does have to evaluate whether the position can be won by "normal means", and that is not the same thing as deciding whether it is so drawn that 9.6 applies. It is also not the same thing as deciding whether the position is a forced win/draw with best play (and that's something the arbiter never has to evaluate).

A big problem is that FIDE refuses to define the vague term "normal means". But as the Law is there to stop people losing on time in positions like KR vs KR (whether the opponent is "trying" to win or not) it is clear there are some positions that cannot be won by "normal means" although checkmate is still possible.

ER
03-03-2011, 10:12 AM
The last sentence was the one that I asked FIDE to insert, and they did.
So much for all those who do not hesitate to brand FIDE with names such as [ed/typo] doctrinaire, inflexible, and autocratic! :P

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2011, 10:16 AM
So much for all those who do not hesitate to brand FIDE with names such as doctritaire, inflexible, and autocratic! :P

Well this is just the subcommittee of FIDE that deals with the Laws of Chess. They had an open call for proposals for changes to the Laws and I sent that one in and it was adopted. Despite the wording change, Gijssen just continues his false claims that the arbiter doesn't judge the final position no matter how many times he is told that he is wrong. :lol:

Jesper Norgaard
04-03-2011, 08:58 AM
I am inclined to agree that Kevin's suggestion of allowing 2 minutes to prove you can draw (based on a reasonable 10.2 claim) is an improvement - even if the claimant can't win. But why play guillotine games in the first place?

Rule 10.2 is a sick man in a wheelchair. Giving him crouches will not help a lot. In chess we don't need judges as in boxing to figure out who won - even if there is no knockout (read: checkmate). Better use increments from move 1, and let the players finish the bout. If neither player can win, this will eventually become clear, even for the most hardlined win-on-time win-by-any-means opponent.

I am sure firegoat would have held the draw against MB in an increment game from that position - provided he would make moves quick enough to not be flagged. The chance for blunder was not high in this type of position. Even if MB could keep a single pawn extra forever, it would never pass the Bishop to queen.

Some positions could perhaps be claimable right away as a draw since the possibility to win is so far-fetched that in fact it has never happened as far as I know in my 2 million games DB. For instance lone Knight or lone Bishop winning vs. any material (except already winning positions), KNN vs. K, K and rook pawn vs. adequately placed King, many opposite-colored Bishop endings and so forth. The beauty of the increment is that these will usually end in a draw anyhow. So the increment eliminates the *need* for these positions to be claimable.

Kevin Bonham
04-03-2011, 09:33 AM
I think the issue may be that some organisers who want to run events with very tight schedules are reluctant to use increments in case games go overtime. Of course that in itself is an argument against automatic adoption of an overtime clause in 10.2, so I suspect that if such a clause is going to exist it should exist as an option (organisers may specify in advance that an overtime rule applies/doesn't apply).

Can anyone from MCC tell me why the MCC plays its allegros at 15/0 instead of with small increments?

Garvinator
04-03-2011, 10:41 AM
I think the issue may be that some organisers who want to run events with very tight schedules are reluctant to use increments in case games go overtime.In this case just use a 2 second increment.

Keong Ang
04-03-2011, 01:37 PM
[.....]
A big problem is that FIDE refuses to define the vague term "normal means". But as the Law is there to stop people losing on time in positions like KR vs KR (whether the opponent is "trying" to win or not) it is clear there are some positions that cannot be won by "normal means" although checkmate is still possible.

Agreed. The problem is really what exactly could be defined as "normal means"?

KR vs KR may not be won by "normal means" between strong players, but checkmate is still possible between weak players. Doesn't this mean that the arbiter is actually deciding on the relative strengths of the players rather than judging the position on the board. :hmm:

I assume vagueness is intentional in order to empower the arbiter. Too rigid a definition can make it impossible for an arbiter to make a fair decision.

The best way to avoid 10.2 controversies is to have time controls with increments.

Denis_Jessop
04-03-2011, 04:17 PM
Agreed. The problem is really what exactly could be defined as "normal means"?

KR vs KR may not be won by "normal means" between strong players, but checkmate is still possible between weak players. Doesn't this mean that the arbiter is actually deciding on the relative strengths of the players rather than judging the position on the board. :hmm:

I assume vagueness is intentional in order to empower the arbiter. Too rigid a definition can make it impossible for an arbiter to make a fair decision.

The best way to avoid 10.2 controversies is to have time controls with increments.

I think that, as with some of the other laws, vagueness is intentional because precision is impossible. See the sentiments expressed in the Preface to the Laws. But it also has the benefit of some flexibility as you say.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
04-03-2011, 07:54 PM
KR vs KR may not be won by "normal means" between strong players, but checkmate is still possible between weak players. Doesn't this mean that the arbiter is actually deciding on the relative strengths of the players rather than judging the position on the board. :hmm:

I think there actually are some cases where playing strength might be taken into account in the case of extremely weak players. That said (i) very weak players generally don't know how to claim 10.2s anyway (ii) I wouldn't let a player play on for a win on time in a normal KR v KR position where a draw has been offered or claimed, whatever the strength of their opponent. In my view it's bad sportsmanship and can be dealt with by the disrepute rule.

(By the way in about 1993, a few years before 10.2 was introduced, I had the unpleasant experience of getting into KR v KR in a G60 flat with very little time left. The opponent refused to accept a draw and the arbiters were unwilling to intervene. The result was that I actually did blunder my rook while attempting to reach a drawn position in <20 seconds.)


I assume vagueness is intentional in order to empower the arbiter. Too rigid a definition can make it impossible for an arbiter to make a fair decision.

Indeed but in this case I reckon it's too vague and that there should be some kind of guidance. I just can't see what harm it would do, for instance, to spell out that if the opponent can only win by helpmate then the claimant gets a draw.

Keong Ang
04-03-2011, 11:11 PM
I think there actually are some cases where playing strength might be taken into account in the case of extremely weak players. That said (i) very weak players generally don't know how to claim 10.2s anyway (ii) I wouldn't let a player play on for a win on time in a normal KR v KR position where a draw has been offered or claimed, whatever the strength of their opponent. In my view it's bad sportsmanship and can be dealt with by the disrepute rule.

(By the way in about 1993, a few years before 10.2 was introduced, I had the unpleasant experience of getting into KR v KR in a G60 flat with very little time left. The opponent refused to accept a draw and the arbiters were unwilling to intervene. The result was that I actually did blunder my rook while attempting to reach a drawn position in <20 seconds.)



Indeed but in this case I reckon it's too vague and that there should be some kind of guidance. I just can't see what harm it would do, for instance, to spell out that if the opponent can only win by helpmate then the claimant gets a draw.

Isn't the interpretation based on the general principle that chess is a game between two players, where the result of the game is determined by the difference in playing strength of the players. The stronger player being the one who makes better moves, faster. With this interpretation, the logical conclusion is that the player in time trouble is the weaker one and deserves to lose on time.

In the eg. of KR vs KR position, the player who is in time trouble is really the weaker one and therefore must lose, even if on time.

In my view, "normal means" should be interpreted as the 10.2 claimant's opponent deliberately making moves that do nothing to attempt a checkmate. This is where the arbiter would need to evaluate the position and the players strength to judge if "normal means" are being complied with. Admittedly this makes it very difficult to have a successful 10.2 claim. However, the rarity of a successful 10.2 claim would make it's awarding less "arbitrary". Perhaps a simple rule of thumb, like "how would this game end if there was a 2 second increment?", would result in a logical and fair(?) "normal means" assessment.

As for the disrepute rule for bad sportsmanship, I believe an arbiter is on very shaky ground to stop a game and award a result simply because one of the players would lose on time, even in a KR vs KR position. Time management is part of the game. Hence the myriad rules regarding the clock. The players know about the stipulated time control and therefore have accepted it. How then can it be "bad sportsmanship" to take advantage of an opponent's time trouble? An arbiter who tries using the disrepute rule on players in this case could find himself being subjected to it!!

Players have a right to sit out the entire time until flag fall. A position could be lost, eg. a player has the move, it is a forced move, once the move is completed, the opponent would have the move and checkmate him. No arbiter can apply the disrepute rule if that player chooses to wait out the next hour or so just refusing to make the move or resign. In fact, anybody who even tries to force that player to "do the honourable thing" is really at risk of being disciplined for bringing chess into disrepute. In this example, all that can be done is to patiently wait until the flag falls.

Bill Gletsos
05-03-2011, 12:28 AM
In the eg. of KR vs KR position, the player who is in time trouble is really the weaker one and therefore must lose, even if on time.This is simply wrong.
In KR V KR the arbiter should declare it drawn as soon as a player makes a claim under Article 10.2 unless the position is clearly lost. e.g. the Rook will be lost or the King mated.

In fact Stewart Reuben notes that the following position should be declared immediately drawn in the first edition of his Chess Organisers handbook.

8/8/7R/4k3/8/3K4/6r1/8 w-- - 0 1

ER
05-03-2011, 12:36 AM
I think there actually are some cases where playing strength might be taken into account in the case of extremely weak players. That said (i) very weak players generally don't know how to claim 10.2s anyway (ii) I wouldn't let a player play on for a win on time in a normal KR v KR position where a draw has been offered or claimed,....

OK is this 10.2 thingy applied in adjudication and in proper games or only in rapid? I remember an interclub match in Sydney St. George vs Hakoa (late 70s) when Ian Rogers (I am not sure of his title at that time) was adjudicating games since we had to leave the hall early for some reason. I was playing a Sth American guy (nice fellow - himself a patzer too) and I thought I was winning!
Here comes Ian and demonstrating some incredibly deep combos finds wins left right and centre and gives the full point to my opponent. He wouldn't have seen this stuff even if he was reading it from a book! I wouldn't either. There you are!

Desmond
05-03-2011, 06:46 AM
The stronger player being the one who makes better moves, faster. No, it's the one who makes better moves within the allowed time.

Kevin Bonham
05-03-2011, 08:04 AM
Isn't the interpretation based on the general principle that chess is a game between two players, where the result of the game is determined by the difference in playing strength of the players. The stronger player being the one who makes better moves, faster. With this interpretation, the logical conclusion is that the player in time trouble is the weaker one and deserves to lose on time.

The principle being applied is that if a player is going to lose a game on the clock that they would definitely not lose for any other reason then the game should not be a win.


In the eg. of KR vs KR position, the player who is in time trouble is really the weaker one and therefore must lose, even if on time.

A possibly partial counter to this argument is that if the player in time trouble is black, the reason they are in time trouble may relate to the unequal starting position rather than the inequality in strength.


In my view, "normal means" should be interpreted as the 10.2 claimant's opponent deliberately making moves that do nothing to attempt a checkmate.

But the Law definitely does not say this. If the Law was meant to be interpreted in this way then there would be no reference to the position. It would read like this (bold added, strikethrough removed):

10.2 If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b)

a. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by playing for a win on the board rather than on time by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.

b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means by playing for a win on the board rather than on time.


Perhaps a simple rule of thumb, like "how would this game end if there was a 2 second increment?", would result in a logical and fair(?) "normal means" assessment.

Something like "am I sure the claimant would at least draw this if there was a two second increment" might be a good guide. The USCF for their version of this rule at one stage used the rule of thumb that a 1400s player could draw against a master by "automatic defence" (ie playing immediately without need for thought).


As for the disrepute rule for bad sportsmanship, I believe an arbiter is on very shaky ground to stop a game and award a result simply because one of the players would lose on time, even in a KR vs KR position.

[..]

Time management is part of the game. Hence the myriad rules regarding the clock.

10.2 is one of those rules and it clearly embodies the idea that there are some positions where a player does not deserve a win on time.


Players have a right to sit out the entire time until flag fall. A position could be lost, eg. a player has the move, it is a forced move, once the move is completed, the opponent would have the move and checkmate him. No arbiter can apply the disrepute rule if that player chooses to wait out the next hour or so just refusing to make the move or resign. In fact, anybody who even tries to force that player to "do the honourable thing" is really at risk of being disciplined for bringing chess into disrepute. In this example, all that can be done is to patiently wait until the flag falls.

That is a different issue. I don't believe the arbiter should ever attempt to compel a player to resign whatever the position. But I do believe the arbiter should compel a player to accept a draw if the player is attempting to achieve a silly win in an unsporting manner. Fortunately 10.2 eliminates the need for the arbiter to do this, except perhaps at very weak levels of play.

I do think arbiters should be empowered to take action when a player is vexatiously stalling or playing on and in the process unfairly affecting the tournament (especially an issue with multiple rounds/day and long increments.) But this probably needs a specific change in the Laws.

Kevin Bonham
05-03-2011, 08:09 AM
OK is this 10.2 thingy applied in adjudication and in proper games or only in rapid?

It has nothing to do with adjudication.

It is applied at time controls where all the moves must be made in a specific time at the end. Either all the moves in X minutes, or one or more time controls then a certain time to finish. It is not applied in games where there are increments that keep going til the end of the game. It is not applied to blitz unless there is an arbiter for every game.

ER
05-03-2011, 04:51 PM
It has nothing to do with adjudication.

It is applied at time controls where all the moves must be made in a specific time at the end. Either all the moves in X minutes, or one or more time controls then a certain time to finish. It is not applied in games where there are increments that keep going til the end of the game. It is not applied to blitz unless there is an arbiter for every game.

Oh OK thanks! :) I still won't forgive Ian for giving the other guy the point! :wall:

Kevin Bonham
20-07-2011, 02:46 PM
There are some useful examples in Gijssen's latest column. Link: http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt.htm (however this will be replaced by a new column in a month or so).

Case 1: Initial claim and subsequent moves

1...c4 2.Nxg6 Bc6 3.g3 b5 4.Bf8 b6 5.Kd2 Ke6 6.Nf4+ Ke5 7.Bg7+ Ke4 8.h4 b4 9.Bf8 b3 10.Kc3 Bd5 11.Nxd5 Kxd5 12.h5 b5.

Time limit was G60 flat. In the initial position White (with six seconds) claimed on Black's move. The arbiter apparently postponed the claim (although it was not explicit, it can be inferred from what came later that he was postponing not rejecting) and then declared a draw in the final position with white with two seconds remaining.

Gijssen's comments on the question of the rulings made by the arbiter (he also provides some on the interpretations of the arbiter's actions that are not of interest to me here ) :


In general it is wise to postpone a decision, especially in cases in which the arbiter had not followed the game. He does not know in these cases whether one of the players did make efforts to win the game by normal means or not. In the first position of the first game it is still possible to win the game by normal means.

You mentioned that the arbiter followed the game from the first to the second position. Playing through the moves one can say that the players played quite "normally." I had the impression that both players tried to win "by normal means." In this situation I would have not stopped the game and declared the game drawn. Nevertheless, given the text of Article 10.2, and especially item d, I don't want to blame the arbiter. As far as I can see, he had the right to postpone the decision and to declare the game drawn.

My view: Firstly the arbiter should not have entertained the original claim as it was not the player's move. The player should have been advised they could only claim on their move.

Secondly I agree that deferring the claim is a correct decision.

Thirdly I would not have stopped the game and declared it drawn either, but my reasoning is different from Gijssen's. The opponent trying to win by normal means is not sufficient reason to always keep the game going. Rather, I think it would be best to keep going in this position because white has virtually no time left and his flag will soon fall creating a final position that the arbiter can study at their leisure for any hint of winning chances. If White's flag fell in the final position then at the level of the players (1600-1800) I would declare this drawn.

Second case:

8/8/2b5/8/8/5k1p/7P/6K1 w - - 0 1

Additional information supplied by questioner:


This position, with White to move, is obviously drawn. The white king cannot be driven off the squares f1 and g1. White had claimed a draw some moves before. The game was continued under the arbiter's observation. In this period White's king moved along the squares f1, g1, and h1, but in the last four or five moves he only oscillated between g1 and h1! Black's last move was to bring his bishop to the long diagonal.

Now White overstepped the time limit and the arbiter declared the game a draw. Black objected and the arbiter asked him, "How do you want to win?" Black's immediate answer was, "If he goes back to h1, then it is mate in one with Kf3-f2." He demonstrated these moves on the board. We can only suspect whether White and the arbiter had seen this danger before. Of course now White answered "OK – I go to f1." The arbiter accepted this statement and confirmed the draw. Having seen the progress of the game, I think it was very likely that White could have stumbled into the mating trap.

Questions asked:


Question One Would you have declared the game drawn?

Question Two Would your decision be influenced by White's last moves? Would it be a significant difference for you if White plays Kg1-h1-g1-h1 or Kg1-f1-g1-f1? Thomas Binder (Germany)

Gijssen response:


Answer If a player claims a draw based on Article 10.2 and I had followed the game, there are two questions I have to answer.

1) Did Black make some efforts to win the game?
2) Is the position such that it can be won by normal means?

I understand that Black made some bishop moves without repetition and that he really tried to win in this way. The fact that White repeated moves is irrelevant.

And, as matter of fact, I have to answer to both questions with yes. Therefore I would not declare the game drawn. But, just as in the first case, I don't blame the arbiter who declared the game drawn.

My view: I agree with Gijssen. I would declare this position won for Black as Black can win by normal means and white has not demonstrated over the board that he is aware of and avoiding the danger. And I do blame the arbiter in this case - if appeals were allowed under 10.2 I would overrule the decision on appeal.

Gijssen doesn't answer Question Two. Question Two is trickier because the arbiter has to decide whether white's play showed that white was aware of the danger of being mated if he went into the corner (just because he is king-shuffling between f1 and g1 doesn't mean he won't ever go to h1). I lean towards awarding the draw since white has demonstrated a strategy that draws - although whether he is doing it because he knows that is the way to draw is another question. It would also be an option to examine the position quickly, then ask white why he is moving between f1 and g1 rather than going to h1. If he says "because I can be mated there" then award the draw.

Kevin Bonham
20-07-2011, 03:30 PM
Unfortunately Geurt has disgraced himself in answer to another 10.2 question:


What does "it is not possible to win by normal means" mean? In other articles it is stated, "cannot win the game by any series of legal moves" but here it is phrased differently. What are "normal means"? Best regards, FA Edgar Murray Ortiz (Puerto Rico)

Gijssen response:


I think you are right. There is no difference between "it is not possible to win the game by any series of legal moves" and "cannot win by normal means." I had in mind Article 9.6, but according to this Article both players cannot win by any series of legal moves. According to Article 10.2 only the opponent of the claimant cannot.

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

As I have already pointed out on this thread, this is wrong, firstly because if it was true the cannot-win-by-normal-means part of the rule would be unnecessary (since it would only cover positions where the player was already protected from a loss on time) and secondly because if it was true the rule would fail to cover a wide range of very drawn positions such as KR vs KR.

It is extremely frustrating to see this rubbish published by a leading IA. He needs an editor who actually understands the law in question.

Garvinator
20-07-2011, 03:54 PM
I wonder how many replies Guert gets telling him he is wrong and pointing out why. :hmm:

As time goes on, I am starting to have less faith in believing what Geurt says in his articles is actually correct, even on some seemingly simple items.

Kevin Bonham
20-07-2011, 03:56 PM
I sent a complaint and asked that it be appended to his current column. They will probably ignore me as they did when I passed on Czentovic's busting of their puzzle of the week.

Jesper Norgaard
21-07-2011, 10:41 AM
I wonder how many replies Geurt gets telling him he is wrong and pointing out why. :hmm:

This is like Anand putting his queen en prise to a pawn! I was horrified when I saw this myself (before seeing the comments here). I wonder if his cat responded the last sender, because it seems completely bogus from start to finish.

Answer One
"If the arbiter cannot consider this person as a player, because he did not yet arrive at the board he has still the possibility to consider him as a spectator." That is simply hopeless thinking. A player that is outside the playing area, is not bound by the cellphone rule. A player within the playing area is a player no matter if he moved a couple of meters away from the board, or is 50 meters away. I think the game starts when the arbiter starts the clock. He wants to punish him as a spectator, that is totally bogus. His last sentence though is "This player will lose his game by forfeit and the result is not 1-0 or 0-1, but +– or –+." Okay so the player loses, but without rating adjustment or what is the sense of this? Geurt doesn't explain what he means. The rule +- is not part of the laws of chess!?

Answer Two
"I assume that the games B-C and A-D were not played in one of the early rounds. It depends, in my opinion, which round we are referring to. If it happened at the beginning of the tournament, I would not make corrections. If it happens later in the tournament and the differences in scores are significant (let us say more than one point), then I let them play according to the scheduled pairings, keeping in mind the periods the players were too late. It means Player B starts his game with fifteen minutes less and Player D starts his game with forty-five minutes less."
First of all he wants to keep the bogus pairings if it is the first round. I totally disagree especially in a few-round swiss because this affects innocent A with a possibly much lower ranked opponent and thus his expected final tourney Buchholz. A and C did nothing wrong and should not be punished at all. D should start his game with 45 minutes less I agree (he came 45 minutes late). B should start his game with 45 minutes less too, because he came 15 minutes late and spent 30 minutes playing in the wrong board and should pay the full penalty for that. If he plays with 15 minutes less the round will be prolonged with 30 minutes only because of his fault. That is incoherent. Perhaps Geurt wants to postpone his lunch/dinner with half an hour because of this, but a sane arbiter should not. Also player A is punished by postponing his game with 30 minutes.

Answer Three
"Even when the supervision is inadequate, claiming a draw based on Article 10.2 is possible. And if a player does not try to win by normal means (such as trying to checkmate the opponent's king), the opponent can declare this a draw. If the situation is as you state, the arbiter must agree."

What a statement! Of course the player who wants to play on is trying to win by normal means by cornering in the opponents king or making checkmate if allowed. The whole point is that with this material, it is recognized that he cannot win by normal means even with mediocre defence, and thus a draw claim 10.2 is accepted automatically without checking previous moves. Fortunately Geurt's cat did award the draw. By the way the opponent can't declare a draw, he can claim a draw (a petition) to the arbiter, who can declare the draw.

Answer Four was of course the most appalling. With Kevin's argumentation both here and in the actual page, I rest my case.

Did he get his IA title in a lottery? No, In fact Geurt is the main rule smith in all of FIDE, and the chairmain of the Rules commission. Incredible!

Jesper Norgaard
21-07-2011, 12:59 PM
... However, the rarity of a successful 10.2 claim would make it's awarding less "arbitrary". Perhaps a simple rule of thumb, like "how would this game end if there was a 2 second increment?", would result in a logical and fair(?) "normal means" assessment.


If Geurt doesn't understand the 10.2 rule, we have almost a water-tight proof that "nobody" understands what it means to try to "win by normal means". After all, every position that is possible to construct helpmate, can be won with any moves if the response is bad enough. Assessing how the result would have been if the player losing on time would help, but it still is very dependent of the arbiter (chess skill, mood, rules interpreter).

I would like to build upon this nice idea of Keong Ang, to suggest a modified rule 10.2:

======================== 10.2 Begin ====
10.2
If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b)

a. If the opponent agrees with the claim, the arbiter shall declare the game drawn.
b. If the opponent disagrees with the claim, the arbiter adds a 2 second increment per move to the claimants time, possibly by replacing the clock with another adjusted clock. The game is continued with the constraint that the opponent can declare a draw at any moment unless the game has finished by other means.
======================== 10.2 End ====

The pros of this solution:

(1) The skills of the arbiter are irrelevant, as he will never have to evaluate a non-dead position for drawishness
(2) The claimant has a chance to prove he can defend the position with automatic moves
(3) The opponent is not automatically receiving a win on time without having proven that he can win on the board
(4) The players decide the result, not the arbiter
(5) The player with no time has a chance to obtain a draw when he would otherwise have lost on time
(6) The opponent is not severely affected by the extra time to the claimant because he can always declare a draw during the game.
(7) The schedule of a tournament with little slack between rounds is affected very little, because increment is only given to one player in the game, and only when he has less than 2 minutes
(8) A player that claims a draw via 10.2 will not normally win the game as a compensation for the right to extra time (2 seconds pr. move). It would not be fair that a player running completely out of time could just claim a draw and thus get more time to each move to be able to use this extra time to win the game. That would almost force the opponent to have to accept the 10.2 draw claim right away.
(9) Since the expected number of 10.2 claims is small, the need for digital clocks with increment and extra time for unusually long games, is very small. Maybe 2-3% of all clocks need to be with increment?
(10) The game can be ended by checkmate, stalemate, flag fall, forfeit, resigning or dead position as usual.
(11) antichrist can get his beloved guillotine, and if his opponent is a slow toad, then he will probably win on time anywayz :) as antichrist had earned the right to (??!)
(12) No more endless discussions if the arbiter should or shouldn't have accepted a 10.2 claim. It is an easy solution for the arbiter and the players alike.

A typical example is the piece less example of Geurt. Of course the black pawns can win if white plays careless, so black has certainly chances to win. If the game continues with an increment to white however, usually in such a simple position white would be able to overcome the difficulties of the free pawns and get a winning position. Then the opponent can declare the draw. In either case we get a decision on the board, which is still depending on the players' skills.

In the Michael Baron vs. firegoat game it would have been fair game for both. Michael Baron would have been able to try all the tricks in the book as he wished, to win on the board. In the game he had to bitterly accept a forced draw by the arbiter without getting a chance to swindle. Firegoat would have been able to show that with a minimum understanding on holding back MB's free pawns he could earn the draw. Of course in the unlikely event that MB overstepped the time limit, he could even win!

Keong Ang
21-07-2011, 01:42 PM
.....
Answer One
"If the arbiter cannot consider this person as a player, because he did not yet arrive at the board he has still the possibility to consider him as a spectator." That is simply hopeless thinking. A player that is outside the playing area, is not bound by the cellphone rule. A player within the playing area is a player no matter if he moved a couple of meters away from the board, or is 50 meters away. I think the game starts when the arbiter starts the clock. He wants to punish him as a spectator, that is totally bogus. His last sentence though is "This player will lose his game by forfeit and the result is not 1-0 or 0-1, but +– or –+." Okay so the player loses, but without rating adjustment or what is the sense of this? Geurt doesn't explain what he means. The rule +- is not part of the laws of chess!?
.....

It is probably harsher to punish the player as a spectator.
Doesn't the spectator whose phone rings get expelled? (got to check the rules here)
A player whose phone rings merely loses the game.

I recall the laws define players whose games have finished are considered to be spectators. Perhaps Geurt is also interpreting it as anyone who hasn't got a game is a spectator.
There are 3 types of people in a chess tournament in chess law. Players, arbiters and spectators.

BOTH players need to make at least one move for a game to be considered valid. Since at most only one move by one player was made, the game cannot be validly rated. + and - are "Swiss Perfect" like ways of describing 1 and 0 but by forfeit. Other notation could be 1F 0F etc.


Did he get his IA title in a lottery? No, In fact Geurt is the main rule smith in all of FIDE, and the chairmain of the Rules commission. Incredible!

Nobody's perfect. ;)

Kevin Bonham
21-07-2011, 03:31 PM
If Geurt doesn't understand the 10.2 rule, we have almost a water-tight proof that "nobody" understands what it means to try to "win by normal means".

Other leading IAs don't generally seem to have problems with it. Reuben for instance seems to have a very clear understanding. I think the problem is that unlike the English IAs, Gijssen has relatively little experience of actually arbiting in tournaments where the rule is needed.

antichrist
21-07-2011, 06:09 PM
I think over the past years with increment time (analogue clocks), computer pairing of matches and new laws that chess arbiter and DOP has become more and too complicated for an amateur to step into such a job as a volunteer.

Some will argue opposite but to me it seems more complicated.

Kevin Bonham
21-07-2011, 06:19 PM
I think over the past years with increment time (analogue clocks), computer pairing of matches and new laws that chess arbiter and DOP has become more and too complicated for an amateur to step into such a job as a volunteer.

Some will argue opposite but to me it seems more complicated.

No, it's much easier now and I would know because I did a lot of it before the changes you mention. Computer pairings are much easier and faster than manual pairings (even when you suspect they're wrong, checking is often faster than doing a manual pair from scratch) and increments greatly reduce the number of time-scramble incidents and eliminate 10.2s. You have to know how to set the clocks of course, which can take a while to learn for each new model.

The full Laws are really not much more or less complicated than decades ago.

Denis_Jessop
21-07-2011, 09:31 PM
I sent a complaint and asked that it be appended to his current column. They will probably ignore me as they did when I passed on Czentovic's busting of their puzzle of the week.

They didn't; it's there :)

What's more I just can't understand how it can be contended that the two phrases are the same. If that is so why are they worded quite differently. This looks like another case of FIDE's needing a good native-English-speaking drafter.

DJ

William AS
21-07-2011, 10:09 PM
You have to know how to set the clocks of course, which can take a while to learn for each new model.
For most chessplayers it can take a very long time. :rolleyes: :( I have been trying to teach them how for 10 years or more with almost no success. :wall: :wall:
Mind you, I have found that any any 5 year old is capable of setting a digital chess clock, even when they have never seen one before. :eek: :lol:

Kevin Bonham
18-08-2011, 01:38 AM
I suspect Gijssen has received a bit more mail on this issue as there was nothing this month but at the bottom of his piece "The main topic next month will again be Article 10.2 of the Laws of Chess."

Adamski
18-08-2011, 01:03 PM
We will all look forward to that with bated breath! :P

Garvinator
18-08-2011, 02:56 PM
We will all look forward to that with bated breath! :PWhat is bated breath? ;)

Garvinator
21-09-2011, 01:42 AM
I suspect Gijssen has received a bit more mail on this issue as there was nothing this month but at the bottom of his piece "The main topic next month will again be Article 10.2 of the Laws of Chess."21st of the month and this weeks chesscafe articles are not out yet :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
21-09-2011, 01:51 AM
21st of the month and this weeks chesscafe articles are not out yet :hmm:

It would not yet be the 21st wherever Chesscafe is published; they would be either Europe-based (and several hours behind us) or US-based (and nearly a day behind). The last midweek slate were published on the 14th so I expect the new slate within 24 hours. They seem to stagger them more than they used to with some contributors now coming out at weekends.

Bill Gletsos
21-09-2011, 01:21 PM
It became available in the past couple of hours.

Jesper Norgaard
21-09-2011, 02:40 PM
What is bated breath? ;)

Bated breath. As in

"Alice uttered 'hold your breath!', and the Cheshire Cat bated his breath". :cool:

Kevin Bonham
21-09-2011, 07:43 PM
I proposed:


A possible interpretation is that a position cannot be won by normal means if it can only be won (other than by time) through deliberate helpmate, blunders of pieces to obvious one-move captures or complete inattention to opposing passed pawns

He wrote:


How does the arbiter know that a player is deliberately playing to create a helpmate?

The arbiter actually only needs to know that when applying the not-trying-to-win-by-normal-means component and mucking around in the vague hope that the opponent will suddenly decide to cooperate in a helpmate is probably just as obvious as mucking around waiting for a flag to fall. So I really don't see the problem here.

I also wrote:


Secondly, if the two terms had the same meaning then Rule 10.2 would provide insufficient protection from loss on time for a player whose opponent was playing on with rook vs. rook (or even knight vs. knight), in a hopelessly drawn opposite colour bishop ending or with one piece against several – to give just some examples.

He replied:


Regarding the endings you mentioned: R vs. R, N vs. N, and B vs. B of opposite colors. In general, I do not see the problem. If a player in these positions claims a draw, let the game continue in the presence of the arbiter. And in case the arbiter does not observe any progress in the game, he has all reasons to declare the game drawn.

Not if his previous interpretation of "normal means" as equivalent to "is not possible to win the game by any series of legal moves" is applied. In that case, progress is irrelevant unless the 50 moves are going to run out. If the opponent is really trying to make progress but failing hopelessly then no-effort-to-win-by-normal-means does not apply.

Kevin Bonham
21-09-2011, 07:49 PM
I like IA Krause's dramatic (and probably flippant) suggestion to scrap 10.2 since the number of incidents caused will result in universal abandonment of non-increment time controls. :lol:

Adamski
21-09-2011, 10:07 PM
Bated breath. As in

"Alice uttered 'hold your breath!', and the Cheshire Cat bated his breath". :cool:
Like. The phrase is also discussed in our English grammar thread, the name of which for the moment escapes me. But my spelling of "bated' here is quite acceptable.

Adamski
21-09-2011, 10:10 PM
Like. The phrase is also discussed in our English grammar thread, the name of which for the moment escapes me. But my spelling of "bated' here is quite acceptable.
Thread name: "The English language (and Gunner) dies a thousand deaths." No. 456ff.

Jesper Norgaard
23-09-2011, 12:06 AM
I like IA Krause's dramatic (and probably flippant) suggestion to scrap 10.2 since the number of incidents caused will result in universal abandonment of non-increment time controls. :lol:

As I said before, rule 10.2 is a sick man in wheel chair. Something needs to be done! However, 90% of rapid games in Denmark and Mexico are played with fixed time - meaning 10.2 is only defense against "illogical" game wins/losses only because of time.

Removing 10.2 completely will not make those games be played with an increment instead, I'm afraid. Organizers are conservative and couldn't care less about if individual games are won on time from better play or sheer luck. That means the cure is worse than the disease. Rather I would like to see some improvement over 10.2 that would make it possible to finish the games without having to get a clinically drawn position to draw, when your opponent has not managed to get a winning position (or even has a losing position) just from losing on time.

My own suggestion in Geurt's column is one option. There is a suggestion about giving both players 2 minutes extra, and let the claimee try to show progress in 15 moves - also an interesting idea. I think there are many ways possible, and the current 10.2 doesn't cover enough situations. Oleg Korneev (Russian grandmaster) complained that when he was getting short of time, with 4 pawns against 3 on one flank of the board, in reality a completely winning position, was not succesful in his claim of a draw on 10.2. The current 10.2 doesn't cover it while our 2 suggestions do cover. IA Krause's suggestion (apart from abandoning 10.2 completely, another non-solution) seems to me not to help at all in Korneev game, which is by far the most common type of situation where 10.2 could be invoked.

Kevin Bonham
23-09-2011, 12:50 AM
Oleg Korneev (Russian grandmaster) complained that when he was getting short of time, with 4 pawns against 3 on one flank of the board, in reality a completely winning position, was not succesful in his claim of a draw on 10.2.

Would be interesting to know who the arbiter was and what the exact position was.

Back when 10.2 was in its first incarnation I called "play on" on a player who was about 3 pawns up in a rook ending (I awarded the draw later when it was clear the opponent would need to give up their rook soon), and I also called play on on a player who was straight exchange up in an ending, and later declared them lost after their flag fell. (It turned out that the position was actually quite easy to not only draw but win but the claimant had not proven that OTB, only in the post-mortem ten minutes later.)

Jesper Norgaard
23-09-2011, 10:58 AM
Would be interesting to know who the arbiter was and what the exact position was.


Actually it was 4 pawns against 2:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt146.pdf

However I feel that the position is not so important for my arguments. There is life in the position (black can still win), but Korneev wouldn't lose it with a 2 second increment. That is also why I like 2 second increment from move 1 better than 10.2, but not all tournaments can provide sufficient digital clocks for that.

My own suggestion for reforming 10.2 is just to replace it with 2 second increment to both players, and the claimee can always take the draw after the claim if he doesn't win or even if he gets a losing position. The claimant "can no longer win" after the claim (except if opponent helpmates).

Geurt did not reveal who the arbiter was. Perhaps FIDE knows since Oleg was going to report him? :rolleyes:

Sergio Pagano
23-09-2011, 07:15 PM
That is also why I like 2 second increment from move 1 better than 10.2, but not all tournaments can provide sufficient digital clocks for that.

My own suggestion for reforming 10.2 is just to replace it with 2 second increment to both players, and the claimee can always take the draw after the claim if he doesn't win or even if he gets a losing position. The claimant "can no longer win" after the claim (except if opponent helpmates).


I think it could be esasily managed the absence of digital clocks. For instance, by adding 5 minutes to the claimant time and 10 minutes to the claimee one. In case the claimant will not be able to draw (or win) having 5 minutes more, this means that the position is not so clear.

Kevin Bonham
23-09-2011, 11:15 PM
Actually it was 4 pawns against 2:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt146.pdf

There were also rooks on the board. I would call play on and award the opponent extra time for the disruption of the claim. It would be useful to know why the claimant did not claim earlier.

Jesper Norgaard
25-09-2011, 05:11 AM
There were also rooks on the board. I would call play on and award the opponent extra time for the disruption of the claim. It would be useful to know why the claimant did not claim earlier.

The position was the following, Korneev played f7 (ouch) stopping the clock and claiming the draw is White (which is against the rules because he can only claim a draw before he makes a move! Alas, I digress):

5r2/8/2k2P2/5R2/3p2pP/6P1/2P5/6K1 w - - 0 40

I disagree with your judgement. If there are rooks on the board anything can happen, but here the black rook is completely tied down to the defense against the free pawn on f7. This means that if the opponent plays the king to e7 and moves the rook, Korneev will play 1.f8=Q+ Rxf8 2.Rxf8 Kxf8 and we are in a pawn endgame that is completely winning for white, and thus drawable.

The USCF equivalent of 10.2 runs like this: "The draw shall be awarded if the director believes that a Class C player would have little chance to lose the position against a Master with both players having ample time"

Any Class C player should be able to hold this against Topalov, provided that they know the f-pawn should be sacrificed to get a pawn endgame.

Things might be less clear, for instance the following situation:

3r2k1/5pp1/7p/8/8/7P/5PP1/4R1K1 w - - 0 40

Here Kevin's and the Korneev-case-arbiter's decision to reject the claim would be correct, and even the USCF "insufficient losing chances" would be rejected. Still with my definition of 10.2, a weaker player would have a good chance to draw this with white against a stronger black player, with a 2 second increment. That is really why I think my definition is an improvement: it covers many more cases.

It can be seen as the poor mans version of increment: you can't win after claiming it, and if the game is played with an analog clock it will be replaced with a digital clock, instead of having a digital clock with increment for each move from the first move.

Here is the whole definition of this new 10.2 rule:

======================== 10.2 Begin ====
10.2
If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b)

a. If the opponent agrees with the claim, the arbiter shall declare the game drawn.
b. If the opponent disagrees with the claim, the arbiter shall add a two second increment per move to both clocks, possibly by replacing the clock with another adjusted clock. The game is continued with the constraint that the opponent can declare a draw at any moment unless the game has finished by other means.
======================== 10.2 End ====

Kevin Bonham
25-09-2011, 06:06 PM
I disagree with your judgement. If there are rooks on the board anything can happen, but here the black rook is completely tied down to the defense against the free pawn on f7. This means that if the opponent plays the king to e7 and moves the rook, Korneev will play 1.f8=Q+ Rxf8 2.Rxf8 Kxf8 and we are in a pawn endgame that is completely winning for white, and thus drawable.

I would not reject the claim; I would defer it. "Play on" in my case is shorthand for "keep playing and I'll make a decision when a flag falls".

My judgement that I would defer the claim is based on practical considerations. On looking at the position for a minute or so I can see that black cannot win by normal means, but if I spend that minute thinking about it as soon as the player claims then I am giving the claimant extra time to analyse which I should not do.

An arbiter who is not immediately certain that upholding the claim is correct should always either defer or reject. After all if the position is really so unwinnable then deferring can do no harm - the worst that can happen is a few moves are played, a flag falls, and the arbiter can take their time making a decision.

By the way since Korneev claimed after making the move his claim should have been rejected for that reason. He could reclaim when it was next his move.

Garvinator
25-09-2011, 10:47 PM
I would not reject the claim; I would defer it. "Play on" in my case is shorthand for "keep playing and I'll make a decision when a flag falls".I believe the correct term is - postpone. I think that might help Jesper understand your decision too :)

Jesper Norgaard
26-09-2011, 06:15 AM
I believe the correct term is - postpone. I think that might help Jesper understand your decision too :)

If the decision is to play on (defer/postpone) for 3 more seconds of Korneevs time it is in fact a "death sentence" and the arbiter will IMHO not see anything more useful to determine whether to grant the draw.

I think I understand the way the 10.2 works and I think I understand your arguments for postponing. I would interpret the intention of 10.2 differently to award a draw in Korneev's game, but here each arbiter is different and the arbiter is always right concerning the decision of 10.2 (very unfortunate). My point is that the 10.2 rule in it's current form is far less useful than the USCF rule of insufficient losing chances, and that the USCF rule in turn is far less useful than the new 10.2 I suggest. When I talk about usefulness here I mean useful in reducing the number of games won solely on time, not by the moves and by the position on the board.

I hope we all agree that the increment from move 1 removes this dilemma and wins on time here are perfectly legitimate in the sense that the player earned it, and the flagged player deserved it for not administering the time well. This is far from the case in guillotine or quickplay finishes, where the end result can have as little meaning as the flip of a coin, especially when both players have little time left.

Anna Zatonskih winning the US Women championship with 1 second left on the clock against Krush's flag fall comes to mind. The quickplay finish has a potential of making us all clock-punching monkeys, as Krush poetically said. I can understand why Korneev thinks that it was unfair that he lost that game.

I lost a game myself that was still a draw (30 second increment), because I could not find any saving move, just sat there until the time ran out, and when a few seconds left I grabbed the King to make the decisive error, but the flag fell first. This kind of loss is perfectly legitimate and even though the position was still a draw my opponent earned it 100% by setting so many problems up that they seemed unsolvable to me.

Kevin Bonham
26-09-2011, 09:09 PM
If the decision is to play on (defer/postpone) for 3 more seconds of Korneevs time it is in fact a "death sentence" and the arbiter will IMHO not see anything more useful to determine whether to grant the draw.

The point is that by deferring, the arbiter gets time to examine the position himself after Korneev's flag falls. It probably won't have changed much but the arbiter is reducing the risk of a snap decision to award a draw being incorrect, and giving himself time to be sure there are no realistic winning chances for the opponent. If Korneev's claim is valid he should be able to bash out a few moves before his flag falls without compromising his position or his chances. It's only a death sentence to defer if the arbiter does not understand the rule.

And yes, I agree that just getting rid of guillotine finishes, even with a very short increment in the final phase, is a far better solution if the equipment is there to make it possible.

Jesper Norgaard
17-04-2013, 04:46 AM
What do you think about this 10.2 incident with Gawain Jones and Cherniaev:

http://gawainjones.co.uk/southend-easter-congress/

As you will see, I already expressed my opinion in the blog directly, namely that if we have a position with clear winning chances, even if a tablebase draw, the defender can't just sit there with 5.5 minutes on the clock, play a few moves and emit 5 wrong 10.2 draw claims, without any intention of playing it out on the board, and then be granted a draw.

If Gawain Jones reconstruction is correct, Cherniaev did not really intent to show the arbiter he could defend this. Playing 10 moves in 5.5 minutes and then flagging is not meriting a draw. If we assume an average of 5 seconds per move he should be able to play 66 moves in that time, in a technically clarified situation. The arbiter was not up to the situation, and Gawain comments he wasn't even a FIDE arbiter.

That said, no appeal could be granted because the 10.2 decisions are (still) final.

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2013, 01:39 PM
If the statement of the case by Jones is correct then:

(i) The arbiter's initial decision to reject the claim as the claimant had too much time remaining was correct and the decision to award Jones two minutes for the incorrect claim was not obligatory but entirely reasonable.

(ii) The arbiter's second decision to call play on was incorrect as it was not the claimant's move. Jones should have been awarded extra time for the distraction of this incorrect claim. Even had this claim been validly made there is a case for outright rejecting it as there is arguably too much material on the board.

(iii) Ditto for the third claim except that with the reduced material I would now definitely call play on rather than reject if the claim was validly made. Of course had the opponent ever made a sufficiently valid claim to secure a play-on there would be no need for him to keep claiming.

(iv) There is no valid claim pending when the flag falls as the claimant never claimed on his move. Therefore the final position is irrelevant.

(v) Even if there was a valid claim to assess the final position is not covered. While it's technically drawn it can be won by "normal means" and Jones is entitled to play for a win and to win by flagfall.

(vi) Additionally I agree with you that if the defender is playing slowly for his clock situation he cannot get away with claiming draws. In a dubious case the defender must play lots of moves quickly and prove that he knows how to draw.

(vii) On my reading the ruling actually could have been successfully appealed, and furthermore if I was on an appeals committee and the facts were as Jones stated I would have heard the appeal and upheld it granting Jones a win on time. The current prohibition on appeals (which is about to end, thankfully) applies to the arbiter's decision "relating to (a), (b) and (c)". But it does not apply to the preliminary words:

"If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b)"

So on my reading a player can appeal successfully under the current Laws if there was no claim made on the claimant's move with the claimant having less than two minutes. The difference is that these are matters of fact whereas the rulings in (a), (b), (c) are subjective.

However this is all hypothetical based on just one player's side of the incident. The other's may be totally different and it is possible that on seeing the other player's side of the story I would have a different view.

If Jones' account is correct in all aspects then the whole thing is a trainwreck.

Jesper Norgaard
17-04-2013, 02:40 PM
Kevin, I agree with most of your points.

Certainly an appeal committee should have been convened to establish
(1) Whether a 10.2 claim was ever made by Cherniaev
(2) Whether Gawain Jones should have been given extra time for the repeated violations of the rules that Cherniaev (according to Gawain) committed.

If (1) was established to be false, it is quite clear flag fall should stand.
Else it would be relevant for the appeal committee to determine if the arbiter, which was not a FIDE arbiter, and had shown lack of understanding of the 10.2 rule, should really be considered the final word as expressed in 10.2(d). Perhaps an appeal committee could ask that the chief arbiter should give the final arbiter decision, given that this arbiter was deficient in the displayed behavior to control and rule the situation.

There is no doubt that Gawain's story is a trainwreck. As you mention, we haven't heard the story from neither Cherniaev nor the arbiter in question.

What is the news on when 10.2 decisions are final? This rule will soon be changed to that 10.2 decisions can *also* be appealed, when will that be in vigor?

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2013, 06:47 PM
Else it would be relevant for the appeal committee to determine if the arbiter, which was not a FIDE arbiter, and had shown lack of understanding of the 10.2 rule, should really be considered the final word as expressed in 10.2(d). Perhaps an appeal committee could ask that the chief arbiter should give the final arbiter decision, given that this arbiter was deficient in the displayed behavior to control and rule the situation.

I agree with this now.

The current Laws do say the decision will be final, and there is no exemption for the decision being clearly and obviously wrong, the arbiter not understanding the Laws, the arbiter being inexperienced or anything like that. That said, 10.2 d is only a "shall", so I agree now that if the appeal committee does decide the arbiter did not understand the rule, they might still overturn such a decision on that basis. I didn't think that before I read your post, but when I read your post I took a more careful look! After all the laws assume "necessary competence" and if that is not there then that is another reason why an appeal might be considered.

I add that I'm not an FA or IA myself, but that's just because I live in an isolated state where there is virtually no FIDE-rated chess played and have had no reason to spend the rather large amount of money it would cost me to get norms and the seminar and the title. And obviously even some leading IAs don't have the first clue about 10.2.


What is the news on when 10.2 decisions are final? This rule will soon be changed to that 10.2 decisions can *also* be appealed, when will that be in vigor?

The no-appeal provision disappears from 1 July 2013.

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2014, 02:09 PM
There is probably a final 10.2 (prior to all such claims being dealt with under the new G4-G6) in Gijssen's current Chesscafe column:

http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt189.htm

It is quite long but the gist of it is that white and black have just reached KQ vs KQ and black, with only one second on his clock, claims a draw after making his move, which the arbiter agrees with.

White appeals because black was not on the move when he claimed. The chief arbiter upholds the appeal and declares black lost. The basis of this is the assumption that in one second black would not be able to claim a draw.

I'd probably continue the game (and award time to white for black's incorrect claim) and see if black can correctly claim in one second after white makes the move. (I think all black can do is stop the clock as quickly as possible and say "claim draw" at more or less the same time, which he might just get done in a second.) That said I understand the ruling of a loss.

I sometimes wonder if there should be a rule that a player who makes any invalid claim of a draw or a win in their last, say, fifteen seconds in a guillotine finish loses the game.

Jesper Norgaard
24-08-2014, 04:09 PM
There is probably a final 10.2 (prior to all such claims being dealt with under the new G4-G6) in Gijssen's current Chesscafe column:

http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt189.htm

The question is what was wrong with the 10.2 draw claim? The player was on move, and should have stopped both clocks, and claimed a draw via 10.2. That's exactly what he did, except he erred in the way to stop both clocks and only stopped his own (effectively starting his opponents clock).

The attending arbiter, that had followed the game for some time, accepted the claim immediately and declared a draw. He may have been influenced by the opponent was also down to his last seconds. It was not a position where any player was likely to run into a checkmate, but losing a queen is obviously possible with a blunder.

In my opinion the Bavarian Main Arbiter was wrong in declaring that the player was not on move, because he stopped the clock the wrong way. I would have accepted the 10.2 claim as genuine, but handed two minutes extra to the opponent for the wrong way of stopping the clocks.

This reminds me of a case with a Mexican arbiter's unfortunate 10.2 decision in a rapid game. The player claiming had rook vs. knight and was trying to win to no avail. His opponent had kept a bit more time, and the player was on his last 5-10 seconds. He stopped the clocks and claimed a draw. "Why?" asked the arbiter. "It's a draw, he cannot win". "Yes he can" was the arbiter's reply. With helpmate, that is (he didn't say that). The player did not know the magic word "10.2". So the arbiter did not recognize the 10.2 claim and just started his clock again. The player didn't have the wherewithal to give up his rook with suicide checks, which can actually be quite difficult because the opponent can try to avoid capturing the rook with the aim of winning on time, so he lost on time. In my opinion it is a miscarriage of justice that you can win on time with a lone knight or a lone bishop, because the actual mate that can be constructed has never happened in any single OTB game in 200 years. That is massive evidence that there is no real reason to believe that such a helpmate would have ever emerged if the players would have had more time. The USCF rules don't allow it either as far as I know, because the player is not considered to have "mating material". There are exceptions especially with knight vs. rook pawn, where the lone knight or lone bishop can win, if there is a forced mate. But these could be filtered out (to allow the winning bishop or winning knight to checkmate) in whatever rule change that would implement this.

In hindsight it's insane to reject a 10.2 claim just because the player does not claim the paragraph unequivocally. The Mexican arbiter should have recognized this as a valid 10.2 claim.

This is where the appeal to the Bavarian Main Arbiter was misjudged in my opinion, the 10.2 claim should have been recognized, which means the attending arbiter's decision under 2009 Laws is final. He had been watching and had every right to declare a draw right away (the position is a theoretical draw). Some arbiters will let the players continue after the claim, but he didn't need to because he already had been watching the game for some time.

Instead the Bavarian Main Arbiter picked up the technicality and therefore deemed that he could take over the decision, because technically a valid 10.2 claim had not been made. This technicality made it possible to overrule the 10.2 decision of the attending arbiter.

If the case had been claimed under July 2014 rules, this means the attending arbiter's decision was not final. It could be appealed as it was, which may have led to the above decision again.

There was another option under the new laws. This would in effect not be a 10.2 claim, but a Appendix G claim. Both players had practically used up their time (of 3 hours each!), so to enable an OTB decision to the game, there is the possibility to invoke the G4 paragraph:

"G.4 If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that a time delay or cumulative time of an extra five seconds be introduced for both players, if possible. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue."

I would award 4 minutes to the opponent, 2 minutes for G4 and 2 minutes for the wrongly executed stopping of the clocks. Then I think it would be reasonable to award 5 seconds to the claimant, because he will get that for every move as his opponent. So he would in effect have 6 seconds. Then the clocks can be started with the claimant on move, and the game can continue to its conclusion (whatever that might be).

In my opinion this would be a Solomon judgment - and a more dignified end to the game than what was presented by the Bavarian Main Arbiter and Geurt Gijssen. Let's not cut live babies in half !!

Kevin Bonham
24-08-2014, 05:33 PM
Not sure why you say the player was on the move. According to the question as asked, the moves "123.h8=Q f1=Q 124.Qh5+ Kg3" were played, and then Black claimed. Stefan Herb writes "It is important to note that Black did not stop the clocks to support the claim and also pressed his clock so he was not on move when claiming the draw." but in fact what matters is that he has played 124...Kg3 which is a legal move and therefore can no longer claim the draw on that move. Everything to do with the clock (whether he had already pressed to complete his move, whether he stopped it in making the claim) is irrelevant because once he released his hand on 124...Kg3 he was no longer on the move and could not claim. (Indeed, in the 2009 version of 10.2 it was no longer required to stop the clock to claim.)


In hindsight it's insane to reject a 10.2 claim just because the player does not claim the paragraph unequivocally. The Mexican arbiter should have recognized this as a valid 10.2 claim.

I agree totally.


This is where the appeal to the Bavarian Main Arbiter was misjudged in my opinion, the 10.2 claim should have been recognized, which means the attending arbiter's decision under 2009 Laws is final.

The arbiter's decision under the 2009 Laws is only final if the claim is made in the correct manner. "The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to (a), (b) and (c)." (my emphasis) If the arbiter makes an error of fact concerning the introductory part of 10.2 (eg awarding a draw to a player with more than two minutes, whose flag has fallen or who was not on the move) then the decision is not final and can still be appealled.

Jesper Norgaard
24-08-2014, 07:04 PM
Not sure why you say the player was on the move. According to the question as asked, the moves "123.h8=Q f1=Q 124.Qh5+ Kg3" were played, and then Black claimed.

I only noticed that the text did not say he moved, but that "he pressed his clock so he was not on move". In fact the list of moves makes it clear he was on move, played 124...Kg3, pressed the clock, and claimed the draw. In that case the decision is correct, whether based on the old 2009 laws or the new July 2014 laws. The 10.2 claim and the would-be G.4 claim are both incorrect.

Actually it would be more correct to say "he made his move so he was not on move". That would be correct whether or not he pressed his clock, which is thus inconsequential.

Interesting case otherwise - if he hadn't made his move!

Kevin Bonham
24-08-2014, 09:20 PM
Interesting case otherwise - if he hadn't made his move!

Yes. If black had claimed after 124.Qh5+ he would presumably have had something like three seconds left, with white similarly short of time. There is a skewer possibility so the arbiter should say "play on" immediately, if only to see that Black plays ...Kg3 and not the losing ...Kf4. The arbiter could even just wait til a flag has fallen before making a decision.

Of course this could happen:

124.Qh5+
Black claims a draw
124...Kg3
White picks up his queen to move but his flag falls.

Now Black has won, because white had the option to accept the draw but did not do so.