Article 10.2

[David Shepherd]

The arbiter was clearly wrong in this case. He should have waited until your opponent's move to do that.

Yes

[Alex Holowczak]

The arbiter was clearly wrong in this case. He should have waited until your opponent's move to do that.

Yes

Yes, I know the incident you're referring to, and yes I got it wrong.

I had another "scramble" to watch nearby, so I pointed out that you'd missed a halfmove two moves back on your scoresheet, and asked you to write it up. I expected you to write it up when it became your turn, but to my horror it happened immediately, while it was still your opponent's turn to move.

[David Shepherd]

No problem - just jesting . It kind of threw me a bit - I thought do I press his clock and write it up on my time, knew it should be on my time - didn't occur to me in the instant to wait until my move (obvious really) I think the instruction to fill in the move combined with me having a few seconds left set up a conflict in my already overworked brain cell.

I had bashed out move 31 as I had only about 20 or 30 seconds left, the move was obvious so I made it just in case there was an error in recording (particularly as I had a gap). I guess I was still a bit worried in case I still hadn't recorded correctly in my time scramble and lost on time recording the gap move. Just shows how scrambled the mind gets in a time scramble!

I guess it was partly that I lost a game on time a few years back having made 36 moves (time control move 35). I had ticked off the last moves and remain convinced that the opponent misrecorded missing out a repetition in the time scramble.

Would I have been correct in just waiting until my time reached nil and then writting up the missing move? (rather than on my next move) - although it would probably have been my next move when the time ran out.

Anyway apologises to my opponent for my actions (he outplayed me through the whole game in which I was very lucky to grovel to a draw).

[David Shepherd]

Also many thanks for your hard work in the tournament.

[Alex Holowczak]

Would I have been correct in just waiting until my time reached nil and then writting up the missing move? (rather than on my next move) - although it would probably have been my next move when the time ran out.

The problem I had was that both of you had reached move 30 + more besides, but you'd missed half a move out. Because his flag fell first, and you both agreed you'd made 30 moves, I may have had to wait for 5 minutes before another move was made until I could point out the problem. I considered watching the other scramble and coming back, but thought I'd forget.

As it happens, it was a good job I went to watch the other scramble. One player had ticked several moves, and the other had reached move 30. Quite by chance, the player made move 31 with a few seconds to go. He was lucky. His opponent had skipped a move in his recording, and missed the gap for move 29, going straight from 28 to 30. This only became apparent when combining his opponent's scoresheet, my scoresheet of the last few moves to move 30, and the missing ticks. I probably should have warned his opponent about skipping moves on the scoresheet.

All this was better than the abuse I suffered at the end of that round. KP v KP; the pawns locked on both sides. The white K is a long way away from the opponent's pawn; the black K is nearer, and will take the white move any move soon. Rather than make a claim under 10.2 (which would have been accepted), he tried to bash out moves to take the pawn, ensuring a draw. He didn't make it; his flag fell first. (This was subsequently backed up by independent witnesses.) I couldn't get in quickly enough to say the flag fell before he'd captured the last pawn, and so when he took the pawn to see his flag falling, he was rather angry. He was angered that there was no video replay to verify my decision. Furthermore, my decision came "at a crucial stage of the tournament", which presumably meant he could no longer win his section. There was a 5-minute procession of insults and complaints to the other arbiters. His child opponent had broken into tears long before this point at his opponent's reaction.

Another comment; it's astonishing how many players still don't know about 10.2. There were lots of people getting in a huff about losing games on time that they were completely winning; in some cases only a few moves away from mate. I must have explained to at least 5 people over the course of Weekend B that if they'd claimed under 10.2, they'd have got a draw. (I couldn't in the example in the paragraph above, due to the barrage coming my way.) One case was KRP v KQR+lots of other stuff, with the black Q forking the K with the R in such a way that he could capture it without losing his Q on the following move. To my mind, this is a clear case where black claiming a 10.2 would have led to a draw, but the player didn't claim because he thought it would fail, saying that his opponent still had mating material.

[Steve Rooney]

Another comment; it's astonishing how many players still don't know about 10.2. There were lots of people getting in a huff about losing games on time that they were completely winning; in some cases only a few moves away from mate. I must have explained to at least 5 people over the course of Weekend B that if they'd claimed under 10.2, they'd have got a draw. (I couldn't in the example in the paragraph above, due to the barrage coming my way.) One case was KRP v KQR+lots of other stuff, with the black Q forking the K with the R in such a way that he could capture it without losing his Q on the following move. To my mind, this is a clear case where black claiming a 10.2 would have led to a draw, but the player didn't claim because he thought it would fail, saying that his opponent still had mating material.

Do you mean you would accept the 10.2 claim even if white had a pawn left?

[Roger de Coverly]

Do you mean you would accept the 10.2 claim even if white had a pawn left?

You would hope so. That's the point of 10.2 to my mind. It shouldn't really be used to punish players for poor play in winning positions, rather it should enable the player in a position where over the board with a little more time there is no other result than a win to take a draw as a consolation prize.

The less confrontational approach is that if you are short of time with a massive advantage, you offer a draw. Not everyone wants to gamble mate versus time. If the offer is refused you then attempt to attract the attention of an arbiter (in a tournament) or cease play in a "no arbiter present" league.

[Steve Rooney]

Do you mean you would accept the 10.2 claim even if white had a pawn left?

You would hope so. That's the point of 10.2 to my mind. It shouldn't really be used to punish players for poor play in winning positions, rather it should enable the player in a position where over the board with a little more time there is no other result than a win to take a draw as a consolation prize.

The less confrontational approach is that if you are short of time with a massive advantage, you offer a draw. Not everyone wants to gamble mate versus time. If the offer is refused you then attempt to attract the attention of an arbiter (in a tournament) or cease play in a "no arbiter present" league.

I know there are a lot of chess players who would like to think you were right but surely overwhelming material advantage is not enough if the opponent still has mating material and could therefore win. There is some interesting advice here - http://www.westlondonchess.com/FIDE_10_2 - although it's not clear what this interpretation is based on.

[Roger de Coverly]

I know there are a lot of chess players who would like to think you were right but surely overwhelming material advantage is not enough if the opponent still has mating material and could therefore win.

The key point is "normal means". If you interpret this as meaning that the players play half sensible moves, then you award the draw if the non-claimant could not possibly expect to win other than on time. One key benchmark is whether the draw would be instantly accepted if time was not an issue.

"Mating material" on the other hand means that you win with a Knight against a pawn if your opponent's flag falls.

Acceptance of "on the night" finishes is conditional in leagues. One of the conditions being that you can still draw with an overwhelming material advantage. It helps people offer and accept draws in these material v time situations when it's known that a draw offer can be ungraded to a claim.

You could for example examine what an arbiter's attitude would be to yesterday's Short v Carlsen ending. This featured R and two against R and one with the pawns on the same side. I would hope that a 10.2 verdict would be an instant award to White, were he to claim, and a play on with arbiter observation if Black claims. Whether a draw would be awarded if Black's flag fell first is one of the more difficult arbiter calls. The problem being that the arbiter has to be of sufficient playing strength to realise that it's drawn and the player of course has to continue to make correct moves. In the Classic, they had the 30 second increment for the final stages, so the 10.2 issue is kept at bay.

[Alex Holowczak]

Another comment; it's astonishing how many players still don't know about 10.2. There were lots of people getting in a huff about losing games on time that they were completely winning; in some cases only a few moves away from mate. I must have explained to at least 5 people over the course of Weekend B that if they'd claimed under 10.2, they'd have got a draw. (I couldn't in the example in the paragraph above, due to the barrage coming my way.) One case was KRP v KQR+lots of other stuff, with the black Q forking the K with the R in such a way that he could capture it without losing his Q on the following move. To my mind, this is a clear case where black claiming a 10.2 would have led to a draw, but the player didn't claim because he thought it would fail, saying that his opponent still had mating material.

Do you mean you would accept the 10.2 claim even if white had a pawn left?

I agree with Roger's subsequent comments on this.

There was no way that KP could beat KQR + lots of other stuff by normal means (as opposed to not trying to win by normal means), and the player freely admitted after the game that he was trying to win on time!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Is it possible for the non-DVD stuff to be split to a new thread?

[Steve Rooney]

Another comment; it's astonishing how many players still don't know about 10.2. There were lots of people getting in a huff about losing games on time that they were completely winning; in some cases only a few moves away from mate. I must have explained to at least 5 people over the course of Weekend B that if they'd claimed under 10.2, they'd have got a draw. (I couldn't in the example in the paragraph above, due to the barrage coming my way.) One case was KRP v KQR+lots of other stuff, with the black Q forking the K with the R in such a way that he could capture it without losing his Q on the following move. To my mind, this is a clear case where black claiming a 10.2 would have led to a draw, but the player didn't claim because he thought it would fail, saying that his opponent still had mating material.

Do you mean you would accept the 10.2 claim even if white had a pawn left?

I agree with Roger's subsequent comments on this.

There was no way that KP could beat KQR + lots of other stuff by normal means (as opposed to not trying to win by normal means), and the player freely admitted after the game that he was trying to win on time!

What's wrong with trying to win on time? I wouldn't be opposed to your interpretation, particularly if I had the KQR, but am surprised by it, as I didn't think that "normal means" was interpreted in a way which seems akin to an adjudication. Any other arbiters in the house so they can have an argument?
(Christopher is right by the way that all this has nothing to do with the thread title.)

[IM Jack Rudd]

<ECF Arbiter hat on>
Exploiting your opponent's shortage of time to help you win the game is perfectly reasonable and proper; taking it to the extreme of trying to win when the only way you can reasonably win is on time is a lot less so. Article 10.2 is there to prevent this.

[Graham Borrowdale]

Another comment; it's astonishing how many players still don't know about 10.2.

I don't think it is really that astonishing. I presume you are talking about the various open/rapidplay sections at the LCC over the last weekend, where there were lots of players who were clearly inexperienced in tournament play, let alone some of the more oblique rules such as 10.2. Whilst not wanting to critisice the organisers of an excellent event, the marketing clearly had the intention of widening the net beyond regular players, with its invitation to watch the worlds best players, etc. I would hazard a guess that some of the players in those sections had never played a congress or league game before. Lets hope they don't disappear for another year.

[Roger de Coverly]

I would hazard a guess that some of the players in those sections had never played a congress or league game before. Lets hope they don't disappear for another year.

Without really checking, I thought most players had grades. Those of us from counties where adjudications and adjournments were abolished many years ago sometimes overlook that London is one of the bastions of leagues without quickplay finishes. A lack of experience of 10.2 might therefore be expected.