FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

[Alex Holowczak]

I'll try a different question. Do you see something wrong with a junior or a relative beginner having less chance of winning a game of chess if his opponent has less time on the clock rather than more.

Yes, but that's not what happens if you apply 10.2 correctly. 10.2 is just there to stop people making aimless moves to win on time, rather than winning over the board. The only reason the player with more time on his clock wouldn't win the game is if he stopped trying to win the game and started trying to win on time.

[Alex Holowczak]

If he doesn't repeat moves, the 10.2 claim will fail. .

In the normal Laws of Chess, repetition of position has to occur three times for a draw claim to succeed. Why does the CAA guidance invent rules by awarding a draw if a position has only occurred twice? If you have any respect for your opponent and a King against King and Rook, you resign anyway provided your opponent has a sensible amount of time remaining. I don't think arbiters should encourage frivolous claims in lost positions and award draws based on a curious interpretation of making progress.

It's not, you're failing to understand the point.

It's a question of whether progress is being made. If a position is repeated, the position is identical to something that's just happened before. Thus, progress is not being made. If progress is not being made, the game is a draw in the case of a 10.2 claim.

It really is remarkably simple to win the game if it's KR v K in the situation described in scenario (1). Instead of repeating the position, do something else that's vaguely productive with regard to winning the game. Move your King towards the opponent's King. Move the rook to the rank that cuts off the other King from moving forward. Do anything like that - you don't have to play like a tablebase. Just whatever you do, don't repeat the position!

[Ian Kingston]

The 'making progress' concept isn't in the Laws. It may be considered as evidence that one player is trying to win by normal means (or, conversely, not doing so). However, when the non-claimant is clearly winning, it strikes me that the arbiter should bend over backwards to avoid awarding the draw. A single repetition just isn't enough to justify upholding the claim.

[Alex Holowczak]

The 'making progress' concept isn't in the Laws. It may be considered as evidence that one player is trying to win by normal means (or, conversely, not doing so). However, when the non-claimant is clearly winning, it strikes me that the arbiter should bend over backwards to avoid awarding the draw. A single repetition just isn't enough to justify upholding the claim.

You're right, "making progress" isn't in the rules. The Laws say "making no effort to win the game by normal means" in (a) and "making sufficient attempts to win by normal means" in (b). I used "making progress" for short.

If a position is repeated in the case of (1), by definition, a player is not "making sufficient attempts to win by normal means". Repetition of a position isn't listed in the Laws of Chess as a win for the player with more time on his clock.

[Nick Thomas]

I'll try a different question. Do you see something wrong with a junior or a relative beginner having less chance of winning a game of chess if his opponent has less time on the clock rather than more.

Yes, but that's not what happens if you apply 10.2 correctly.

OK. The problem then is that you and other arbiters are fundamentally wrong about whether this happens with the current interpretation of the rules. My extensive experience in the field of junior chess makes me convinced that you are allowing the claimer to benefit from having used up more rather than less time in the case in question. To a junior a 2 move repetition is conceivably making progress of a sort as it may give him/her information about the opponents intentions and skill level in this type of position. I have seen repetitions many many times cause the defender to panic and play worse moves in junior chess. In any case if the defender had more time on the clock the opponent would have more chance of winning the game and would in fact sometimes do so. Do you think your interpretation of the rules brings the game into disrepute?

[Paul Cooksey]

You will already have noticed how often Capablanca repeated moves, often returning to positions which he had had before. This is not lack of deciciveness or slowness, but the employment of a basic endgame principle which is 'Do not hurry'

Alexander Kotov

[Alex Holowczak]

I'll try a different question. Do you see something wrong with a junior or a relative beginner having less chance of winning a game of chess if his opponent has less time on the clock rather than more.

Yes, but that's not what happens if you apply 10.2 correctly.

OK. The problem then is that you and other arbiters are fundamentally wrong about whether this happens with the current interpretation of the rules. My extensive experience in the field of junior chess makes me convinced that you are allowing the claimer to benefit from having used up more rather than less time in the case in question. To a junior a 2 move repetition is conceivably making progress of a sort as it may give him/her information about the opponents intentions and skill level in this type of position. I have seen repetitions many many times cause the defender to panic and play worse moves in junior chess. In any case if the defender had more time on the clock the opponent would have more chance of winning the game and would in fact sometimes do so.

I've only been privy to three 10.2s in junior chess in the last 12 months.
(1) The one that we both know about last year involving one of your students was clearly one that the arbiter got completely wrong.
(2) The aforementioned G/45 one that the arbiter should have rejected in my opinion, but deferred his decision, and he lost on time anyway. So no harm was done. I've seen lots of others like this.
(3) One the other week at Eton that was a good claim, and it was accepted.

I don't think the problem you're commenting on is specific to juniors. Of the three above, the two that were mistakes would have been mistakes regardless of who was sat there, be they juniors or adults.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Slippery but insufficient. If you can't answer the question directly then something is seriously wrong with the rule or your interpretation of it. You will see juniors who couldn't easily mate with K+R under pressure in the Under 10 WJCC in November which you are organiseing and others in the same section who would have a crack at invoking 10.2.

For a moment there I thought Alex H had gone from organising BUCA to organising the U10 World Junior Chess Championships. Then I realised that the World was in fact Warwickshire and all was right with the world once more!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The question is:" Why should a junior be deprived the opportunity of discovering the correct way of mating with K+R against K just because his opponent has used up more rather than less time"

He doesn't need to know how to do KR v K to win on time. If he doesn't repeat moves, the 10.2 claim will fail. It's only the repetition of moves that causes the claim to succeed. If he doesn't repeat moves, he's making progress, be it towards checkmate, or a doomed attempt to checkmate.

I think the point is that someone (admittedly not the arbiter) should be ensuring that juniors learn how to win games of chess by mating their opponent (or forcing resignation) rather than "winning on time". The concept of winning on time is something you have to be careful when introducing to juniors, less they miss the point about chess.

[Alex Holowczak]

I think the point is that someone (admittedly not the arbiter) should be ensuring that juniors learn how to win games of chess by mating their opponent (or forcing resignation) rather than "winning on time". The concept of winning on time is something you have to be careful when introducing to juniors, less they miss the point about chess.

I agree, but as you say, that's beyond the remit of the arbiter...

[Christopher Kreuzer]

It's a question of whether progress is being made. If a position is repeated, the position is identical to something that's just happened before. Thus, progress is not being made. If progress is not being made, the game is a draw in the case of a 10.2 claim.

This reminds me of computer programs that (sometimes only briefly) assess winning positions as drawn if moves are repeated (less than three times). They too seem to think that someone repeating moves is unable to win.

It really is remarkably simple to win the game if it's KR v K in the situation described in scenario (1). Instead of repeating the position, do something else that's vaguely productive with regard to winning the game. Move your King towards the opponent's King. Move the rook to the rank that cuts off the other King from moving forward. Do anything like that - you don't have to play like a tablebase. Just whatever you do, don't repeat the position!

And by awarding a draw, you are encouraging the 'winning' player to go away and find out how to win? Is it better for that player to discover the winning method over the board themselves, or to be taught it? And the player that gets a draw in a lost position, they learn that it is better to try and swindle their opponent rather than do the right thing and resign? As I said, with juniors, you need to be careful that strict applications of the rules are not adversely affecting their perception of how chess should be played.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I think the point is that someone (admittedly not the arbiter) should be ensuring that juniors learn how to win games of chess by mating their opponent (or forcing resignation) rather than "winning on time". The concept of winning on time is something you have to be careful when introducing to juniors, less they miss the point about chess.

I agree, but as you say, that's beyond the remit of the arbiter...

Which also seems to miss the point about chess.

[Alex Holowczak]

It really is remarkably simple to win the game if it's KR v K in the situation described in scenario (1). Instead of repeating the position, do something else that's vaguely productive with regard to winning the game. Move your King towards the opponent's King. Move the rook to the rank that cuts off the other King from moving forward. Do anything like that - you don't have to play like a tablebase. Just whatever you do, don't repeat the position!

And by awarding a draw, you are encouraging the 'winning' player to go away and find out how to win? Is it better for that player to discover the winning method over the board themselves, or to be taught it? And the player that gets a draw in a lost position, they learn that it is better to try and swindle their opponent rather than do the right thing and resign? As I said, with juniors, you need to be careful that strict applications of the rules are not adversely affecting their perception of how chess should be played.

This is a terrible argument.

(1) Juniors nearly never resign anyway. Even in fully-blown league chess, with adjournments and all, they play everything out until mate.
(2) By awarding a draw, you're following the laws of the game. As an arbiter, I'm there to enforce the laws of the game, not to coach a junior how to play chess.
(3) I actually taught a junior KR v K a few weeks before the Warwickshire Megafinal. During it, KR v K came up, and he was able to execute it. So he won. Admittedly, his section didn't have clocks, but that misses the point in this case. Would it have been better for him to discover it himself? Perhaps. Having coached him, he wouldn't have got it had I not shown him how to do it. Perhaps I accelerated this discovery? Either way, he knows it now, so what's the problem?

[Roger de Coverly]

It's a question of whether progress is being made. If a position is repeated, the position is identical to something that's just happened before. Thus, progress is not being made. If progress is not being made, the game is a draw in the case of a 10.2 claim.

I still think the CAA citation of R+K v K with a repetition is a really bad example. Had they said that playing around 30 or 40 moves without getting anywhere should be a draw, then it would be difficult to disagree. As it is, they are applying a higher standard of proof when the opponent is short of time than when they aren't. You don't get R+K v K in adult chess unless the R+K are really, really short of time. You certainly wouldn't expect the K to have an valid claim to a draw. What you do get are positions which are quite possible to play for a win, but where the winning process is less than obvious. The CAA guidance of awarding a draw in a clearly lost position just muddies the issue rather than clarifying it.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

It's a question of whether progress is being made. If a position is repeated, the position is identical to something that's just happened before. Thus, progress is not being made. If progress is not being made, the game is a draw in the case of a 10.2 claim.

I still think the CAA citation of R+K v K with a repetition is a really bad example. Had they said that playing around 30 or 40 moves without getting anywhere should be a draw, then it would be difficult to disagree. As it is, they are applying a higher standard of proof when the opponent is short of time than when they aren't. You don't get R+K v K in adult chess unless the R+K are really, really short of time. You certainly wouldn't expect the K to have an valid claim to a draw. What you do get are positions which are quite possible to play for a win, but where the winning process is less than obvious. The CAA guidance of awarding a draw in a clearly lost position just muddies the issue rather than clarifying it.

It seems to be that the arbiter's interpretation of the play he sees depends on the level of ability of the players. To reply out-of-sequence to the poster wondering why strong players agree a draw rather than get into time trouble, part of the motivation is I suspect to avoid having arbitrators with (usually) less chess acumen then them having to rule on something like a 10.2 claim in their games. Either that, or the strong players themselves hate 10.2 claims, or are strong enough to agree results without needing 10.2 and an arbiter. It seems that asking an arbiter to judge whether an opponent is making any attempt to win is fraught with subjectivity. And what do you do when a strong junior, who does know how to mate with K+R, repeats a few moves and fails to realise that he might get penalised for this?