FIDE rule 10.2 and juniors

[Alex Holowczak]

That K v KR draw has been around for years. It's mentioned in http://www.lrca.org.uk/lrca/middlegame/26.pdf which is dated January 2007.

10.2a itself states ( my bold)

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.

Why and under what circumstances would an arbiter not reject a claim by a player with a sole king against king and rook? So I'm asking why you would even get into the scenario of postponing his decision. I could accept (as probably would everyone who has commented) that if the arbiter had been aware that forty or more moves had already been played in the rook ending, that awarding a draw was fair given the repetition. But surely not if the position is being shown to the arbiter for the first time.

How do you know that this hasn't been going on for forty moves if it's the first time you've seen the position? There are no scoresheets available, given the players would probably have stopped recording. The players could equally dispute the facts of how long it had been going on for before you got there.

Under (a), upon arriving at a position, you can only judge that the opponent can't win by normal means, rather than making no effort. With a scoresheet, I can judge whether the opponent is making no effort. Without one, I can't, so I can't reject the claim.

[Roger de Coverly]

Under (a), upon arriving at a position, you can only judge that the opponent can't win by normal means, rather than making no effort. With a scoresheet, I can judge whether the opponent is making no effort. Without one, I can't, so I can't reject the claim.

Personally I think the wording should be that whether a position can be won by normal means should take precedence over the skill or otherwise of the players. So in a position like KR v K which can be won by normal means easily, you reject the 10.2 claim. If there is evidence from players or spectators that the KR hadn't been making progress, then you admit the claim and invoke the postponed decision. Presumably the arbiter is allowed to ask the player the grounds on which a claim is being made, so how do you claim "no effort" if the position has only just arisen and you certainly cannot validly claim "normal" means.

Going back to the original question as to why there's a belief in a two minute rule, it's because arbiters encourage such a belief by accepting and awarding draw claims in positions that are trivially won to the majority of players.

[Alex Holowczak]

Presumably the arbiter is allowed to ask the player the grounds on which a claim is being made, so how do you claim "no effort" if the position has only just arisen and you certainly cannot validly claim "normal" means.

That sounds quite reasonable to me. It's equally reasonable that an opponent might dispute those facts, though, because there's no scoresheet. Particularly if a precise sequence of moves can't be agreed.

[Sean Hewitt]

Oddly enough, I've experience of KR v K. Player with bare K summons the arbiter and says "I'm not claiming a draw, but I'd like you to watch because he is just chasing my king around the centre of the board". Arbiter watches the game and and sees the player's king chased from e3 to f4 to f5 to e6 to d6 to c5 to c4 to d3 and back to e3. At this point the player claimed a draw under 10.2 and the arbiter gave it immediately.

[Nick Thomas]

Oddly enough, I've experience of KR v K. Player with bare K summons the arbiter and says "I'm not claiming a draw, but I'd like you to watch because he is just chasing my king around the centre of the board". Arbiter watches the game and and sees the player's king chased from e3 to f4 to f5 to e6 to d6 to c5 to c4 to d3 and back to e3. At this point the player claimed a draw under 10.2 and the arbiter gave it immediately.

I fall back on a question I've asked over the years many times before. Why should a player not get the opportunity to discover the winning method or indeed fall blindly into mating his opponent over 50 moves just because his opponent has used up more rather than less time or has run out of time?

[Roger de Coverly]

Oddly enough, I've experience of KR v K. Player with bare K summons the arbiter and says "I'm not claiming a draw, but I'd like you to watch because he is just chasing my king around the centre of the board". Arbiter watches the game and and sees the player's king chased from e3 to f4 to f5 to e6 to d6 to c5 to c4 to d3 and back to e3. At this point the player claimed a draw under 10.2 and the arbiter gave it immediately.

That's a far better example than the one cited in the CAA course, the point being that making no effort to win the game by normal means should be measured over a series of moves, not just one or two.

In more complex practical cases, appearing to make no effort may in fact be normal means. You might for example be trying to win by setting up a Zugswang. I recall a game where I had to seek the win with caution. The obvious plan was to advance the queen side pawns, but then there was a danger that a sacrifice would leave me with a Bishop and the wrong colour rook's pawn with the enemy King in the corner. So I had to try to improve my own King. Whether an arbiter would have accepted this winning attempt was never put to the test as a 10.2 claim wasn't made. The King invasion proved to be the correct plan (after one position had to be repeated).

[Adam Raoof]

Oddly enough, I've experience of KR v K. Player with bare K summons the arbiter and says "I'm not claiming a draw, but I'd like you to watch because he is just chasing my king around the centre of the board". Arbiter watches the game and and sees the player's king chased from e3 to f4 to f5 to e6 to d6 to c5 to c4 to d3 and back to e3. At this point the player claimed a draw under 10.2 and the arbiter gave it immediately.

I completely agree - but what would you do in the example quoted by Alex from the CAA course?

[Sean Hewitt]

I completely agree - but what would you do in the example quoted by Alex from the CAA course?

As it's been presented on here I'd award the win on time.

But then again, I've not been through the CAA course

[Adam Raoof]

I completely agree - but what would you do in the example quoted by Alex from the CAA course?

As it's been presented on here I'd award the win on time.

But then again, I've not been through the CAA course

Me neither.... oops.

[Alex McFarlane]

And worse - I'm not aware of a course!

There is a sylabus and a selection of exam papers. I've used my own material when conducting courses.

With regard to K+R v K if the players were both highly graded (unlikely in this scenario) and the player with the rook was therefore 'messing' around I would award the draw much more quickly. Thereby saving the player from being awarded a loss for bringing the game into disrepute.

When I have a spare day or two I might read all of this thread or then again I might get a life ...

[Adam Raoof]

When I have a spare day or two I might read all of this thread or then again I might get a life ...

What do the following have in common?

The Candidates in Kazan
The British Championships
The Scottish Championships
The London Classic
Scarborough Chess Congress
etc.

A life, indeed...

alex.jpg (21.88 KiB) Viewed 1329 times

[Alex Holowczak]

And worse - I'm not aware of a course!

There is a sylabus and a selection of exam papers. I've used my own material when conducting courses.

Well, this is what I went to: http://chessarbiters.co.uk/ArbiterTrain ... urses.aspx

I suspect "syllabus" is equivalent to "course".

[Roger de Coverly]

Well, this is what I went to: http://chessarbiters.co.uk/ArbiterTrain ... urses.aspx
.

Part of the training material in this course is the K v KR draw, we believe. So it's official even if many players and some arbiters think awarding a draw in a lost position requires a higher standard of proof of inability than a repetition.

[Alex Holowczak]

Well, this is what I went to: http://chessarbiters.co.uk/ArbiterTrain ... urses.aspx
.

Part of the training material in this course is the K v KR draw, we believe. So it's official even if many players and some arbiters think awarding a draw in a lost position requires a higher standard of proof of inability than a repetition.

10.2s came up, as they would. During the lecture, the K v KR position was discussed. I can't comment on whether another lecturer would cover the specific position in the same way.

[E Michael White]

I would like to throw in another view. I may be in the minority but I don’t think the strength of the opponent of the claimant should influence the result. Arbiters sometimes say they will accept the claim if the opponent seems unable to demonstrate competence in concluding KR v K in the shortest time.

This is arbiter muddled thinking as they are not taking all evidence into account. The important point is the difference in relative skill levels not the absolute level of each player in isolation. Our grading system assumes this as do arbiters when they do an accelerated draw. Arbiters have evidence of the difference in skill levels because one player is a R ahead !

What may seem to be commencing a long route to finish, to an arbiter, may actually be the (mathematical probabilistic) expected shortest time taking account of the relative skill levels. The opponent cannot then be considered to be using up time to win abnormally. If the arbiter declares a draw after a 2 way repeat of a position shortly after the claim, he is not allowing for the strong possibility that the claimant may make a further mistake in the time available. The claimant has already made at least 1 mistake to lose a R in the first say 40 moves so is highly likely to make another in the possibly 40 or so played in the following 2 minutes.