We had an interesting position in our match last night, on board one our player had a winning position but very short on time (i.e. 3.5 mins versus about 22 mins). He offered a draw, which was refused. He eventually lost on time, but said after the game that he should have claimed the draw (with under 2 mins left) as his opponent had a lost game. His opponent did admit that he had a point and that he should have claimed a draw which others would have then decided upon the validity of the draw claim.
But I didn't think this was the case as at the time it was 1 Rook, 1 knight and 1 pawn versus 3 pawns and 1 rook. Although I agree that it was a won game with CORRECT play. The FIDE rule for a quickplay finish actually states 'it is not possible to win by normal means' So I was making the point to our player that I didn't think 'normal means' excluded playing badly, ie his opponent could still win. Does anyone actually know what the phrase 'it is not possible to win by normal means' means?
The FIDE rules actually state:
Article 10: Quickplay Finish
10.1 A `quickplay finish` is the phase of a game, when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time.
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.
b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue in the presence of an arbiter, if possible. 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.
If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes time.
The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to 10.2 a, b, c.
Originally posted by stevetoddI don't know the answer to your question but going off topic slightly...
We had an interesting position in our match last night, on board one our player had a winning position but very short on time (i.e. 3.5 mins versus about 22 mins). He offered a draw, which was refused. He eventually lost on time, but said after the game that he should have claimed the draw (with under 2 mins left) as his opponent had a lost game. His oppon a minutes time.
The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to 10.2 a, b, c.
in my experience this kind of situation is almost invariably causes the arguments that occur in OTB team chess and they're a result of:-
(a) players (myself included) tending to not know the rules
(b) even if the captains do know the rules, there's no disinterested arbiter present to make a decision.
(a) and (b) taken together are one of the reasons I usually prefer to avoid q-play finishes in league chess.
[and there's also (c) a disproportionate amount of chess players are idiots who don't deal with disputes very well but that's another matter]
Broadly speaking I'd agree with you that it is possible to win with three pawns against a knight and pawn even if you're objectively lost. Depends on the position of course.
In the past I've seen arbiters decide 'winning by normal means' broadly as follows...
just shuffling about making no progress waiting for your opponents flag to fall doesn't count (e.g. Kg1-h1-g1-f1-e2-g2-g1-h1 or something like that).
Pushing pawns or having some kind of plan does.
I'd be interested to know if there are any arbiters on here who could answer this one ...
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonYes I too would like someone with either expertise or direct experience to comment on this.
I don't know the answer to your question but going off topic slightly...
in my experience this kind of situation is almost invariably causes the arguments that occur in OTB team chess and they're a result of:-
(a) players (myself included) tending to not know the rules
(b) even if the captains do know the rules, there's no disinterested ar interested to know if there are any arbiters on here who could answer this one ...
Edit:
I must add that the position was definitely a lost game, but also that our player said “I was always going to lose on time, so I had nothing to lose by attempting to claim the draw". Obviously he is correct but I am actually interested in the correct interpretation of the rules.
Edit 2:
Just received an email from the player concerned and he was implying that the position dictated that his opponent had to play defensively and that he would have been claiming under the 'making no effort to win' clause. I am still interested to know though that although his opponent was playing defensively could he not have later switched to attack if our player messed up his moves?
Originally posted by stevetoddThats a very interesting rule, I have emailed my chess clubs captian, he plays for his county and is our clubs strongest player so maybe he will have come across this before.
Yes I too would like someone with either expertise or direct experience to comment on this.
Edit:
I must add that the position was definitely a lost game, but also that our player said “I was always going to lose on time, so I had nothing to lose by attempting to claim the draw". Obviously he is correct but I am actually interested in the correct interpretation of the rules.
Originally posted by Pigface1Thanks, read my 2nd edit which I added just after your post. Despite the added info my my team mate, I would still argue that his opponent might have been playing defensively but only because he had to, NOT because he was merely making any moves just to use up the clock. He might have later switched to attack and therefore been trying to win (albeit in a lost position with correct play)
Thats a very interesting rule, I have emailed my chess clubs captian, he plays for his county and is our clubs strongest player so maybe he will have come across this before.
Originally posted by stevetoddThe below link appears to be the Horse's Mouth on this - at least from the ECF point of view...
We had an interesting position in our match last night, on board one our player had a winning position but very short on time (i.e. 3.5 mins versus about 22 mins). He offered a draw, which was refused. He eventually lost on time, but said after the game that he should have claimed the draw (with under 2 mins left) as his opponent had a lost game. His oppon ...[text shortened]... a minutes time.
The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to 10.2 a, b, c.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/organisation/fide/guidance-quickplay_nov06.htm
Does anyone actually know what the phrase 'it is not possible to win by normal means' means?
No mating material left.
If player A has 1 pawn left, and player B 2 pawns and a rook, and player B's flag falls, he still loses the game.
If player A would have no pawns left the game would be drawn.
Originally posted by schakuhryou are right somehow, but there are cases(especially with oposite Bishops or blocked positions) where sometimes one can claim a draw...and he will get it...
[b]Does anyone actually know what the phrase 'it is not possible to win by normal means' means?
No mating material left.
If player A has 1 pawn left, and player B 2 pawns and a rook, and player B's flag falls, he still loses the game.
If player A would have no pawns left the game would be drawn.[/b]
your case is a bit more difficult...I think you can claim a draw when you can show some way: like if he moves there I move there, and he can make no progress...but in his way there were too many options and probably it was no simple way to block the opponent...
if you get the draw here...why you can not extend it and imediatelly after you might win a pawn in the middle game versus a better opponent you may be entitled to say: I am better here, it is a win for me, so I am entitled to a draw...and let flag go down...
maybe this is the reason that they are introducing now increment/move as official time for FIDE... 😉
Originally posted by vipiuWell as you say there's a difference between a flag falling - as mentioned by the poster before you - and claiming a draw in your last two minutse before the flag falls.
...
if you get the draw here...why you can not extend it and imediatelly after you might win a pawn in the middle game versus a better opponent you may be entitled to say: I am better here, it is a win for me, so I am entitled to a draw...and let flag go down...
If flag falls in that opposite coloured bishop ending you mention ... then you lose end of story because opponent has mating material. If you claim a draw prior to flag falling its different.
This reminds me of an old case involving Jim Plaskett about 20 years ago. He had two knights against pawn. Pawn was blockaded so opponent couldn't advance it. He was on verge of taking the pawn when his flag fell. He claimed a draw because his opponent couldn't win by normal means but both arbiter and appeals committee ruled it as a loss for him.
btw:
I meant to emphasise in that there's probably a difference between
I. the definition of "by normal means" according to the rules
II. how that definition will be applied by an (experienced probably) arbiter running a tournament
and
III. how it would be applied during a club game in practice given the absence of independent arbiters
oh one more thing then I'm done.
I'm sure during the negotiations for the Intel Speed Chess tournaments of many years ago, the players agreed amongst themselves that if a player was clearly better but about to lose on time s/he could insist on a draw - which is a bit different to the FIDE regulations you quote.
Even that, of course, depends on interpretation of 'clearly better' and 'about to lose on time'.