IAs Please Help

[Tom O'Donnell]

Can someone please explain this and in particular rule G.4? Is it designed for situations where the players are using a mechanical clock but there are increments? What sorts of positions get time added? Is that time added to both players?

Thanks in advance.

QUICKPLAY FINISHES

2014 FIDE LAWS OF CHESS
APPENDIX G: QUICKPLAY FINISHES

G.1 A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the remaining moves must be completed in a finite time.

G.2 Before the start of an event it shall be announced whether this Appendix shall apply or not. [rjh: presumably this means "whether there will be quickplay finishes".]

G.3 This Appendix shall only apply to standard play and rapidplay games without increment and not to blitz games.

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.

G.5 If Article G.4 does not apply [rjh: presumably this means something like "if G.4 is not invoked and applied"] and 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 chessclock (see Article 6.12 b). He may claim on the basis that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means

(a) If the arbiter agrees that the opponent cannot win by normal means, or that the opponent has been making no effort to win the game by normal means, 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 the flag of either player has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the opponent of the player whose flag has fallen cannot win by normal means, or that he 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.

G.6 The following shall apply when the competition is not supervised by an arbiter:

(a) A player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game. He may claim on the basis: (1) that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or (2) that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means. In (1) the player must write down the final position and his opponent must verify it. In (2) the player must write down the final position and submit an up-to-date scoresheet. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.

(b) The claim shall be referred to the designated arbiter.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: IAs Please Help

In FQE events, digital clocks which can handle increments are mandatory (assuming the event is using increments). Are people elsewhere still using mechanical clocks in increment tournaments? If so - why? :-)

[Stephen Wright]

Re: IAs Please Help

This appendix only applies when there is a sudden-death time control, i.e., no increment (G.3). Under the old infamous 10.2 one could claim a draw when under two minutes remaining for the rest of the game under certain circumstances (now G.5 above). However, this leaves the decision over the result of the game in the hands of an arbiter. The new addition (G.4) is that the player may now instead request to play the game out with an increment or delay of five seconds a move (assuming an electronic clock is available), thus the game is decided over the board rather than by an arbiter. The extra time referred to is the increment/delay and yes, both players receive it. This happens irrespective of the position, allowing that a player has to request it and the arbiter has to agree.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: IAs Please Help

This appendix only applies when there is a sudden-death time control, i.e., no increment (G.3). Under the old infamous 10.2 one could claim a draw when under two minutes remaining for the rest of the game under certain circumstances (now G.5 above). However, this leaves the decision over the result of the game in the hands of an arbiter. The new addition (G.4) is that the player may now instead request to play the game out with an increment or delay of five seconds a move (assuming an electronic clock is available), thus the game is decided over the board rather than by an arbiter. The extra time referred to is the increment/delay and yes, both players receive it. This happens irrespective of the position, allowing that a player has to request it and the arbiter has to agree.

Thanks, that helps somewhat. So if you and I are playing with a mechanical clock and I am down to less than two minutes I can request an electronic clock with a delay/increment. It is also a draw offer. If you refuse the draw offer (i.e. choose to play on) then we play with delay/increments AND we both get two extra minutes? Or would only you get the two extra minutes but we both get the delay because I am the one making the original request? Or ...?

[Stephen Wright]

Re: IAs Please Help

Thanks, that helps somewhat. So if you and I are playing with a mechanical clock and I am down to less than two minutes I can request an electronic clock with a delay/increment. It is also a draw offer. If you refuse the draw offer (i.e. choose to play on) then we play with delay/increments AND we both get two extra minutes? Or would only you get the two extra minutes but we both get the delay because I am the one making the original request? Or ...?

Right, it's basically switching from a mechanical clock to one with an increment/delay of five seconds. The extra two minutes is just for the opponent (non-requestee), presumably because the request is a disturbance to him/her.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: IAs Please Help

Okay, great. That explains a lot. Thanks.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: IAs Please Help

Playing without increments shouldn't even be allowed for serious competitions.

[Tony Boron]

Re: IAs Please Help

Right, it's basically switching from a mechanical clock to one with an increment/delay of five seconds. The extra two minutes is just for the opponent (non-requestee), presumably because the request is a disturbance to him/her.

In our tournaments, it has been invoked in two games in the past 2 rounds where it was been applicable. (We play Tuesday nights and have to be out of the venue by 11 pm. We start at 7 and play G/110). In the first game, a lower rated player had a 40 minute to 40 second time advantage when the higher rated player called for the clock. The position was slightly better for the lower rated player but still sharp. The draw was refused and the higher-rated player eventually won.
Just last Tuesday, a higher-rated player had R+2P vs R+P when the lower rated player called for the clock. The draw was refused. It ended up a draw, after some ~50 more moves (which is less than 9 minutes of incremental time) , which was the 'proper' result. As an arbiter, I like the rule as the players get to decide the game.

[Pierre Denommee]

Re: IAs Please Help

Clock substitution is an old USCF rule that has been accepted by FIDE.

Technically, a player must always request the clock first because this action is also an offer of a draw. A player first claims G4 and offers a draw, If the opponent refuses the draw offer, the arbiter may substitute the clock. There are two aspects to this decision. Clock availability is the first criteria: if the arbiter does not have a suitable clock, we proceed directly to G5. If the arbiter do have a clock, he must use his judgement to decide. By USCF rules, no clock is given if the claim is clearly good.



The rule is intended to ease the life of the arbiter. This position is clearly impossible to win by normal means for Black, so the arbiter keeps his clock because this is an easy call. There is also a clear philosophical rule, at least in the USCF, that the purpose of this rule is to prevent a player with a clear superiority from loosing the game on time, not enable him to win. When a player registers for a sudden death tournament, he accepts the rules, including the time control. The introduction of a increment or delay clock is a fundamental change to the rules that were agreed upon at the beginning of the game.

A clock should be substituted in unclear positions in which the arbiter's decision would be hard to make. For example, the ending KRB vs KR may be drawn according to Nalimov tablebase, but it is almost never possible to declare those positions impossible to win by normal means. This ending is hard to defend for the weaker side and the rule intent is not to give a "free" draw to a player who may ignore how to hold the position.

FIDE is clearly headed towards a mandatory incrementation system. All rated games will have to use an increment. I suppose this is why that even in FIDE refresher seminars for arbiters, the subject is not covered in depth. The reason the rule is there is synchronization with the USCF. There is no detailed guidance from FIDE. There is no gray box in the arbiters' manual for annex G. Almost everything that is known about clock substitution comes from the USCF.

Using only a 5 seconds delay or increment, the game length is kept under control at the expense of the quality of the game. What I personally dislike with the clock substitution is that the arbiter decision is not based solely on the merit of the claim. If, for example, the arbiter has 2 clocks for 5 games, the position of your game vs the positions in the other games will be taken into account. The two most unclear positions, those that would make the arbiter uncomfortable to decide wether or not they are impossible to win by normal means, will receive the two clocks. Furthermore, this claims does not blend nicely with FIDE rules. For FIDE, a draw can be claimed if the position is impossible to win by normal means or if the opponent is not making sufficient efforts to win by normal means. For USCF 5th edition, the claim can only be based on insufficient loosing chance, which means the position, not the attitude of the opponent. I have never seen a USCF pamphlet detailing when to substitute a clock when the opponent's attitude is in error. Finally, a 5 second increment is too small for recording the game. There will be problems with both 50 moves and 75 moves draw claims.

Here is the proper sequence for a player

1. Stop both clocks (optional but highly recommended)
2. Request a clock substitution, this is also a draw offer
3. If the opponent refuses the offer, go to the next point in the list.
4. If the substitution is granted, continue the game.
5. Else, make a G5 claim.
6. The arbiter takes a decision.

P.S. FIDE is also considering more USCF rule synchronization : a 10 move limits for claiming illegal moves and moving the "playing two move in a row violation" from Article 1 to Article 7 which would make it illegal to claim a double move after the end of the game. I believe Canada should oppose both changes. Playing to moves in a row while the opponent is not at the table is a very grave infraction and nobody should be allowed to get away with it. It is not academic because one case has reached the NAC a few years ago. I oppose the 10 moves limit on the basis that the delayed claims with the intention of gaining an advantage problem is more general and has to be considered.

[Tony Boron]

Re: IAs Please Help

Clock substitution is an old USCF rule that has been accepted by FIDE.

Here is the proper sequence for a player

1. Request a clock substitution, this is also a draw offer
2. If the opponent refuses the offer, go to the next point in the list.
3. If the substitution is granted, continue the game.
4. Else, make a G5 claim.
5. The arbiter takes a decision.

My understanding is that the first step for the player requesting the increment clock is to pause the current clock :).
What is not mentioned in the FIDE rules, nor have I seen in the various discussion forums around the world, is how long the non-requester has to make his decision about the draw. That player has a lot to consider

[Pierre Denommee]

Re: IAs Please Help

If the player does not stop both clocks, the arbiter will do this for him. The player will have no problem provided that his flag is still up. Because of Article 6.12.b, the arbiter almost never give back to a player that time that he has lost due to his failure to stop both clocks. The player is responsible for his mistake. This procedure has become almost universal for any claim. I will correct the original post because for a player in time trouble, not stopping both clocks is a poor idea.

In some previous versions in the Laws of Chess, there was a formal requirement to stop both clocks in order to make a claim of draw by triple repetition and by 50 moves rule. When a player did not stop both clocks, the arbiter had to decide whether or not to notify the player of his failure. Some arbiters did notify, other remain silent until the flag actually falls. In order to get rid of this annoyance, the next revision of the Laws of chess did use the expression may stop both clocks which made it clear that the claim is valid but still the Laws were silent on the arbiter power to stop both clocks. The current version of Laws of Chess indicates that the arbiter must stop the clocks if the claimant has forgotten this detail. The current international practice is that the arbiter will stop both clocks in the presence of any claim except for a clearly frivolous claim.

6.12

a. If the game needs to be interrupted, the arbiter shall stop the chessclock.
b. A player may stop the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not available.
c. The arbiter shall decide when the game restarts.
d. If a player stops the chessclock in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, the arbiter shall determine whether the player had any valid reason for doing so. If the player had no valid reason for stopping the chessclock, the player shall be penalised in accordance with Article 12.9.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: IAs Please Help

What is more important? Chess, or the rules governing chess competitions?

With a 30 sec. increment, any game is far away from these hypotetical cases.

[Hal Bond]

Re: IAs Please Help

Agreed Mathieu. I look forward to the day when increments are mandatory in any rated FIDE competition. It has already been added to Armageddon tiebreaks. I recall making this recommendation to FIDE during the Topalov Kamsky match, though surely others had thought of it as well.

[Pierre Denommee]

Re: IAs Please Help

What is not mentioned in the FIDE rules, nor have I seen in the various discussion forums around the world, is how long the non-requester has to make his decision about the draw. That player has a lot to consider

There is no difference between a normal draw offer and an implicit draw offer.

A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the chessboard and before pressing his clock. An offer at any other time during play is still valid but Article 11.5 must be considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In both cases the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded in some other way.

[Pierre Denommee]

Re: IAs Please Help

Agreed Mathieu. I look forward to the day when increments are mandatory in any rated FIDE competition. It has already been added to Armageddon tiebreaks. I recall making this recommendation to FIDE during the Topalov Kamsky match, though surely others had thought of it as well.

I fully support mandatory imcrementation at all time controls and a minimum of 30 seconds increment in standard play chess.