Sudden death draw claim CFC rules??????

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Sudden death draw claim CFC rules??????

The Socko (K+N vs K+N) case was not a 10.2 claim by the way.
It was a 9.6 claim after the flag had already fallen.

So yes, 10.2 doesn't allow the overruling of the arbiter.

I think the case you presented is a clear case of 10.2 leading to a draw. If that isn't a definitive case for "cannot win by normal means", then I think 10.2 should be thrown out completely. Other than for the time, you absolutely wouldn't hope to win that position, even if we replaced your 2150+ opponent with one of our 1000 rated kids.

I really just want to see the CFC Governors provide their own clarification for the CFC, even if that means we disregard 10.2.

Denton

a. The claim made by my opponent was insufficient mating material which is not the same as a claim under article 10.2 so technically his claim was under article 9.6. His claim which was improperly presented because he did make his move and hit the clock. Under 9.6 the standard is that there can be no possible mate.

9.6
The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing this position was legal.

There clearly is a possible series of legal moves that could lead to checkmate so the standard for a draw under the claim made was not met nor was the procedure for offering properly followed.

b. The claim was made after making the move which clearly contravenes FIDE requirements for making a draw claim under 10.2.

There is a procedure which you have to follow in order to invoke that rule and it was not done here. If you don't follow the procedure properly to make a three fold repetition claim you can't make a successful three fold repetition claim. If you don't follow the procedure properly to make a 50 move rule claim [until next move unless something resets the 50 move clock], you can't make a 50 move rule claim. If you don't follow the procedure properly to make a 10.2 claim then you can't make such a claim.

By the time he could have presented a claim under 10.2 the game was already over because his flag had fallen. Once the game is over it is over. The only question at that point is whether under 9.6 given the situation at the end whether he can claim a draw because there is no series of legal moves that can lead to a checkmate. There are two legal mates with pawns on the board. There are also additional possibilities if he promotes pieces to bishops or knights as long as I continue to hold the bishop that can potentially deliver checkmate in a number of different ways.

Under 9.6 whether any one of our 1000 kids could hold the draw is irrelevant.

Are there any FIDE arbiters out there who can tell me that my reasoning is incorrect in this case?

[Stephen Wright]

Re: Sudden death draw claim CFC rules??????

Are there any FIDE arbiters out there who can tell me that my reasoning is incorrect in this case?

FWIW, I am an FA and I came to the same conclusion.

White made a move, then claimed the draw, then his flag fell. According to Article 10.2 the draw can only be claimed when the player has the move, but in this case White had already made his move. Thus he cannot legitimately claim the draw until it is his move again, but the flag fall has already ended the game.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Sudden death draw claim CFC rules??????

a. The claim made by my opponent was insufficient mating material which is not the same as a claim under article 10.2 so technically his claim was under article 9.6. His claim which was improperly presented because he did make his move and hit the clock. Under 9.6 the standard is that there can be no possible mate.

9.6
The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing this position was legal.

This is really the crux of the issue in this particular game. All this talk about 10.2 is really a red herring because that is not the question here. My opponent did not make a claim under 10.2, his claim was under 9.6. He could make a successful claim under 9.6 even after his time ran out if he was correct that there was insufficient mating material.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Sudden death draw claim CFC rules??????

FWIW, I am an FA and I came to the same conclusion.

Thank you. I believed that you were an FA and your posts in this thread have bolstered my opinion about the correctness of my reasoning. Thank you for confirming that.

[Denton Cockburn]

Re: Sudden death draw claim CFC rules??????

FWIW, I am an FA and I came to the same conclusion.

While I am fine with Vlad's point that the opponent made the wrong claim and thus lost (so I've moved on from that now). Good win Vlad.

Let's for the sake of argument assume that the opponent was trying to make a 10.2 claim. In that case, the reasoning you posted for your conclusion would be incorrect.

According to Appendix D (which applies more specifically), it does not have to be his move to make the claim, as long as he claims the draw before his flag has fallen.

It says simply: " Where games are played as in Article 10, 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."

Denton

[Denton Cockburn]

Re: Sudden death draw claim CFC rules??????

By the way Vlad, I now expect your full support regarding you-know-who (who refuses to play with me). :)

He didn't make a proper 10.2 claim, and I had a K+R+P vs K+R. He offered a draw with seconds left, I declined, and he went on to drop his rook in his anger.

As a non-CFC Governor, I also propose that the governors vote to amend the CFC rules to disregard 10.2. I think it causes more problems than it solves. If players want to play sudden death time controls, then they risk being run out of time. Let's just go back to the 3 legitimate ways to force a draw.


Denton

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Sudden death draw claim CFC rules??????

Interesting about the way D1 is worded... claiming the draw ends the game, but it's not explicitly stated what happens if the draw claim is rejected!

Obviously it would mean that the player claiming a draw loses, but this probably should be explicit.

[Denton Cockburn]

Re: Sudden death draw claim CFC rules??????

Interesting about the way D1 is worded... claiming the draw ends the game, but it's not explicitly stated what happens if the draw claim is rejected!

Obviously it would mean that the player claiming a draw loses, but this probably should be explicit.

Well, it says that the claim is referred to an arbiter that decides. I take that to mean the arbiter decides the result.
But yeah, you're right. FIDE seems to be poor at wording these things.

[Duncan Smith]

Re: Sudden death draw claim CFC rules??????

I'm going to state something that some of us are thinking. This situation is ridiculous. You play a "friendly" rated game in your house with no arbitrer present and then decide to claim a win due to a technicality. It would not surprise me if your opponent "messed up" because they weren't expecting such a formal application of the rules in such an informal setting.

By the "rules", you apparently "won". I would ask you this. How confortable would you be presenting this situation to the kids you teach and explaining to them the reason you claimed a victory ? Might be a good way to make them think twice about chess longer term. Even more to the point, imagine if one of your younger students was your opponent.

[Duncan Smith]

Re: Sudden death draw claim CFC rules??????

The CFC would be justified in simply telling you that Windsor needs to promote a higher degree of sportsmanship at their events.

[Denton Cockburn]

Re: Sudden death draw claim CFC rules??????

I'm going to state something that some of us are thinking. This situation is ridiculous. You play a "friendly" rated game in your house with no arbitrer present and then decide to claim a win due to a technicality. It would not surprise me if your opponent "messed up" because they weren't expecting such a formal application of the rules in such an informal setting.

By the "rules", you apparently "won". I would ask you this. How confortable would you be presenting this situation to the kids you teach and explaining to them the reason you claimed a victory ? Might be a good way to make them think twice about chess longer term. Even more to the point, imagine if one of your younger students was your opponent.

In defense of Vlad, the opponent says he's OK either way. The decision isn't made yet either (and will be made by both Vlad and the opponent).

The problem is with the rule anyway, not with the players. If a rule causes discord, then it is perhaps better not to have that rule.

We teach the kids the touch-rule move, but sometimes players accidentally touch the wrong piece. Sometimes the opponent calls them on it, and sometimes they let it go (like at the World Cup just now: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7508). You can't be mad at the player for using the rules to their advantage.

Denton

[Denton Cockburn]

Re: Sudden death draw claim CFC rules??????

The CFC would be justified in simply telling you that Windsor needs to promote a higher degree of sportsmanship at their events.

Fixing the rule would be a better message :p

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Sudden death draw claim CFC rules??????

This is really the crux of the issue in this particular game. All this talk about 10.2 is really a red herring because that is not the question here. My opponent did not make a claim under 10.2, his claim was under 9.6. He could make a successful claim under 9.6 even after his time ran out if he was correct that there was insufficient mating material.

I love chess lawyering. It's the very essense of chess and the struggle to win. The passion every player has for the game he is playing.

It spawns lengthy explanations and emotion from the players and spectators alike. Every person picks his rules position and defends that without regard to the fact that were he on the other end, his opinion would change.

What an arbiter is left with is the position, the claim and circumstances, the rules and a hopeful claimant who couldn't win a game before his flag fell. A player who thinks he knows the rules better than he can play the game, trying to beg a draw on a technicality. Thank gawd the flag is about to fall so he can't blunder into a mate.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Sudden death draw claim CFC rules??????

The CFC would be justified in simply telling you that Windsor needs to promote a higher degree of sportsmanship at their events.

So who do you think should resign due to good sportsmanship? The guy with the lost position or the guy who realizes he doesn't have enough time to make his moves?

You assume everyone agrees with you on what the sportsmanlike thing to do is and that time management is a mere formality not to be taken seriously

A few years back, one of the top boards playing for first place in the World Open had an analog clock (those GMs, they never bring their own equipment). K+Q vs K+P, a win is worth big $, a draw is worth bupkis. The guy with the Q didn't make it and lost. Never mind 10.2, he could have claimed instantly by taking the P at any time. Good sportsmanship is not going to help in that situation. What happens will be determined by the formal rules.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Sudden death draw claim CFC rules??????

Maybe a decision should be declared on the result of the game; then one (or even both) players could appeal the result to the National Appeals Committee, and let them determine the correct result.