Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:45:03 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 23:41:18, Bill Gletsos wrote: > Artcile 10 is one of the articles that causes the most discussion with the >FIDE rules commission. > Prior to the new laws of chess which came into effect on 1st July 97 after >being adopted by the 67th Fide Congress in Sept/Oct 96 the wording of sudden >death rules used to allow a player to claim a draw if he was clearly winning OR >his opponent was making no effort to win except by on the clock. The removal of >the words clearly winning and being replaced by the term "normal means" was to >stop people who had a winning position but very short of time claiming a draw >due to bad time management on their part. > Even in a simple position of KP V K where the defending king has the >opposition should not be immediately declared drawn by the arbiter under article >10.2a. According to the rules commission the arbiter should rule the players to >play on under 10.2b and provided the player with the lone king shows he knows >how to maintian the opposition then the arbiter should declare the game drawn >even if the player with the long kings flag falls by using article 10.2c. > Before discussing the meaning of normal means lets look at a position from >a normal game of chess with a non sudden death time limit. In this example we >have just reached a position of White Ka1 and Ba2 v Black Ke4 and Be5 where the >bishops are of opposite colors where White has 5 mins left and Black has 5 secs >left and they need to make 15 moves to reach the next time control. Now although >this game should under all circumstances be a draw the rules of chess dont allow >the arbiter to declare it so. If neither player agrees to a draw (article 5.3) >the only way the game can end is via article 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and 5.5 or article >6.9. If none of the conditions of article 5 occur before Blacks flag falls then >black will lose according to article 6.9 According to article 6.9 the Black >player has lost because it IS possible to construct a checkmate position from >the remaining pieces (White Ka6 and Bd5 v Black Ka8 and Bb8). > Now if this position occured under a quick play finish then black could >claim a draw under article 10.2a since it is not possible to win via normal >means. > Certainly with regards to the Fritz v Tiviakov game in the final position >or even just prior to the end the game should not be declared drawn under >article 10 by the arbiter. > Now you can all complain about whether you agree with that or not but the >intention of article 10 is not to allow a player in Tiviakov's position to claim >a draw because he is short of time but to stop the absurdity of my example >above. I have pointed this out several times already. However, you will find that the ones complaining will _not_ pay any attention to the small detail about how the rule is to be applied. It gets bent to suit this situation, whether it applies or not.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.