Author: Bill Gletsos
Date: 00:56:46 05/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 23:45:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. So I noticed Robert. After seeing all the mis-representation of the what they thought the FIDE rules meant I just thought I'd try and clarify it and add my 2 cents worth to the discussion:) Bill
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.