Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The two Minute Rule
#11
Patrick McGovern Wrote:can anyone advise me how to post this game, i have full note of game, cheers.

Click the "pgn" button above the Smilies on the right. Paste the pgn between the [pgn] tags. That's all. Big Grin
Reply
#12
Re to Patrick. This was never meant to be about a particular game, arbiters or players but about the two minute rule and how to proceed in that situation. I wanted to know because I did not do the right thing. If you do post the game and indicate the point where the two minute rule is invoked I think you will see a marked deterioration in my play because the arbiter told me that the draw claim was on the basis that I was not trying to win which was not true (I always try to win). As previously stated I had a plan to retreat my king and then bring it forward to a better square - this would have made my position a bit better. Who knows what the result would have been if the game played out properly. Then I would have looked for another plan and so on. Given the claim I abandoned this and made bad moves simple to show I was trying to win - this was a mistake. I now know what to do in future. In other words I do not disagree with anything you say Patrick including that you had the advantage in the final position but not necessarily a win which proves that there was still a game to play. Post the game if you like but remember this post was never meant to be about one game - I was just looking for advice.
Good sense is of all things in the world the most equally distributed, for everybody thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that even those most difficult to please do not commonly desire more of it than they already possess. Descartes
Reply
#13
Re: Patrick (again) I did not mean to criticise the arbiter when I said he knows nothing. I just meant that he could not possibly have known what my plan was - especially if I start moving my pieces back to the 8th rank. I also think that it shows the rule is wrong if an arbiter has to know what a player's plans are. How can an arbiter ever know if a player is trying to win or not? Thinking, and recollecting more, I am sure that I was in a state of shock that you had so little time and that is why I said you were moving slowly. If you try and recall, I think you will remember that I had just come back to the board to find you and the arbiter together with the clock stopped and myself wondering what on earth was going on - try to remember - try to visualise it. I do not recall at any time that you stopped recording your moves (you are entitled to do this in the last 5 minutes and it makes a big difference to how fast a person can play). As far as I remember you even recorded his moves after the draw claim when the arbiter was watching. This added to the impression of playing slowly. I do not see why you were not informed that you did not need to keep score since I was keeping score and an arbiter was present. In other words from the draw claim onwards I was left with the impression that if I played normally I could not possibly demonstrate forward progress in the time: therefore I had to play superficial, bad moves which at least looked active. I now know, from Alex, that this was wrong: I should have continued normally. Please note that I am not saying that you deliberately played slowly: I just had the impression of unusual slow play which could be a wrong impression.
Good sense is of all things in the world the most equally distributed, for everybody thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that even those most difficult to please do not commonly desire more of it than they already possess. Descartes
Reply
#14
No worries mate, it's a sh*t rule and we should get rid of it.
Reply
#15
I have to agree with the above. Time control is as much a part of the game as the pieces and the board. If you cannot manage it then you deserve to lose (or at least lose the full point) on time.
Reply
#16
The rule is there to stop people trying to win on time in completely dead drawn positions e.g Rook V Rook. If there is any play left in the position the draw should never be given.

Don't see a problem with the rule at it stands, the only problem could be the application of the rule because it requires the arbiter to use his or her judgement on whether or not a player has demonstrated they can draw the position.
Reply
#17
Andrew McHarg says
Quote:I have to agree with the above. Time control is as much a part of the game as the pieces and the board. If you cannot manage it then you deserve to lose (or at least lose the full point) on time.

Andy as this rule is a Chess Scotland rule, adopted from FIDE. Does this man you disagree with Chess Scotland?

Joe
Quote:The rule is there to stop people trying to win on time in completely dead drawn positions e.g Rook V Rook. If there is any play left in the position the draw should never be given.

this is simply not true,
Again, Chess Scotland rule;
"the Arbiter may award the draw during further play or after a flag fall. The reasons for awarding the draw include:
c.

the opponent has not been trying to win on the board, but has been trying to win on time by making passive moves."


All the pieces could be on the board and could be a dead drawn position
Reply
#18
Just to clarify, there are no Chess Scotland rules on this matter, they are Notes for Guidance of Players and Arbiters in applying Law 10.

Given the amount of attention it has been given by many arbiters, Law 10 is probably as good a rule as possible for a game of fixed time-length. As Alex points out, the 2013 laws will make other options available for digital clocks (though not of fixed time-length). Practice will show their pros and cons.
Reply
#19
Quote:Just to clarify, there are no Chess Scotland rules on this matter
Really?
Ken you yourself call it "Law 10"; indeed the heading way up above it is "Chess Scotland Rule Book-The FIDE Laws of Chess". Ergo it is clearly a law (or rule).

I agree that there is clear advice on how the rule may be applied, but I still think it is an unnecessary rule that just causes controversy and ill-will.
Reply
#20
It is NOT a Chess Scotland rule or law. It is a FIDE Law and therefore applies throughout the world (except USA).

If the covilised world can cope with it I think we should be able to as well.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)