Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
Clement Sreeves Wrote:I thought the rules had changed to adding a 5 second increment if a draw claim was accepted. At marymass the arbiters appeared to be awarding this no matter what the position was. Was this used at Dundee?
Yes,
Rules have changed. Key words come from G.4 in rules for quickplay finishes.
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.
So the player making the claim can request 5 seconds per move to finish the game. The arbiter does not have to agree to the request. In my personal experience, since the rule was modified, (on July 1st this year) no player has yet requested the extra 5 seconds per move.
Posts: 364
Threads: 101
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
3
Clement, why would a 5 second increment be added to a game that had finished with an accepted draw claim?
With the new Appendix G ( not a 10.2 anymore ) you have one or the other.
So you can have the normal claims for a draw as under 10.2 OR you can ask for an increment to be added.
If the competition says that it is G3 then there are NO draw claims as under the old 10.2.
This is obviously the preferred option as it's then the chess players that decide the outcome and not an arbiter.
The only other addition is that asking for an increment constitutes a draw offer, so if your opponent reckons you think you are winning then they would probably take the draw, so it's up to you in the congresses that have the increment option to try and win in the time available or hope that your opponent doesn't know the law, ( quite likely, in my experience) and won't take a draw when an increment is asked for.
Now, each competition, before the games start, is required to say whether G3 ( increment ) or G4
( old 10.2 ) applies to the competition so that the competitors know what the option is at the end of the game.
Also, regrettably, arbiters decisions are NOT final and an appeals committee must also be used in case an arbiters decision is challenged.
You would hope that all tournament organisers are aware of those changes.
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
John,
5 seconds increment would not apply if draw claim was accepted. Rule 4 wording is a little imprecise. it means if the request (for 5 second increments) is accepted.
G.2 in the appendix states Before the start of an event it shall be announced whether this Appendix shall apply or not.
This wording does surprise me. Congresses can decide not to have any 2 minutes claims!!. For me that would be a step backwards.
I doubt that any congresses would do that. Which would mean a tacit assumption by players and controllers that 2 minute claims are allowed. Running with that tacit assumption Appendix G then comes into effect in full. Players can request 5 second increments. The arbiters might never accept any request for 5 second increments but that has to be done on a case by case basis rather than by choosing to apply only some of the published rules.
Just like the old 10.2 rule a claim of a draw is also an offer of a draw.
One thing for all players to be aware of.
Under the previous rules there was no appeal against an arbiter's decision
d.
The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to (a), (b) and ©.
That wording is not in the new rules and so, unless I've missed something it is now possible to appeal. Something for FIDE to tinker with in their 2018 revision of the rules?
Posts: 188
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2011
John, my wording was bad. I meant 'if the request for increment is accepted'.
Posts: 364
Threads: 101
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
3
Phil, I suspect FIDE put in G2 so that to make clear that the Appendix G would not apply in a time control that already had an increment where you could end up with a situation of going from a 30 second increment to a 5 second one.
As you say, perhaps it could be a little clearer as it does appear to let the organiser remove any Quickplay finishes.
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
JMcNicoll Wrote:Phil, I suspect FIDE put in G2 so that to make clear that the Appendix G would not apply in a time control that already had an increment where you could end up with a situation of going from a 30 second increment to a 5 second one.
As you say, perhaps it could be a little clearer as it does appear to let the organiser remove any Quickplay finishes.
John,
but Appendix G clearly does not apply to events with Fischer timings.
Hence reducing from 30 seconds per move to 5 seconds a move is not going to be an issue.
Specifically G1 defines
A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the remaining moves must be completed in a finite time.
The big plus for arbiters with Fisher timings is that there are no 2 minute claims. With the need to write down remaining throughout the game players must retain option to claim a draw on 3 fold repetition or the 50 move rule.
The big minus is that there is very little to do (especially in slow play events) at the end of a playing session and some games could go on and on and on and on.........
Posts: 468
Threads: 49
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
6
I believe that the FIDE wording of G2 was deliberate. It is intended to 'encourage' tournaments to use incremental times.
Chess Scotland decided that in the absence of increments allowing claims in the last two minutes would be the default position in tournaments UNLESS an organiser decided otherwise. This is also the position in England and I believe Wales.
I don't understand Phil's 'big minus' near the end of a game. Arbiters now have to apply a 75 move rule and watch for draws by repetition where the position occurs 5 times in 9 moves.
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
Alex,
hadn't fully considered the difficulty in counting up to 75 - (players only have to count to 50 not sure why a higher number applies to the arbiter ?). However with 30 second increments having all players comply fully with 8.1a throughout the game would help enormous.
With special emphasis on the words clearly and legibly
Posts: 1,942
Threads: 267
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
6
Phil Thomas Wrote:So the player making the claim can request 5 seconds per move to finish the game. The arbiter does not have to agree to the request. In my personal experience, since the rule was modified, (on July 1st this year) no player has yet requested the extra 5 seconds per move.
I have had 4 already this year in tournaments
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
