Dundee & Angus Congress

[Jonathan Livingstone]

I felt purty hard done by truth be told. I was a bishop up in a rook bishop vs rook. Opponent claimed a draw with less than 2 mins. Arbiter came over. I said I wanted to play on. Opponents king at this point was on the seventh. We played more moves and his flag fell. Arbiter said it was a draw on the grounds I hadn't made progress. I said his king was now on the back rank (which it was) and I felt a had winning chances. I wasn't sure if I could win the position but it certainly looked like it was possible. Some other stronger players made comment that they weren't sure if it was a drawn position or not. My opponent claimed it was a book draw and I was told to demonstrate why it wasn't. I still had a minute on my clock. I was made to feel like I was trying to win the game on time when I genuinely felt I had winning chances and felt it was a bit strange that I had to demonstrate a win when it was my opponent that was short of time and a piece. The reality was that the final position was a book draw, however no-one knew for a fact that it was and I had realistic mating chances. When the king is on the back rank there are many chances to mate. I thought it a bit weird that I was the one having to demonstrate a win. My opponent was never asked to demonstrate the drawing technique (knowledge of one is required to hold the position) and I had made clear progress since the arbiter had come over by putting him on the back rank. If the final position my opponents flag fell on was different even slightly, it's likely to be a forced win in 11 moves.
It's a tough call for the arbiter. I do sympathize. But i'm never setting foot in that tournament again......that's a joke. It was a great tournament and venue. Very enjoyable!

Based on the above circumstances you have detailed Mark I have sympathy with the decision taken. I'd be interested to see the position out of interest if you are able to post it?

Dundee is one of the best tournaments on the circuit. For a few seasons now all the members at my club who have played at Dundee, including myself last season have had a great weekend. Just my opinion but this thread has clearly established it is ridiculously difficult for arbiters to always get it right with the 2 min rule. They are humans and will make mistakes or errors. We need them! Your bad luck was just that and it could have happened at any other tournament. You should go back next year if you think it is a good tournament.

You never know, maybe the 2 min rule will have been removed from Scottish tournaments by the time the next Dundee Congress comes about.

[Graham McKay]

Allowing a player to demand an increment when time is low and the position looks drawn seems like a step in the right direction, and recognises that increments are the natural solution to what should be a non-issue. But why not simplify things a little, and just play with increments right from the start?

[MarkSanger]

When the arbiter came over it was something like

White : Kd2, Rc7

Black : Ke4, Rh3, Bg4

and the final position was

White : Kc1, Rc8

Black : Kd4, Rh2, Bd3

Suggested move is Bc4, then put the King on c3 and it's not far from the Philidor Position

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rook_and_bishop_versus_rook_endgame">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rook_and_b ... ok_endgame</a><!-- m -->

I personally believe I am within my rights to want to play on.

"Ulf Andersson won the position twice within a year, once against a grandmaster and once against a candidate grandmaster; and grandmaster Keith Arkell has won it 18 times out of 18"

So I'm thinking if a Grandmaster can lose that position I might have some chances, admittedly I have a poor grasp on endings, but come on!

Just for clarity, it was a very good tournament and I still thoroughly enjoyed being there.

[hamish olson]

Allowing a player to demand an increment when time is low and the position looks drawn seems like a step in the right direction, and recognises that increments are the natural solution to what should be a non-issue. But why not simplify things a little, and just play with increments right from the start?

This hits the nail on the head

[andyburnett]

Allowing a player to demand an increment when time is low and the position looks drawn seems like a step in the right direction, and recognises that increments are the natural solution to what should be a non-issue. But why not simplify things a little, and just play with increments right from the start?

This hits the nail on the head

The only problem with this is that games can over-run badly. Admittedly very few will last longer than a conventional time-control, but it only takes one or 2 to cause problems in a weekender.

Almost all the events I am currently playing in Czech R./Slovakia use increments - absolutely fine with the 1 round a day events, but the 2-rounds per day events can see you either miss lunch completely if your game really drags on, or a very very late finish if your 2nd game gets delayed because of your over-run in the morning.

That being said, I have been very surprised to find that I much prefer the incremental controls. Perhaps a sign of ageing that the nerve-wracking finishes of old don't appeal so much nowadays?!

Re: Mark S. and his game, I simply can't understand why an arbiter would award a draw in such circumstances - unless he had been told clearly and concisely by the defending side how a draw could be held. Even then, this position has been lost by very strong players in practice numerous times as mentioned above - even when they have 'known' the correct drawing technique - so a draw award should not be a given even then.

An appeals committee ought to be an essential part of chess events. I remember the old Grangemouth Congress had one, but no idea if any current event do?

[Phil Thomas]

Allowing a player to demand an increment when time is low and the position looks drawn seems like a step in the right direction, and recognises that increments are the natural solution to what should be a non-issue. But why not simplify things a little, and just play with increments right from the start?

This hits the nail on the head

Sounds pedantic but players can't actually demand 5 second increments they can only request them.

For an extreme example consider opposite colour bishops with 1 pawn each. Surely no arbiter would allow 5 second increments and task himself with counting 75 moves without capture or pawn move before he can call a draw. In that case his decision should be to play on and once drawing technique had been demonstrated declare the draw claim accepted. Which with most players on the circuit that should take only a few seconds of play.

[Clement Sreeves]

White can still draw with very accurate play but is far from either of the two drawing techniques in the final position.

[Jonathan Livingstone]

[pos]2R5/8/8/8/3k4/3b4/7r/2K5 w - - 0 1[/pos]


Having seen the exact position I haven't changed my mind and still think Mark was unlucky. You don't need to be a good player to see there is life in that game and a few things black can try to further progress the position.

What is interesting is this whole situation would not have occurred had it been at the Ayr congress (which uses incremental time). The rule is still a complicated one but I agree incremental time takes away a lot of issues and makes life easier for arbiters and players a like.

[Patrick McGovern]

In amongst the controversy there was a first class tournament which I enjoyed very much. Another positive was the unfailing good manners shown by the juniors. I had the pleasure (misfortune? ) of playing two of them and they were lovely kids who played well and demonstrated that they are a welcome addition to the chess scene.

[Alex Gillies]

Interesting debate re 2 min rule. There are inconsistencies - perhaps this game this could be a way of clearing some of them them up.

I haven't read the detailed rules - from what I understand the G4 rule would have reasonabley sorted out the issue.

If Mark was down on time say under 30 seconds he can bail out and ask for 5 sec increment. It would be an automatic draw offer and accepted - if declined he should be able to draw or win easily enough with the increment.

However it was Marks opponent who was behind and he presumable requested or should have requested the G4 ruling - it automatically offers a draw and when Mark declines they both get 5 sec increment. Both Players can then demonstrate the draw or winning chances within 5 sec increments. - If that happened I would have expected mark to probably win. If the opponent did not claim G4 rule he should lose on time - its up to him to know the rules and claim it early- ideally just under 2 minutes so he has enough in the tank not to lose on time with 5 sec increment.

As the opponent did not request or seem to know the rules for G4 he should simply lose on time.

Perhaps I have the wrong understanding but If I do that would have solved the issues reasonabley fairly?