The two Minute Rule

[donaldheron]

Please do not think that I am upset by this. I am at home listening to "pure psychedelic rock" and am chilled. Nevertheless, I have been thinking for some time that there is something wrong with the two minute rule. I can play a game - reduce my opponent to passivity and then try this, that and the other - knowing he can do nothing. But there is a fly in the (I cannot continue with such a hakneyed saying). Anyway - we are nowhere near an ending but we are beyond the middle: he plays slowly and is left with 1 and a half minutes and claims a draw. My position is such that my next idea was to retreat my King only to move him forward again to a better position - but the arbiter knows nothing so I play superficial attacking moves instead. I name no names and blame no one - I just think that thare must be a better rule (maybe Fischer time control!). Don't worry I am still chilled by the beautiful flower-power music.
Don Heron
"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 in all other matters do not commonly desire more of it than they alreafy possess." Descartes as translated by Elizabeth S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross
(my favourite philosopher along with Plato, Jesus and Tolstoi)
PS I don't know if I was better or worse I just wanted to play the position but was not allowed to.

[Alex McFarlane]

but the arbiter knows nothing so I play superficial attacking moves instead

If there is plenty of play left on the board then you should be given a win. It is up to the opponent to play quickly enough to allow you to demonstrate that you don't know how to. Retreating the king to regroup should be an acceptable strategy once or twice (thereafter you may be in trouble). By playing superficial moves you are encouraging the arbiter to award the draw as it can be seen you are not trying to win by normal means.

You will be pleased to hear that from 1st July 2013 the Laws will allow, following a claim, the arbiter to put on a digital clock giving each player 5 seconds per move. The claimant will be given the time remaining and the opponent his time + 2 minutes.

[Alan Jelfs]

During the added time, what if the claimant's opponent makes an egregious (big word for a Saturday morning!) blunder? Can the draw claimant in fact win the game? That would seem unjust to me.

[donaldheron]

I would like to thank Alex for his reply and advice. I should have continued normally and that is what I will do if I am in this situation again but I hope all arbiters take up the suggestion of changing to a Fischer (or other incremental) time control in this situation: as it was we were using digital clocks so the arbiter could have changed to Fischer time control if he had so wished. I think that if I blundered and lost in that situation then it should count as a loss because claiming a draw counts as a draw offer and continuing must count as a refusal of that offer: that is only my opinion - I am not an arbiter and don't know what the rules are on this.

[Clement Sreeves]

Can you post the position without naming names?

It seems to me different arbiters interpret the 2 minute rule in different ways, another issue that increment time controls would eliminate.

[Alex McFarlane]

Donald is correct in all aspects. If an opponent declines the draw then he may well lose. I have certainly had players in lost positions insisting that they were winning so instead of giving the immediate draw I have told the players to continue. The person short of time may then win before his flag falls and will almost certainly be given the draw if it does.

An opponent in this position should, on realising how bad the position actually is, offer the draw back. the original claimant must either accept the draw then or risk losing on time.

[donaldheron]

Re to Clement Sreeves - This might sound strange to a strong player like yourself but I do not keep all my games. I did not keep that game. To me, the game was just reaching its interesting point when it was stopped: therefore it was not worth keeping. I was actually surprised when it happened because it was not long after the first time control and I thought we both had plenty time (I don't always pay much attention to the clocks either). Anyway, I have now learned what I wanted to from that game thanks to the replies on this notice board - I thank you all.

[Patrick McGovern]

I am the player involved, the game was played at the Marymass tourney during the last weekend in August.
I would like to add some info to clarify matters. Firstly I agree that the 2 minute rule is not a good one but it is one we have to work with at the moment.

he plays slowly and is left with 1 and a half minutes and claims a draw.

this was not deliberate, I'm rarely (if ever) in time trouble. the position was such that whoever tried to win would lose (in my opinion).

my next idea was to retreat my King only to move him forward again to a better position - but the arbiter knows nothing so I play superficial attacking moves instead

the very thing that influenced the arbiter as by playing superficial moves shows an effort to win on time.

I don't know if I was better or worse I just wanted to play the position but was not allowed to

Donald was clearly worse when my "flag fell" in fact a pawn down and another about to go.

It is up to the opponent to play quickly enough to allow you to demonstrate that you don't know how to

surely a player can play at any rate that suits him? I was not their to aid Donald but to aid myself.

To me, the game was just reaching its interesting point when it was stopped:

the game was not stopped but, as instructed by the arbiter, we played until my flag fell.

To me there was no issue of me ever winning the game, even if at the end i had a won position. The claim had been made and the (very experienced) arbiter made his decision based on what he observed.

but the arbiter knows nothing

I feel this criticism of an unpaid arbiter was harsh and unfair. He explained his decision to both of us. But hey I guess he is an easy target. I'm very surprised this criticism has went without comment from other arbiters =|

as it was we were using digital clocks so the arbiter could have changed to Fischer time control if he had so wished

could he? I've never heard of this being done without previous notice but I'm sure the more knowledgeable will correct me.

Finally Donald was a gentleman about the decision despite it going against him, I hope that more tournaments go to the Fischer time control. It is on record on other posts that I favour Fischer time control.

[Patrick McGovern]

Donald was clearly worse when my "flag fell" in fact a pawn down and another about to go.

My apologies, in final position Herr Fritz only gives me advantage of 0.54.

[Patrick McGovern]

can anyone advise me how to post this game, i have full note of game, cheers.