Latest Updates:

Warning: simplexml_load_string(): Entity: line 16: parser error : Entity 'rsquo' not defined in /home/jesseo/jesseo.com/chesspub/feeddata.php on line 4

Warning: simplexml_load_string(): <description>Anand&rsquo;s Bg5</description> in /home/jesseo/jesseo.com/chesspub/feeddata.php on line 4

Warning: simplexml_load_string(): ^ in /home/jesseo/jesseo.com/chesspub/feeddata.php on line 4
- - -
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 
Topic Tools
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) "Cannot win by normal means" (or no effort) (Read 494 times)
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 800
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: "Cannot win by normal means" (or no effort)
Reply #7 - 02/13/18 at 18:20:28
Post Tools
an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 02/13/18 at 15:56:53:
@brabo - I am not sure what "wrong ruling" you refer to. The game Fritz - Ham was drawn by 3-fold repetition which seems entirely correct to me.
http://jfcampbell.us/CampbellReport/ham/fr_hambl.htm

I wasn't aware about a 3-fold repetition. I only remember that there was at that time quite some discussion on the rec.chess forums about the sudden draw. Anyway if the moves were really played as given in the article then it is a very strange bug of the engine to allow a 3-fold repetition with a winning evaluation.

Another silly arbitrage happened in the TCEC superfinal season 9 which I described in my article http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2016/12/raise-of-machines-part-2.html
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 166
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: "Cannot win by normal means" (or no effort)
Reply #6 - 02/13/18 at 17:34:45
Post Tools
@ReneDescartes - I could not find "normal arbiter" in the glossary.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 866
Joined: 05/18/10
Gender: Male
Re: "Cannot win by normal means" (or no effort)
Reply #5 - 02/13/18 at 16:31:22
Post Tools
One question I have  is whether a normal arbiter will cut short a game where, in blitz with no increment, one side tries to win, e.g., K+R vs. K+R on time. What should I do if my opponent tries to do this to me and the arbiter isn't looking? Can I stop the clock to try to make a claim even though I have 10 seconds left? Should I try to call the arbiter while playing? Or am I just lost?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 166
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: "Cannot win by normal means" (or no effort)
Reply #4 - 02/13/18 at 15:56:53
Post Tools
@brabo - I am not sure what "wrong ruling" you refer to. The game Fritz - Ham was drawn by 3-fold repetition which seems entirely correct to me.
http://jfcampbell.us/CampbellReport/ham/fr_hambl.htm
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
Full Member
***
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 166
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: "Cannot win by normal means" (or no effort)
Reply #3 - 02/13/18 at 15:36:43
Post Tools
Karpenkopf and brabo both gave sensible replies.

gwnn wrote on 02/13/18 at 10:13:36:
I'm just wondering here, what does "win by normal means" mean in Q vs R, or similar positions?

In the online FIDE Handbook, https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article , there is a glossary:

Quote:
normal means: G.5. Playing in a positive manner to try to win; or, having a position such that there is a realistic chance of winning the game other than just flag-fall.

Not sure if this actually answers your question, though. I think the intent of these fuzzy rules is that the arbiter gets to use his/her discretion. The effect is that players don't understand the rules, and many decisions are appealed.

Aside: Why does the glossary say "G.5"? G.6 also uses the term "normal means", does the glossary definition not apply to G.6? This is hardly pedantry, when we are talking about the Laws of Chess. One-move blunders like this do not inspire confidence.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Offline


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 800
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: "Cannot win by normal means" (or no effort)
Reply #2 - 02/13/18 at 10:39:34
Post Tools
A quick check at the Lomonosov tablebases tells us that white mates in 24 moves.
Anyway that is not the point of course here. As long you are not stalling the game and there is sufficient mating material on the board then the game should go on. Bad technique is not stalling a game. Stalling in that type of position would be e.g. to play only king moves so your opponent runs out of time. Giving checks can be stalling but doesn't necessary need to be. A general rule is that if you are not sure somebody is stalling then the game should be continued. I remember one famous example of a wrong ruling about it: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=9494 especially as stalling was never a reality because of correspondence play.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Karpfenkopf
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 12
Joined: 01/23/18
Re: "Cannot win by normal means" (or no effort)
Reply #1 - 02/13/18 at 10:36:00
Post Tools
I had some arbiter licence in the past. At the licensing course we learned that postponing the decision is the normal case. In most cases the game will be decided in that time because the defending party blunders, there is some threefold repetition or the arbiter counts 50 moves without pawn moves or capture . So let the stronger player test the position is the normal case. In 50 moves very much can happen, because it needs some technique to defend drawn rook endgames in that less than two minutes.

With 30 seconds increment the defending player can count up to 50 moves himself, because he must write down his moves.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
gwnn
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 455
Joined: 03/21/11
"Cannot win by normal means" (or no effort)
02/13/18 at 10:13:36
Post Tools
I was reading the FIDE rulebook and got reminded of the game I played last summer. My rating is about 1700, my opponent's was about 1900.

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
*

The game looked something like this (I lost the notation already) and when he set up his "fortress", my opponent said "draw." (not a question) I had about 20 minutes on the clock, he had about 3. I started checking him around with my queen, but didn't really make progress. The second he got to 2 minutes, he called the arbiter. The arbiter said "play on", and watched as I continued checking him, eventually getting the queen behind the king, and forcing the rook to move. After that, I could pin and win the rook. My teammate (about 2200) was watching, he said he thought it was an obvious win, and my opponent was just making it up. I talked to the arbiter in the evening, he said that he wasn't really convinced about my technique, but my opponent messed up so I deserved the win. The arbiter did not intervene again through the game, except to tell my opponent to stop talking to me (he offered/declared "draw" about 4 times).

I'm just wondering here, what does "win by normal means" mean in Q vs R, or similar positions? My (1700) "normal means" would be checking the king around and seeing if I can make progress. I would do the same if the time control had had a 30-second increment, or if I had been the 2-minute person and he'd had an hour left on the clock. Does it mean that people with bad endgame technique cannot win games vs people with bad endgame defense technique? In particular, how much leeway should we give to the side that is defending? I guess the arbiter could see, for example, that my opponent knows the knight's pawn passive defense in R+p vs R, but other than a few other obvious cases, shouldn't the side with the extra material get a shot at playing a bunch of testing moves, even if they are not "normal means"?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo