ReneDescartes wrote about blitz chess.

We have Guidlines III.2.2 in the 2018 rules (just the same as appendix G3 in the old 2014 rules):
Quote:


So the "normal" arbiter would very likely not accept any claims based on III.4 / III.5.


But one could try anyway. The worst thing could happen is that the opponent gets two extra minutes. And as always the draw claim is also a draw offer. The  arbiter should ask and the opponent could accept that.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 02/13/18 at 18:57:54:

Just read the article and more specific the statement: "Therefore I propose a reasoned conclusion: if there is no evidence of Fritz 6a making any attempt to maneuver into a winning position by move 70 (Fritz need not reach a won position, merely maneuver toward it), the game will be adjudicated as drawn. This is in accordance with the purposes set forth for this match. After all, even a weak chess player operating the chess engine would see by move 70 whether or not any progress is being made toward victory. If not, it is reasonable to conclude that a draw would be accepted."
That is completely contradicting the end of the game which lasts longer than move 70.

It has been almost 2 decades that this game was played. I still remember very well many of the details but I don't see this as relevant in this discussion.

ReneDescartes wrote on 02/14/18 at 01:30:13:


I would try to claim a draw; what's the worst that could happen?  You lose when you were going to lose on time anyway?

@brabo - Why would you question the moves? Ham makes the same point as you:
Quote:

I am not so sure it's a bug. It could just be a programmer's design decision that seems unnatural to a competitive player.

Final position, after 73...Kb7-c8 (1/2-1/2)

It's one thing for a computer to recognize a three-fold repetition, it's another thing to avoid it. For a human, allowing a three-fold repetition here would be an error. For a program, it's complicated, because rejecting the top candidate involves a delta parameter over the second candidate, and another floor parameter on the second candidate. What parameters should be used? And if you keep iterating over the second-best candidate, you could "accidentally" find a win. More likely you will just get a 50-move draw instead. Worst case, you could even spiral into a loss. It just seems very complicated to program the draw avoidance.

In my opinion, only the programmer could say whether this was a bug. Even if the programmer made a change to later versions, to avoid the draw, it still might not be a bug in this version.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 02/13/18 at 15:56:53:

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

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?

Karpenkopf and brabo both gave sensible replies.

gwnn wrote on 02/13/18 at 10:13:36:

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

Quote:

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.