His point was that Arbiters nomally use the litmus, "A C-class player could draw a GM in the given position". Therfore, he wanted the Arbiter to prove his decision was correct by finding a C-class player that could draw him in the given position. I don't know the position, but a friend of mine who was rated around 2000 USCF, he would not bet on a C-class player drawing the position againgst Larry.
Position against a 2191 - draw?
Sort:
The "no losing chances" version of the USCF rules for draws apparently "requires" a C-Class player to hold the drawn against a much stronger player, (perhaps even) a GM. Not sure exactly.
But I have heard it debated at tournaments, ad nauseum. Yawn. 
14H states that "A low-rated player who claims a draw vs. a Master should obtain the same ruling as a Master with the same position who claims a draw vs. a low-rated player."
Somehow, this has been misinterpreted that the director must consider how a Class C player would perform against a Master. That's not what the rule says.
You are all talking about USCF rules and not FIDE rules.
In FIDE rules, there is no draw with K vs K+P in the middle of the board, as i have said before:
Point 10.2 a) of the rules -
"If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim. "
http://fpx.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/7/1/137131/regras_de_xadrez.pdf
zborg wrote:
I believe white has a win, but it's not a simple one.
If @Irontiger has run it through the Namilov system, then it's probably not a simple or easy win for white.
I am convinced of the white win too in that position. The king is really in a bad shape.
My point is that although the exchange is usually a win as wafflemaster said, it is never an easy one. The pawns are blocked after all, so Black's strategy is just to move the bishop around protecting the pawn, avoid getting mated and make sure White has no way to enter a won pawn endgame after sacrificing the exchange. That's a lot of things to watch, but not always impossible.
I used the tablebases also to come out with a position that I know to be a draw, but not too ridiculous-looking.
This being said, it is very possible that I am just a patzer when it comes to such endgames and that the win is obvious to many here (with a detailed plan in mind, not just "one exchange = winning"). But, huh... I like to thing that's not the case.
JulienDu34 wrote:
les blancs sont foutu
quel domage le parti a du etre cheau
Non, le chartre couloneau pa des nix. 
dervich wrote:
You are all talking about USCF rules and not FIDE rules.
In FIDE rules, there is no draw with K vs K+P in the middle of the board, as i have said before:
Point 10.2 a) of the rules -
"If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim. "
http://fpx.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/7/1/137131/regras_de_xadrez.pdf
If the player with the K+P is the one who is short of time, they will be awarded a draw even if the flag falls.
6.9
Except where one of the Articles: 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.
Thus, the player could claim a draw under 10.2.a, and it would probably be upheld by the arbiter. However, they might as well let the flag fall.
Note: There are minor differences between USCF and FIDE rules. The USCF equivalent of 10.2.a does not apply if either a time delay or increments are being used. The USCF equivalent of 6.9 lists specific situations where the game is drawn.
Woton,
You were right in your analysis but you are talking about something different: This post was about claiming draw when being in the upper hand (not in the lower hand) but short of time and without the use of increments.
Irontiger wrote:
After 1.Re7, the best try I can see for the draw is ...f5 - 1...f5 2.Rxe6 fxe4 with a draw maybe (the black king is in a bad position though).
The win for white looks straightforward to me. 3. Kxe4, followed by Kd5 and Rxd6 wins easily.
dervich wrote:
...This post was about claiming draw when being in the upper hand (not in the lower hand) but short of time and without the use of increments.
That's exactly when you would use 10.2.a (or 14H) to claim a draw. You are about to lose on time, and it is highly unlikely that your opponent would be able to win the game otherwise (I invoked it once when I had K+R+B vs K+R, but only had 1 minute left on my clock).
ur-booksy wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
After 1.Re7, the best try I can see for the draw is ...f5 - 1...f5 2.Rxe6 fxe4 with a draw maybe (the black king is in a bad position though).
The win for white looks straightforward to me. 3. Kxe4, followed by Kd5 and Rxd6 wins easily.
4...Kf4 is a serious improvement. (EDIT : though a mate in 21 moves from the endgame tablebases).
Irontiger wrote:
ur-booksy wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
After 1.Re7, the best try I can see for the draw is ...f5 - 1...f5 2.Rxe6 fxe4 with a draw maybe (the black king is in a bad position though).
The win for white looks straightforward to me. 3. Kxe4, followed by Kd5 and Rxd6 wins easily.
4...Kf4 is a serious improvement.
In which case white just plays d4 at some point before Rxd6. Maybe something like 4... Kf4 5. d4 Bb4 6. Rxd6 Ke3 7. Rb6 and ...Bc3 is met with Rb3.
Maybe you could screw it up if you were trying to win with 10 seconds on the clock, though.
If you are about to lose on time, you don't worry about winning the game. You claim a draw (assuming that you have a valid argument) and let the arbiter make the decision.
Hi Irontiger,
Endposition could be: white Ke6, Rd7, d5
black Ke8, Bc5, d6
this position y can get. the rock takes the d6 with and y win by King opposite-position!
1. rxd6 Bxd6 2. Kxd6 Kd8 3.Kc6 Kc8 4.d6 Kd8 5.d7 Ke7 6.Kc7 over
thanks for all the replies, but i didnt need the variations. i bet i could get a clearly winning position with even 30s. the problem is , i had 5s.
OH - and BTW - i DID convert R + P v/s R in 10s in this tourney. he was mated in 5s ;) ( some 20 - 30 moves )
dervich wrote:
The question is that, in the EXACT given position, you had the game won (if there was time, i will got to this later) but, if the position changed a bit, it´s only a slight advantage, there is even doubt if white could won.
Anyway, there´s a lot of things to happen in that game before the draw claim could be adressed to the referee: To do such a thing, you must obtained a position where, with the stoped clocks, you can prove to the referee you will never loose, no matter what happens...and that was not the case.
I once had a position in a slow game against a 2250 FIDE, K+R+B+P against the same, i could not call the referee but i was getting short on time, so i thought of sacrifice my rook for his bishop and pawn (to obtain a position where i could claim draw) but things backfired and i had to play a K+R+B against K+B+P where i lost by mate when he had 11s on the clock!...
Besides,things where not so simple in your particular case: with those times on the clock, no increment and enough material on board, your opponent KNEW he would always win by time, no matter what both of you moved (given he was not mated, of course...)
Anyway, great tournament on your part, considering your age and your rank
yeah , im actually 13.9167 years . Bday's next month.
GM Larry Christiansen went bonkers in Vegas when a TD adjudicated a draw to a lower rated opponent. He insisted the TD produce the strongest C player he could find to justify his decision. The TD decision stood.
Interesting that Christiansen would do this. Rule 14H specifically states "When ruling, the director should not consider the ratings of those playing."