Normal means to win

What are "normal means" to win a game?

Law G.5:

"He may claim on the basis that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means

1. If the arbiter agrees that the opponent cannot win by normal means, or that the opponent has been making no effort to win the game by normal means, he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
2. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible, in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after the flag of either player has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the opponent of the player whose flag has fallen cannot win by normal means, or that he was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means."

So:

"Cannot win by "normal means"" is a grounds for draw claim and imposition;

"Making no effort to win by "normal means"" is also grounds for a draw claim, and imposition.

But "making some but insufficient attempts to win by "normal means"", although grounds for draw imposition, is NOT grounds to claim draw! A player who admits that a position can be won by "normal means" and that the opponent is making some although insufficient efforts to win by "normal means" is, by the virtue of that admission, not allowed to claim insufficient efforts in the first place.

So, what are "normal means" to win?

Normal means would be actually attempting to improve the position and win the game. Shuffling pieces around to try and make an opponent lose on time would fall under something like that.

This may be true in tournament chess. I don't know how many games are completed every day on chess.com but I would guess thousands. There is just no way that such a rule could be inforced on chess.com because the manpower required to arbitrate such games would be astronomical. So just forget it. Try to beat your oponent before your clock runs out and you will be just fine.

Is moving from a position that is drawn with perfect play of both sides to another position that also is drawn with perfect play of both sides "improving" a position?

A lot of long forced wins look like random sequences of moves without a pattern obvious for an arbiter. (BTW: what is the highest Elo rating of an arbiter?). And even when there is no underlying plan to improve the position, "random" moves are a good way to improve a position - force the opponent to make responses to different position, come up with optimal play for 50 moves and give the opponent chances to blunder.

Say Polgar Judit vs. Kasparov, 1996. Endgame of KR vs. KRN.

After ...59Rxa3, the position was drawn with perfect play on both sides - and was so till move 79.

Barring appendix G, Judit had to avoid checkmate or capture for 50 moves. On move 79, she blundered (she had 1 drawing move - all others lost with perfect play in 21 or less, the one she made would lose in 16).

If appendix G applied, could she have claimed a draw on move 78 on grounds that the position "could not be won by normal means"?

Could she have claimed that some moves were not "trying to win by normal means"?

Was she under time pressure though?

It is very much a judgement call in most cases. Though,  there are some positions where it may be very obvious. 

That is one reason that the arbiter can postpone the decision. If the additional time given doesn't provide an obvious improvent in the position, then the decision could be made then, assuming some other draw condition hasn't been met.

Also, it only applies in games without increment and doesn't apply to blitz so probably isn't something that comes up often anymore.

No TD I have ever seen will invoke this rule against someone trying to flag an opponent. In USCF, it's not a valid claim anyway, and in dual-rated events (i.e. USCF and FIDE) the TDs don't give enough of a crap to look out for stuff like that or enforce it.

However, in super-GM events or other events where each game receives a lot of attention (and is FIDE-rated), it might be called. Still, I've yet to see it.

Actually, at the National Chess Congress in Philadelphia a few months ago, I saw a young girl (11 years old I think) rated about 1800 (won't give away her name though) playing a 1950-type player and they were in a complex rook ending where she had less than a minute and he had around twelve minutes. At some point she paused the clock and tried to claim this. But a) NCC is not FIDE-rated for the non-Open sections (although it should be) and b) the TD didn't care and said it was an invalid claim. Needless to say with almost no time (it was well after time control, so no end in sight to her time trouble either) in a complicated position against a much better opponent, she lost, and actually she started crying after the game :/

Even if it had been a valid claim for USCF, there was a lot of play in the position and it was clear that while her opponent certainly was trying to use her time pressure to his advantage, he was doing so reasonably and making good moves, trying to win the game on the board. So there's no way she should have gotten the call even if it had been a legit claim.

At least for USCF, my impression was that these calls were pretty much impossible unless there was no delay anyway. "Absense of normal means" is a pretty high bar anyway.

It should also be noted that those rules are not in effect for FIDE events by default, even without increment. If the rules are going to be used the organizer has to specify that in advance.

If the strategy pursued by the side with time is to harass the defender and force her to come up with right moves in hopes some of them is a blunder, then the blunder could happen at move 10 or move 40 of an endgame - an obvious improvement of the position is not a precondition for a blunder to happen and be correctly exploited by the side with time.

If you are playing a position, just hoping for a blunder, that isn't really trying to make progress.

It's all moot anyway. It is unlikely to be encountered in any current FIDE event. It can only be used in very specific events and isn't even a standard rule that is always in effect.

It seems like the line can be pretty grey though. What if I tell the tournament director, "No, I'm not hoping for a blunder. I believe I have winning chances."

Even if I don't actually have winning chances, am I not trying to win the position in a 'normal way?' Doesn't that satisfy the rule? If not, then we have a situation where the game is automatically drawn when the tournament director believes the position is a draw. That's not a good rule.

This rule is stupid. It should be eliminated.

And what if you do say: "Yes, I´m hoping for a blunder. Yes, I guess it is a book draw. Good luck to my opponent not making a blunder in 50 moves. Judit blundered, why cannot I hope my opponent might? I´m looking out for just such a blunder. I´m forcing my opponent to come up with a defence for one position after another and not blunder. Is that not normal means? Is that not sufficient effort?"

In Polgar Judit vs. Kasparov, would you have imposed a draw on move 78 on grounds of impossibility of winning by normal means, or insufficient effort to win?