Keep in mind that 10.2 only applies in quickplay finishes, but that's what MTEL uses. And I like it, though I prefer a small increment in the final control. But 10.2 is one area where an Arbiter must really work, and it really helps to be at least a master.

<MTal> Read the rules. It's not about <I don't have time so I don't want to play on>. It's about <Everybody in this tournament, me included, could draw this, if we ignore the clock.> You could disagree with the FIDE decision, but that's not the issue right now.

Potential FIDE Arbiters are grilled on these cases, because you can't look them up (though FIDE, like professional sports, should keep records of all 10.2 positions IMHO.

I don't know what point I'm trying to make, if any, but it was interesting to see that Kamsky could win this game...

<The rook and pawn endgame they reached "should" be drawn, but it turned into an adventure. Several times it looked like a simple draw, but Bacrot avoided the simple and Kamsky kept up the pressure. It came all the way down to rook versus knight with no pawns! This is tricky but usually drawn at the master level but both players were terribly short on time (no time increment in Sofia) and reaching the seventh hour of play, it was far from tablebase perfect. It was drawn, then lost, then drawn, then finally Kamsky put the hammer down after the Frenchman's final mistake.>

It does seem that if White is going to play d3 against the "normal" Ruy Lopez, there will be a greater focus on 4. d3 against the Berlin, in place of the constant 4. 0-0 Nxe4 5 d4 Nd6 etc. we see now.

I agree that the comments you quote are stupid, but it should be said that it is much easier to play it for the defending side with the king+knight in the middle of the board, like in that game. Even I would have held a draw against Nakamura there, I'm fairly sure... Bacrot had a much more difficult task although he too would probably have saved it if only MTel used increments, as ought to be standard.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...

Hodgson insisted that another arbiter, in 1989, was right to rule Suba the winner when I had two knights vs his pawn (he was white and the pawn was at h6) when my flag fell. I had offered a draw only a move or two earlier. Julian cited a recent instance where he had played Nunn, had a Rook vs Nunn´s Knight, and had lost on time when Nunn had but 6 seconds remaining. There seemed no consensus on whether arbiter David Eustace had correctly ruled against my appeal that the game with GM Suba be called a draw. IM Pein later told me, "MANY people agreed with it." IM Hartston wrote in The Independent that when setting the rules for The Master Game GM tournament, some years earlier, their first rule was, "We are all gentlemen." He added, "There were never any disputes."

Rook versus a knight: this is usually a draw. There are two main exceptions: the knight is separated from the king and may be trapped and won or the king and knight are poorly placed (Nunn 2002a:9).[8] Kamsky vs Bacrot, 2006 is an example of a rook vs knight ending which resulted in a win. In this game, Black underpromoted a pawn to a knight to avoid a checkmate and eventually lost the game after allowing his knight to be separated from the king.[9]

Black avoid a loss and hope for a draw which happens most of the time in these endgames...

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.