Quickplay finish in chess
Quickplay finish
Definition
A quickplay finish is the final phase of a game played without an increment (or with an increment less than 30 seconds), in which a player must complete all remaining moves within a fixed, limited amount of time. Under FIDE Laws, this situation is covered by “Games without increment including Quickplay Finishes” (Guidelines III). It is closely associated with frantic time scrambles, flag falls, and the special right to claim a draw when a player is very short on time and the opponent cannot or is not trying to win by normal means.
How it is used in chess
Quickplay finishes arise from time controls where the last period is “all remaining moves” in a set amount of time, with no per-move increment to guarantee thinking time. Common structures include: “40 moves in 90 minutes, then 30 minutes for the rest of the game (no increment),” or “All moves in 75 minutes.” In the UK and many FIDE events of the pre-increment era, this produced a distinct, often dramatic end phase—the quickplay finish.
- Draw claims when under severe time pressure (the former “10.2 claim”): If a player has less than two minutes remaining in a quickplay finish, they may stop the clock and claim a draw on the grounds that:
- (a) The opponent cannot win by normal means (e.g., theoretical draw, or insufficient mating prospects), or
- (b) The opponent is making no effort to win by normal means (e.g., only shuffling pieces without attempting progress).
- Scorekeeping: When a player’s remaining time is less than five minutes in a period without a 30-second increment, they are not required to continue recording moves for that period. After the time scramble, they must, if possible, update the scoresheet.
- Terminology: In the United States, the analogous time control is often called “sudden death” (e.g., “G/90 d5”), and historically used different draw-claim criteria (“insufficient losing chances”). FIDE uses the term “quickplay finish.”
Strategic and practical significance
Quickplay finishes influence both technique and behavior in time trouble.
- For the side trying to win:
- Demonstrate progress “by normal means”: push passed pawns, improve king and piece activity, avoid sterile repetition. This helps defeat a draw claim.
- Choose practical plans: simplify into clearly winning king-and-pawn endings or create multiple threats that are easy to play with little time.
- Avoid perpetual-check motifs and fortress setups that may validate a draw claim.
- For the defender:
- Head for theoretically drawn endgames (e.g., rook + bishop vs rook, “wrong bishop” rook-pawn endings, opposite-colored bishops) where “cannot win by normal means” clearly applies.
- Build fortresses or create repeated positions that show the opponent lacks a plan to break through.
- Know the procedure: with under two minutes, stop the clock and call the arbiter to claim a draw if conditions fit.
- Event organization: Many modern tournaments use increments (e.g., 90+30) precisely to avoid quickplay finish disputes and to reduce arbiter intervention.
Examples
- Time-control examples:
- Classic two-stage control without increment: 40 moves in 90 minutes, then 30 minutes for the rest of the game. After move 40, if a player has, say, 4 minutes left for the entire remainder, they are in a quickplay finish.
- Single-stage control without increment: All moves in 75 minutes (no increment). The entire game culminates in a quickplay finish phase as clocks run down.
- With increment (e.g., 90+30): There is no quickplay finish in the FIDE sense—each move brings new time, and the special draw claim does not apply.
- Typical draw-claim scenario (the “wrong bishop”):
White: King b6, Bishop h1 (light-squared), Pawn a7. Black: King a8. With the black king in the corner and White’s bishop not controlling the promotion square a8 (a dark square), this ending is a theoretical draw. In a quickplay finish, the defender can claim that the opponent cannot win by normal means.
- Another practical case:
- Rook and bishop vs rook is winning only with accurate technique and often beyond quickplay precision. If the stronger side shuffles without net progress, the defender may claim a draw for “no attempt to win by normal means.”
- Opposite-colored bishops with pawns on one wing often lead to fortress positions; again, ripe for a “cannot win by normal means” claim.
Historical and rules notes
- The draw claim was long known informally as the “10.2 rule,” after its former location in the FIDE Laws (Article 10.2). In later editions it moved to “Guidelines III: Games without increment including Quickplay Finishes.”
- Arbiter options in a claim include: accepting the claim immediately; rejecting it and adding two minutes to the opponent’s time; or postponing a decision while observing whether the claimant’s opponent can make progress “by normal means.”
- Digital clocks and widespread use of increments/delays have made quickplay finish disputes much rarer at top level. Many events adopted 30-second increments precisely to eliminate the need for this rule.
Interesting facts and anecdotes
- The term “quickplay finish” is most common in British chess literature; in US tournament practice the analogous phase is typically called “sudden death.”
- Before increments became standard, many weekend congresses and league matches regularly featured dramatic quickplay finishes, with arbiters frequently called to adjudicate 10.2 claims.
- Knowing a handful of theoretical drawing zones—wrong bishop rook-pawns, certain fortress setups, and standard defensive techniques—was (and remains) invaluable for surviving quickplay scrambles.