The 2 minute rule, no arbiter, no increment, opponent not trying to win.

So, this is for ECF rated matches with no increment and no arbiter present (i.e. English league club matches)...

If a player has less than 2 minutes on his or her clock, and the game is still active, they can claim a draw if the opponent isn't trying to win by normal means. My question is, what exactly constitutes 'by normal means'? Is there a precise and clear definition of this term, or is it something each arbiter will determine on a whim?

I found the following in the FIDE Arbiters Manual...

III.6 The following shall apply when the competition is not supervised by an arbiter:
III.6.1 A player may claim a draw when he/she has less than two minutes left on his/her
clock and before his/her flag falls. This concludes the game. He/She may claim on the
basis:
III.6.1.1 that his/her opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or
III.6.1.2 that his/her opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means. In
III.6.1.1 the player must write down the final position and his/her opponent must verify
it. In III.6.1.2 the player must write down the final position and submit an up-to-date
scoresheet. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position.
III.6.2 The claim shall be referred to the designated arbiter.

Usually the game is materially lost and/or the endgame is obviously lost, so one player is just trying to flag their opponent as they can't win by playing chess! I recently got a draw in an OTB game from this rule.

It sort of makes sense for classical OTB games - the 'losing' player had plenty of time and more importantly opportunity, to demonstrate their superior chess skill so shouldn't win from an appalling position, the 'winning' player shouldn't get full points because of their poor time management. Draw seems fair.

Really it's a practical rule to avoid unsporting-play in OTB tournaments - organisers have enough to deal with. Especially important when juniors or childish adults are playing as there is a tendency after losing say a piece etc just to switch to instantaneous wood-pushing mode, no matter what, which isn't chess when you still have an hour (say) on the clock. It's pretty obvious when someone is doing this.

Also worth pointing out that deliberately attempting to flag an opponent from a completely lost position may have some nasty consequences in real-life.

I suppose 'by normal means' refer to any sequence of moves that aims to improve position or seem to applying pressure to checkmate the opponent king.
Like random shuffling of pieces here and there wouldn't be part of 'by normal means' and similarly not attempting to checkmate opponent king in a clearly winning game for former.
The meaning of 'by normal means' rests with the arbiter but when there is no arbiter it still depends on arbiter (league arbiter or designated official) later when game is reviewed, who watches the updated scoresheet which is verified by both players at the time of draw claim.

Thank you both.

If a player is making forced moves, for example, moving his king out of check, does that meet the criteria of not trying to win by normal means?

IMHO the original intent was to prevent players trying to win by just flagging the opponent e.g. in a K+R vs K+R endgame. On the other hand, this whole section III is quite problematic and thankfully incrementless time controls are becoming more and more rare.

One thing to keep in mind is that the quickplay finish section only prevents a player from losing by dirty flagging so that it does not help when the opponent plays a hopelessly lost position to the end, hoping for a draw. After all, if your opponent plays e.g. K vs KR or K vs KBB, you cannot actually lose any more. (Not even if you resign, according to current FIDE rules, see article 5.1.2.)

For the record, section III is in the "Guidelines" part of FIDE rules which is not strictly mandatory (even if recommended). And especially in rapid and blitz tournaments I have often seen the statement that they are played "by official FIDE rules with the exception of section III". Or I have seen a classical competition played (with incrementless time control) "by FIDE rules, including section III but with exception of III.4" (the purpose apparently being to allow the use of mechanical clocks if needed).

@cosmic4z said in #4:

Thank you both.

If a player is making forced moves, for example, moving his king out of check, does that meet the criteria of not trying to win by normal means?

No. Matter is usually quite obvious, significantly down on material, have plenty of time on the clock, yet instantaneously playing pawn moves, or going on King walks, or moving a piece back and forward etc. Such moves indicate the player KNOWS his position is hopeless so there is no point thinking about the move to be made. Opponent usually has less than a minute on his clock and every move made physically costs 2-3 seconds.

As pointed out above if analogue clocks are being used there is more sense to the rules, however nowadays the simplest thing to do is just add a 5 or 10 seconds increment to digital clocks and ignore any such rules.

In OTB classical games flagging players in a 'hopeless' position is likely to make you unpopular and you may struggle to find opponents to play outside the tournament or in your local chess club. Winning at all costs just isn't considered 'friendly' and clubs and tournaments are very friendly. There may be a social price to pay for such wins.

As an aside: all those 'Web Bigwigs' who advise juniors to 'never resign after a blunder as they can still win' need their butts kicked as this results in some adults avoiding playing juniors in real-life.

Çok mantıklı. Ben olsam ben de öyle yapardım.