13 Jul 06
Originally posted by SchumiWell i'll bow to general consensus then. I did find some deep analysis of this position some months ago, but like i said, i didn't plow through it all, perhaps i missed the point...
K+B+R v K+R is drawn with best play from any normal starting position (no hanging pieces, simple tactics, mates in one or the like) according to my endgame book. It's not necessarily an easy balance to hold though.
13 Jul 06
Originally posted by GorgarNeither can White claim a draw in this position if his flag falls:
So,if I understand this correct,you're saying that in a non blitzgame I can't claim a draw if my flag falls and my oppo has 2N+K vs my lone king?
I'd have a hard time accepting that 😕🙁
Obviously, White must make many, many more blunders to lose this position, compared to KNN v. K. And yet the rules clearly state that Black can win this position on time.
14 Jul 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemYes,but again black has a pawn.A pawn is a potential queen which is sufficient mating material.2 knights are not.
Neither can White claim a draw in this position if his flag falls:
[fen]8/5PPP/7N/1k5N/pP6/P1BK4/1P2Q1B1/1R5R w - - 0 1[/fen]
Obviously, White must make many, many more blunders to lose this position, compared to KNN v. K. And yet the rules clearly state that Black can win this position on time.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
14 Jul 06
Originally posted by GorgarFrankly black has more chance of mating with the two knights than mating in that position. For a start both sides have chances in that game where as with two knights only one side has any chance of mate.
Yes,but again black has a pawn.A pawn is a potential queen which is sufficient mating material.2 knights are not.
14 Jul 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThen I find this a rubbish rule.Mating material that cannot force mate is a joke.
Two knights [b]does constitute sufficient mating material in the rule in question. It is irrelevant that the mate cannot be forced.[/b]
A lightheartened attempt to make you see my point 😉
Judge: I sentence you to 10 years in jail for rape.
Some guy: but judge,I'm impotent!!
Judge: Yeah,but you have the equipment,the fact that it doesn't work is irrelevant
Some guy: 😕
14 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by GorgarThe player with the lone king can claim insufficient losing chances before the flag falls, or make use of the time delay to demonstrate the draw.
Then I find this a rubbish rule.Mating material that cannot force mate is a joke.
That is, the player with the lone king has the option to force the draw. If he fails to avail himself of that option, why shouldn't he lose?
14 Jul 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThis is what I found in the FIDE rules.I guess you get 2 minutes extra to prove you can keep it drawn.Which I think is fine,btw
I know it's a USCF rule. I'd be surprised if FIDE didn't have something similar.
Article 10: Quickplay Finish
10.1
A `quickplay finish` is the last phase of a game, when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time.
10.2
If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter.
1.
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.
2.
b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue in the presence of an arbiter, if possible. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.
3.
If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes thinking time.
4.
The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to 10.2 a, b, c
14 Jul 06
Originally posted by GorgarWho will determine if mate can be forced? Should we take this decision away from the players, and give it to the TD's and rulebook writers?
Then I find this a rubbish rule.Mating material that cannot force mate is a joke.
If you favor having no rule, how will you deal with bare Kings? Does it seem right to you that a guy with only a King can win the game on time?
14 Jul 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemWho will determine if mate can be forced? Should we take this decision away from the players, and give it to the TD's and rulebook writers?
Who will determine if mate can be forced? Should we take this decision away from the players, and give it to the TD's and rulebook writers?
If you favor having no rule, how will you deal with bare Kings? Does it seem right to you that a guy with only a King can win the game on time?
Quite simple.When the best defensive moves known to man(and computer) cannot prevent checkmate the mate can be forced.In all other cases it cannot be forced.I'm not saying every theoretical drawn position can be claimed a draw if your flag falls.There are some very tough defenses and I fully agree a player should prove his capability of defending them.However,I am saying the 2N+K vs K is not one of those difficult positions.But then I'm looking at it from a sportmanslike view rather than a pure "rules are rules" view.To me chess is a game meant to give you some enjoyment.I'm not the "win at all cost" type of guy.
If you favor having no rule, how will you deal with bare Kings? Does it seem right to you that a guy with only a King can win the game on time?
Uhm,dude,everything I'm advocating here is aimed towards NOT being able to claim a win on time when you don't have mating material.Of course a lone king cannot win on time.I'm baffled you could get that idea from what I wrote in this thread 😕
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
14 Jul 06
2 edits
What if im playing black, someone plays 1.e4 I walk away for an hour or so and come back when I have two mins on my clock claiming a draw when they cant force mate?
Naturally the arbiter is going to giggle and give the win, to the other person but theres no forced mate etc.
Edit. thats stupid really. Couldnt keep the position drawn......more sleep needed 🙂
14 Jul 06
Originally posted by GorgarEnjoyment is reduced if the rules aren't logically consistent. I hold that it is much more likely to mate with 2 Knights than for Black to win with a lone pawn against 16 pieces. It makes little sense to award a win on time in one case, but not the other.
Who will determine if mate can be forced? Should we take this decision away from the players, and give it to the TD's and rulebook writers?
Quite simple.When the best defensive moves known to man(and computer) cannot prevent checkmate the mate can be forced.In all other cases it cannot be forced.I'm not saying every theoretical drawn position can be claime ...[text shortened]... t win on time.I'm baffled you could get that idea from what I wrote in this thread 😕