Originally posted by SmiffyI agree with Pigface1 and Ares3. There was a game in progress. One of the players asked a question which could have an impact on the result of that game ( bear with me... ). Soliciting help on a game in progress and / or providing such assistance is frowned upon / against the TOS of this site.
Tutts get over yourself piggy.
Now, how could this possibly have an affect on the outcome of the game in question? Surely K & N v K is a draw? No amount of help could change this, surely??
1. What would happen if the replies given to the original poster were incorrect. What if a bunch of jokers or people lacking knowledge made multiple postings in this forum stating that the postion could and should be a win! Possibly, the original poster might see this and resign - unlikely, but possible. It therefore has an impact on the game.
2. What if the position being asked about ( in this case K & N v K ) was NOT a draw? Surely answering this question again influences play? The two players might have agreed a draw, but now play on and a result is achieved!
Originally posted by saffa73I say: Let the pieces fall where they may. If these rubes don't know basic endgames or the minimum force necessary to enforce checkmate, then they deserve whatever fate befalls them.
I agree with Pigface1 and Ares3. There was a game in progress. One of the players asked a question which could have an impact on the result of that game ( bear with me... ). Soliciting help on a game in progress and / or providing such assistance is frowned upon / against the TOS of this site.
Now, how could this possibly have an affect on the outcome of ...[text shortened]... uences play? The two players might have agreed a draw, but now play on and a result is achieved!
2 edits
The rule shouldn't be subjectively based upon whatever the poster was thinking at the time of posting. It should be an objective rule based on indicia contained in the post. Here, this was obviously a theoretical question, there was no required FEN and the same sort of question has been posted time and time again on the threads.
If this should really be considered a game in progress question, then every post asking about openings ("is the Sicilian good? " ) could be a game in progress question if the poster is considering playing that in a game that just began. That would be a ridiculous and stupid rule.
Originally posted by zebanoI don't think that draw is implemented here.
While it's good to know that the mate cannot happen with just a knight. Both the OP and his opponent should know that in such situations either of them can use the Claim Draw button to end the game, they don't need to agree on a draw.
AFAIK, the only time the lack of material draw can be claimed on here is when both players only have Kings.
It's never happened to me, but I believe that is the case.
D
Originally posted by jbuxxxThat's also a game in progress: Game 4380562
Quick one! Can King & Rook versus King & knight produce a result other than a draw? Just yes or no please!
Sorry! this should probably be a new thread:'(
Originally posted by jbuxxxK & R vs K & N is usually drawn with correct play from both sides except in a few exceptional cases.
Quick one! Can King & Rook versus King & knight produce a result other than a draw? Just yes or no please!
Sorry! this should probably be a new thread:'(
It is likely, unless you are a GM that even in those exceptional cases the 50 move rule will come into play.
Originally posted by Doctor RatHere ya go. No Queens or extra pieces on board. White has a forced mate in 3 moves.
Well, the original post was about K vs K+N, then it was brought up K+P vs K+N, so I'd have to say that having queens on the board isn't allowed in this particular case. I was just trying to consider the strict endgame of K+P vs K+N, but you are right that the final position is possible if other pieces are allowed.