Originally posted by C J HorseWith white king:
Can you have a position with 9 queens where it's not stalemate if it's the King's move?
Anyway, while I'm here I'll just say that I really don't care whether my opponent resigns or not. I've often thought there's not a lot of point playing on, but never thought of it as a question of manners or etiquette. I see that the OP is a 6 games non-sub, which probably explains why he gets the hump about it
Without:
Originally posted by RJHindsHe gets the idea from the rules.
You said, "OTB a K & Q v a K will at the very least be a draw if the Queen player runs out of time."
I don't know were you get this idea. Anytime a player runs out of time he looses. You probable are thinking, if he does not mate in the 50 moves then it is a draw. But if he runs out of time before he gets to 50 moves he looses.
If he is running low ...[text shortened]... e queen and hit the clock as fast as he can to reach the 50 moves before running out of time.
So you're not an OTB player either [surprise, surprise]...
Originally posted by SwissGambitAmazing how someone can get to the standard he has without knowing the rules of the game.
He gets the idea from the rules.
So you're not an OTB player either [surprise, surprise]...
Then again, I am always having to remind 5 h'cap golfers how many clubs they are allowed in their bag, whether they can ground their clubs in a bunker, whose shot it is etc?
Hi RJ.
I really don't mind being called wrong if I'm wrong. (I 've had enough practice). 😉
I chuckled when you thought that ALL the players were blindfolded
when a master gives a blindfold simul.
I was dismayed when as a someone claiming to be of the old school
you say you had never heard of Gligorich.
There have been other gaffs and now this. 😕
You play like a 2200+ player, sometimes you post like a rookie.
But there are perhaps others who don't know this so.....
To claim a win on time you must have sufficent material left to checkmate
an opponent. If a player has a K + Q v K and the player the Queen loses
on time the game is drawn.
I'll paste in the wiki explanation which quotes with FIDE law to look up.
If only one player has exceeded the time limit, but the other player does not have
(theoretically) sufficient mating material, the game is still a draw.
Law 6.9 of the FIDE Laws of Chess states that:
"If a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted
time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is
such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king by any possible series
of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay."
For example, a player who runs out of time with a king and queen versus a sole
king does not lose the game. It is still possible to lose on time in positions where
mate is extremely unlikely but not theoretically impossible, as with king and bishop
versus king and knight.
This position is just one of the examples.
If Black lost on time he could claim a draw because there is no legal
way for White to checkmate him
Now the differnce between here and FIDE.
Game 6147337 Blance v Iron Duke RHP 2009.
Final Position
Black won by timeout.
In 'normal' chess that is (if White lost on time) it's a draw.
On here a loss on time is a loss on time. Different rules. (different set of manners.) 😉
You may also be interested to know that although I and others use the phrase....
...there is no such thing as a draw by perpetual check.
It was removed from the rules because it was needed.
The rule about three fold rep covers any perpetual check (think about it)
so this rule was regarded as extra baggage and dumped.
You can also draw a 'won game'....
(in reality there is no such thing. The game is won with mate or a resignation)
......if you are deemed not trying to win it.
For example if you have 4 minutes left and your opponent has one minute left
in an allegro finish (google allegro finish RJ) and all you are doing is shuffling your
pieces about to win on time the TD can step and warn you to make a winning attempt.
A very grey area this and it takes a tough (and well built) TD to enforce this rule.
It will end in an uproar.
Originally posted by greenpawn34So, to clarify further, I assume I am right that, if you had a King and Two Knights v my lone King, and my clock runs out, I would lose, as although you cannot force checkmate, it can be achieved if I make a complete horlicks of it.
Hi RJ.
I really don't mind being called wrong if I'm wrong. (I 've had enough practice). 😉
I chuckled when you thought that ALL the players were blindfolded
when a master gives a blindfold simul.
I was dismayed when as a someone claiming to be of the old school
you say you had never heard of Gligorich.
There have been other gaffs and now ...[text shortened]... takes a tough (and well built) TD to enforce this rule.
It will end in an uproar.
I think I saw this happen on Youtube once.
Hi Rank Outsider
This is one of those smashing grey areas I was talking about.
I would say yes the guy with the two Knights wins because although
it cannot be forced it can still be done.
This is mate with a lone Bishop v lone Knight which was mentioned.
It cannot be forced but it can happen.
But what happens if the player with the Knight calls across a TD before his flag falls?
(it's not 100% clear is it.)
I'll ask my mate Alex McFarlane, he was TD at the last World Championship prelims.
I'll get the low down on his interpretation.
Edit: Just remembered he is controlling in Turkey.
(I was going to phone him...just saved myself a fortune....he will most likely have his mobile off.)
I'll email him.
Originally posted by greenpawn34'The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves.'
Hi Rank Outsider
This is one of those smashing grey areas I was talking about.
I would say yes the guy with the two Knights wins because although
it cannot be forced it can still be done.
This is mate with a lone Bishop v lone Knight which was mentioned.
[fen]7k/5KBn/8/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1[/fen]
It cannot be forced but it can happen.
But wh ...[text shortened]... ...just saved myself a fortune....he will most likely have his mobile off.)
I'll email him.
I would take any series of legal moves to mean just that.
After all, why would the rules add the words 'with any series of legal moves'. Surely the rules would have said 'neither player can force checkmate' if it had meant otherwise. And surely by now they would have been amended if this was the intention?
Of course, if it was was a mate which could only be forced in 51 moves even with the help of the opponent, now that would be a legal conundrum. After all, it's not that taking 51 moves is not a legal series of moves. So could you claim the draw?
But I don't suppose such a position exists.
That how I understand it too and I'm sure that is the case.
The 'unclear' bit happens if the Bishop player has say 3 minutes
and Knight player has 2.
How can he be deemed trying to win when there is no known winning method?
I can show you one when the Knight player's flag falls but unitl then....
It's this 'not trying to win just on time' rule that is the cloudy issue.
Never seen it (infact never been involved in any OTB dispute) I wonder
what Alex will say.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Jesus, don't tell him where to find this stuff - it's much more entertaining when he tries to make it up. 😞
Hi RJ.
I really don't mind being called wrong if I'm wrong. (I 've had enough practice). 😉
I chuckled when you thought that ALL the players were blindfolded
when a master gives a blindfold simul.
I was dismayed when as a someone claiming to be of the old school
you say you had never heard of Gligorich.
There have been other gaffs and now ...[text shortened]... takes a tough (and well built) TD to enforce this rule.
It will end in an uproar.
Originally posted by greenpawn34A US TD would prefer to put a time delay clock on the game and watch and see if the Bishop makes any progress.
Hi Rank Outsider
This is one of those smashing grey areas I was talking about.
I would say yes the guy with the two Knights wins because although
it cannot be forced it can still be done.
This is mate with a lone Bishop v lone Knight which was mentioned.
[fen]7k/5KBn/8/8/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 1[/fen]
It cannot be forced but it can happen.
But wh ...[text shortened]... ...just saved myself a fortune....he will most likely have his mobile off.)
I'll email him.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderActually, more to the point, my understanding is that, in such positions, the game is automatically a draw. Neither side has to claim it, nor indeed can play on in the hope of winning.
'The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves.'
I would take [b]any series of legal moves to mean just that.
After all, why would the rules add the words 'with any series of legal moves'. Surely the rules would have said 'neither player can force checkma ...[text shortened]... eant otherwise. And surely by now they would have been amended if this was the intention?[/b]
This surely indicates that it is because no player can possibly win the game, whatever either side plays.
If, in the 2 knights example, this was not correct interpretation, and both players continued and the other side was mated, then I think according to rules the win would not stand, as the game had already come to a drawn position.
Which can't be right, I think.