Originally posted by Rank outsiderIf there is a helpmate possible, then no draw - and vice versa. Simple as that. Well, at least for FIDE.
Actually, 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.
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 inter ...[text shortened]... not stand, as the game had already come to a drawn position.
Which can't be right, I think.
However, in a US blitz tournament, I was awarded a draw under a slightly different US rule. My opponent had only a K and B and I had a few pieces/pawns. My flag fell, but apparently the Bishop isn't considered mating material even though a helpmate was possible, so my opponent's win claim was overturned by the TD and I got a draw.
I think the FIDE rule makes more sense. 😛
Ooh, even more fun.
The FIDE rules say:
5.2 b.
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......This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was legal. (See Article 9.6)
However, FIDE helpfully provide a useful supplementary:
9.6
The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing this position was legal.
So that clears that up. Note the important addition of the word 'possible' to make it clear that impossible legal moves cannot be taken into account.
I wonder if it's possible to compose a position in which it would be hard to determine whether there is a possibility of one side mating the other. It seems impossible, but I'm far from having a proof. If it happened to be possible, then the rule could turn out to be impractical.
Just spoke on the phone to a senior Arbiter.
King + 2 Knights v King.
The lone King player must be down to his last two minutes before
he can make any claim for a draw. (this I knew).
The Arbiter would advise that he must give his opponent a chance to win
the game and make a reasonable amount of moves in the last two minutes.
If after the lone King flag falls the arbiter will make a judgement call on wether
the lone King player did give his opponent a reasonable amount of time
and moves. (and did not sit there waiting for own his flag to fall.)
If so he would declare the game drawn.
The same wording applied when I put forward the case for the lone Bishop
v lone Knight although the awarding of a draw would be an easier decision.
This position would be classed as a draw.
Black can leave his King where it is and just move the Knight.
The Knight can never be taken because then there would no way to checkmate
Black.
What winning attempt can White make?
Whilst one can show a mate with a legal set of moves once a flag has fallen
the arbiter's decision is always final.
He will take into consideration the spirit in the which the game is meant to be played in.
The rules are to being given yet another overhaul very soon.
(I think at the end of the Olympiad). So stand by, all this may change.
Footnote:
In these days of time increments a player with the lone Knight as above
would be very hard pushed to lose on time. The game would be a farce.
I think I'd like to see that.
Hi Moon.
You have to press claim a draw button for three fold rep and apparently
RHP will only recognise lone Kings as a draw due to insufficent material.
(which is about right for here. If the was a way for a lone Knight to mate
a lone King I'm sure one of the lads will walk into it) 😉
Got a reply Alex Mac.
Here is that pasted reply, the () are my comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dealing with the second first. (that is K + B v K + N)
He has asked for the draw and unless there is a possible mate in a couple of
moves then the draw would be given immediately. If there is the possibility of
mate it would be a case of play on for a few moves and then declare it a draw.
In the first case (K + 2NN v K) the answer is much the same. Here though if the
player has not claimed then he would lose as a mate is possible.
There was some discussion here about changing the Laws to give the draw in most
similar circumstances but this was thrown out as there were too many possibilities
and you are basicallly protecting those too stupid to claim.
Alex
-------------------------------------------------
Thank You.
".....and you are basicallly protecting those too stupid to claim."
Hey RJ even FIDE has a file on you. ( 😉 )
Originally posted by greenpawn34I only play under USCF rules and I assumed FIDE or any other rules for normal chess were the same. There is no way one can get a draw by running out of time on the clock under USCF rules, that is with Q + k vs K. It is always a loss to the player who runs out of time. And by the way, I know that blindfold chess doesn't mean the players are blind folded. I do not remember ever saying that. But if I did I had to be joking.
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 takes a tough (and well built) TD to enforce this rule.
It will end in an uproar.
It is still hard for me to believe FIDE rules are different from USCF rules. That does not make any sense.
P.S. Don't forget that I was only referring to your specific claim:
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."
Under USCF rules they do not allow you extra time once your clock has expired to see if you can checkmate in a certain number of moves.
Originally posted by WanderingKingWell, there's this:
I wonder if it's possible to compose a position in which it would be hard to determine whether there is a possibility of one side mating the other. It seems impossible, but I'm far from having a proof. If it happened to be possible, then the rule could turn out to be impractical.
A. Buchanan
StrateGems 2002
White to move. What was the last move?
HI RJ
Thread 144630
I said you had to be joking but it does appear you thought the player
who wanted to play with the ornate set could not see them and said
he may be cheating if he did.
I still thinks it's funny.
The post that was quoted here has been removedYes, I have read the USCF rules, but that was when I was playing OTB over 30 years ago. At that time the rules were that the person running out of time loses the game. Perhaps they have changed the rules since that time. If that is the case, then I apologize. However, that seems to defeat the purpose of a time control if the person is allowed to claim a draw just because he has a K + Q vs K in the ending, especially if the other person does not agree to the draw and claims a win because the time expired on the person that has the Q + K.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Notice that I replied to you:
HI RJ
Thread 144630
I said you had to be joking but it does appear you thought the player
who wanted to play with the ornate set could not see them and said
he may be cheating if he did.
I still thinks it's funny.
"Maybe, I don't understand what you are saying. Do you believe
in blindfold chess or not?"
No, I was not joking there, but apparently we had a misunderstanding and you never cleared the misunderstanding up as far as I know. I also did not understand the objections of those that did not believe in blindfold chess. It was something to do with people having to play with different type pieces than the ordinary pieces.