I was directing a rated Bllitz tournament. A dispute developed. Player “A” had only a king and a bishop. Player “A” moved the bishop to check Player “B”. “B” did not realize he was in check. He made made a move that did not address the check in any way. “A” then captured "B"s king and claimed the win. “B” claimed the game was a draw because “A” did not have mating material, and should therefor be a draw.
I ruled that "A"s capturing the king ended the game in the same way that checkmate instantly ends the game, and “A” wins.
Blitz rule 8d states the game is a draw “If one player has insufficient mating material when the opponent’s flag falls or makes an illegal move.” Blitz rule 7C defines “mating material” as: “(at a minimum) two minor pieces, a pawn, a rook, or a queen”. Therefore, the player with only the King and Bishop didn’t have “mating material” and thus it’s a draw.
There is also Blitz rule 7d that states (emphasis mine) a game is won by the player “Who, after an illegal move is completed by the opponent, takes the king (if the king is in check) or claims the win and stops the clock, before the player determines a move and provided the player has sufficient mating material as defined in rule 7c.”
As a side note, it makes no sense as to why King and two Knights vs. King should be considered sufficient mating material in blitz but not in regular chess. It should be the same for both, one way or the other.
Some “insufficient mating material” rules are also different between US Chess rules and FIDE rules. It has to do with how you define “insufficient mating material”. With regard to the Two Knights endgame (with no other material on the board except the two Kings), it’s in general impossible for the stronger side to force mate, but it’s not impossible for mate to happen. Perhaps the thinking is that the sort of blunder that can allow a mate with two Knights is more likely to occur in a blitz game.
For a parallel situation, a bare King against King + Queen cannot “force a draw”, but a draw by stalemate can certainly happen (it happened to me in a blitz game once when I had the Queen). I can’t imagine this happening (not to me, anyway) in a slow game, but almost anything is possible in blitz.
In a King and two Knights vs King situation, if the side with just the King is low on time to the point where they might run out of time, then it’s essentially a blitz game for them either way. Therefore, if the side with just the King runs out of time, I don’t see why the outcome of the game should be a win for the side with the King and two knights in blitz but a draw in regular (assuming there is no forced win).
The FIDE rules are better here in that there is no difference between standard, rapid, and blitz in regards to what constitutes sufficient mating material.
“Fake chess” is a bit harsh, but I have always regarded it as a different game than standard chess, much like Chess960 or bughouse. They are all played with the same pieces on the same board, and the moves of the pieces are the same – but there are important differences between them. The most important difference in blitz is the extreme significance of the clock. How fast you move matters as much as (or more than) the quality of the moves, and this is a feature rather than a bug. It’s what defines the game. Some people love it. I do not, and so I don’t play blitz (I don’t play Chess960 or bughouse either). But I don’t consider any of them fake – they’re just different.
I’m confused. You give a very clear example of the rule, which incidentally passes the equability test, and then apparently complain about the clarity of the rule.
I’m told of a Senior TD recently, like within the past month, who was unable to justify his ruling that a king released on g4 could not be picked up and placed on h2 instead because the player had not pressed his clock.
By the way, capturing the king ends the game the same way any claim of illegal move ends the game. Not the same way checkmate (or stalemate) ends the game. That is, until “B” presses his clock, he’s allowed to correct his illegal “move”, with the piece (pawn) touched if possible, if not possible than any other way. Checkmate ends the game as soon as the piece is released on the mating square. No claim or clock press necessary.
Let’s face it, there are as many versions of the blitz rules as there are organizers running blitz tournaments. Some of these rule sets are downright atrocious – indeed, I might even characterize the U.S. Chess blitz rules in this way in certain situations.
Should capturing the king be allowed, as a means of pointing out that the opponent’s previous move was illegal? Or is such action just childish? Or should capturing the king be punishable in a greater way than the original illegal move itself, i.e. does the player who captures his opponent’s king immediately lose, even though his opponent just moved illegally? I dunno, just ask any three people, and get three different answers.
The classic case is the old WBCA rule dealing with the case where a player deliberately places his king next to his opponent’s king, hoping the opponent won’t notice and will make a different move somewhere else on the board, whereupon the first player plays king takes king and claims a win. The WBCA rule announced very loudly that “this cheap shot will not be tolerated”, but it doesn’t really say what should be done about it, other than not tolerating it. The quoted phrase even ended up in the U.S. Chess blitz rules for a while.
Whoever runs a blitz tournament would be wise to post, prominently at the blitz tournament before the first round, just which variation of the blitz rules will be in use. Otherwise, there are just too many “official” sources.
FIDE rules are consistent—consistently silly. I have K+R. Opponent has K+N (only). I flag. I lose. I could, after all, make a whole series of totally bizarre moves (which even the rankest beginner wouldn’t make) to trap my King in the corner and let myself get mated. I’m not even sure if, in the typical position, the player with the R can even count on being able to force either the capture of the R or capture/trade the N to force a dead position.
Contest: Find a position so described, with white having a forced dead position in N moves. Winner is the person who finds such a position with the largest possible N (i.e. it cannot be done in N-1). Prize is an extra knight in your next tournament game, and an extra rook for your opponent.
Let’s say Player A has their entire army and Player B only has a King and pawn and the pawn is not in a position to give checkmate or promote. If Player A flags, they lose under US Chess (and FIDE) rules. This could be considered “silly” as well. Why should the situation you state be a draw under US Chess rules but the situation I state be a loss for the player who flags under US Chess rules? In both scenarios, it’s clear the player who flagged basically has a zero percent chance of being checkmated.
Under US Chess rules, you need to be careful about what material your opponent has. Taking out your opponent’s pawns (by sacrifice if necessary) is something that’s largely under your control if you have a huge advantage (your scenario). Under FIDE rules, you not only need to be careful about what your opponent has, but also about what material YOU have and often in a bizarre way. K+Q vs K+N or K+B is OK. K+Q+P vs K+N or K+B is not. (You could always throw the Queen away, underpromote the pawn and helpmate yourself in the corner). As described in the K+R vs K+N case, it is not necessarily easy to get rid of your own material if the opponent doesn’t want it.
Under both sets of rules, silly examples abound. The problem is that nobody has figured out a sensible rule that would be better, would not subject be to such “silliness”, and would make every case come out exactly as it “should”. Such a goal may not even be possible.