Yes. Consider FIDE 5.2.2 and US Chess 14E. Suppose Black plays a move after which all legal moves lead either to stalemate or White checkmating Black. There have been examples of such positions posted in the US Chess forums, but it is easy enough to imagine the stalemate case. Now White’s flag falls. Anyway, the Laws of Chess say that this is a draw because Black can’t win because there is no legal series of moves that leads to Black checkmating White. The Official Rules of Chess say that Black (likely) wins because he currently has mating material.
I’m not aware of a “dead position” rule in the Official Rules of Chess, though it is possible I have overlooked it. The closest I can come is “Insufficient Material To Continue” which is clearly not the case here.
Ah. I see. When combined with the rest of 14D then I suppose 14D4 is an extremely clunky “dead position” rule, but note that as long as there is a sequence of legal moves that allows White to checkmate Black, and Black has “mating material”, then White loses when his flag falls under the Official Rules.
The US Chess rules could be a bit clearer, but it would be fairly difficult to come up with anything other than a contrived situation where
(a) Player B has requisite mating material (in practice, at least one P, R or Q), but
(b) Player B has no way to checkmate even with A’s cooperation, and
(c) Player A does have a way to checkmate B (with B’s cooperation)
Other than sheer lack of material, legally dead positions are generally complete blockades. (Obviously, there are many practically dead positions which can be lost through extremely bad moves). If B has pawns, but is blockaded so can’t get his K into A’s pawns, how could A manage to checkmate? If A is not blockaded, then A can get into B’s pawns, capture one or two, then move her own pawns which would almost certainly lift the blockade. So in fact, (b) would be wrong; A could play natural winning chess for a few moves, and only then start playing like a buffoon.
White Kb1, Qa1, Qc1, Pb2
Black Rg2, Qh2, Ra4, Qd4, Kb3, Pc4
Black plays … Rxb2+. Forced is Qxb2+ Qxb2+, Qxb2+ Qxb2#.
Either way, if Black flags after Rxa2+ you see a case where there is no series of legal moves where White can mate Black (even with two White queens on the board) but Black can still mate White.
Remove one queen from each side and replace the c4 pawn with a knight and you have … Rxb2+, Qxb2+ flag where White could play either Nxb2 or Qxb2#.
Granted, still contrived, but then the potential mates under the FIDE rules can be contrived as well.
Yes. Exactly. I agree. However this is a situation where, IMO, if Black’s flag falls after White’s first “Qxb2+” it is a draw under the (FIDE) Laws of Chess but a win for White under the (US Chess) Official Rules of Chess. Should Mr. Wiewel be appealed by White after he rules a draw, I’m curious as to how he would support his ruling. White clearly has “[sufficient] material to win on time” under 14E and there is “[Sufficient] material to continue” under 14D and especially 14D4. I don’t like ruling a win for White simply because Black is forced to mate him, but I really don’t see the alternative.
I’m coming in a bit late here, but I don’t see how 14D4 applies at all to a flag-fall situation. 14D in general is about “Insufficient material to continue”, and implicitly assumes that the game is still “live”. But see 13C (b.) and 14E: a properly claimed flag fall ends the game immediately and is always a win for the claimant unless 14E applies, and 14E lists 3 (and only 3) specific scenarios – which do not include the type of situation being discussed in this thread. My interpretation is that 13C (b.) and 14E together override anything in 14D, and that forced mates of any kind (including “selfmates” and “helpmates”) are irrelevant. Also see 13A2 and 14A2: even if the time forfeiter actually plays checkmate or stalemate, he still loses (barring 14E) if the time forfeit claim is made before the move is determined. I think a “dead position” claim would have to be made before the flag falls.
Also note the first sentence of 14E: “The game is drawn even when a player exceeds the time limit …” – this implies that a time forfeit situation has more stringent criteria than the general situations discussed in 14D.
Note that all this is about US Chess rules only. I’m aware that FIDE rules treat this situation differently.
ETA: I do think the FIDE rules are more sensible here, and that the situation under discussion ideally should be a draw, but as TDs, we are obligated to enforce the rules as they stand, not as we would like them to stand.
First of all, let us note that, under either set of rules, if your opponent has P, R or Q when you flag, you are almost certain to lose. FIDE has the escape hatch (in those cases) that you don’t lose if you cannot “helpmate” yourself. The point I’m trying to make is that it is EXTREMELY hard to come up with a situation where the opponent has P, R or Q and you cannot helpmate yourself unless the position is dead to begin with and is a draw (per rule) in both sets. You pretty much need to be in a situation where you are forced (per rule) to make “good” moves when in a typical helpmate you make nonsensical moves. Thus FIDE’s escape hatch in this situation is not much different in practice from US Chess’.
It’s where opponent has bare N or bare B where the rules diverge rather sharply. Bare N in particular is usually a win for the opponent under FIDE rules—there are just too many ways to construct a helpmate when the opponent has a N. Even bare B is often enough if you have or could underpromote to a B of the opposite color of the opponent’s.
… if one of the following conditions exists:
… 14E2 … opponent has only … king and knight, and does not have a forced win.
All I know is, if I ever get into the following position as white, with black to move –
– and if black lets his time run out and then claims a draw, and the TD grants black’s draw claim, I am going to be really piddled off. Black could easily make the plausible move … … h5-h4??, after which I would have a forced win with Ng4 followed by Kf1 and mate next.
This is a serious flaw in 14E2, in that it overlooks the possibility of plausible yet losing moves.
That’s probably why FIDE has no equivalent to 14E. And that’s a good thing.
Perhaps 14E could be fixed by allowing the claimant’s opponent (in this case white) to request that the claimant (in this case black) be given 2 minutes (plus increment) to demonstrate that he can play (say) 10 moves without running out of time or getting mated. If he succeeds, his draw claim is granted; if he fails, he has lost on time.
I think 14E deliberately overlooks the possibility of plausible yet losing moves, and I think that’s a good thing. “Forced” means forced from the given position – I can force mate no matter what the opponent does. What you are describing is a “possible” mate, and that’s not the same thing. I actually had to make a ruling a few months ago involving a similar position and situation. White had two Knights rather than one, and the Black pawn was off in a different part of the board. When I ruled it a draw, White protested that if he did this and this and this (without allowing Black any moves), it’s mate. Maybe, but Black gets to move, too, and she can play moves that don’t allow that and that and that. The mate was possible but not forced, as in your example. To verify this, a bystander had Stockfish on his phone. We entered the position into Stockfish and let it run for 5 minutes or so. It didn’t find any forced mates. That was enough to convince me (and the other TD that I corralled to confirm my ruling – or to reverse it if necessary) that there weren’t any.
I wouldn’t be totally opposed to your proposed change (except that two minutes and ten moves are both somewhat arbitrary, and the precise definition of “plausible” is also problematic, especially in time trouble), but I don’t have a problem with the existing rule either. And in any case, when a situation like this arises, I have no choice but to enforce the existing rule. It doesn’t matter whether or not I like it.
And someone trying to win with R vs N in blitz who flags would likely have a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot reaction to losing on time under FIDE rules. And that’s REALLY, REALLY not a good thing.
The goal of 14E is to prevent a player from winning on time in an absurdly lost position. But the rule, as written, can also “accidentally” (not “deliberately”) prevent a player from winning on time in certain plausible positions, too. And that is not a “good thing” – it’s a defect in the rule.
In fact, in the position in question –
– I’d bet most players would seriously consider … h5-h4. “I’d really like to try to queen that sucker.” And then they’ll end up in the most embarrassing checkmate they’ve ever been caught in.
Apparently you are not aware that some positions with K+N+N vs K+P are a forced win for the two knights. How can this be, when K+N+N vs K (no pawn) is virtually always a draw? The answer is that, with the extra pawn, the knights may be able to “stalemate” the king, but it’s not actually stalemate because the pawn can move, and then the knights can administer mate a move or two later.
You got lucky! With K+N+N vs K+P, there may well have been a forced mate for the knights. (I’m sure Stockfish would have found it, though.) You barely escaped making an incorrect ruling. I don’t think a TD should ever declare K+N+N vs K+P a draw using a 14E-type rule.
I’m not wedded to the specifics, but there should be a way for the TD to temporarily deny the claim (restoring the fallen flag and perhaps adding time to the other clock as well) and watch for a while, with a view toward maybe granting the claim a little later.
This may be one of those cases where a good TD knows the rule, but a great TD knows when to break it.