This has been discussed before, but I don’t recall the resolution or if anything has been changed. The question is inspired by, but not identical to, a situation in a recent blitz tournament game of mine. Question is based on US Chess rules.
Time control is G5 d0. The position is 100% blocked, king and pawn ending. There is no way either player could enter the other player’s camp, even with cooperation. The player with more time declines a draw offer and says he is playing to flag the other.
A. Can his opponent claim a draw by insufficient losing chances?
B. Can his opponent allow his flag to fall and claim a draw because there is insufficient mating material, even though there are a boatload of pawns?
C. Can his opponent claim a draw because his opponent has no way to achieve a checkmate even with the worst possible play?
D. Would your answer be different for quick chess or classical vs blitz?
E. Would your answer be different under FIDE rules?
F. Now change the position just slightly so that there is one lever. Let’s say the queenside pawn position is white pawns on a4 b4 c5, black a6 b5 c6. It is now possible to lose, since either player could capture and their opponent could fail to recapture. Does this change your answer to the above questions? Surely under the outmoded standard “could a C player draw a GM given enough time”, this would qualify for ILC if that rule is in effect. B and C would not longer be true, since it is possible to play badly enough to lose.
No. Blitz rules, 8d (““Insufficient Losing Chances” (ILC) claims are not allowed.”). EDIT: but see 14D4 for no legal moves that lead to checkmate.
No. The boatload of pawns is sufficient mating material (See 14E and the Editor’s note to the Blitz rules (most of the standard chess rules apply). EDIT: but see 14D4 for no legal moves that lead to checkmate.
EDIT: Yes, 14D4.
EDIT: No.
EDIT: No. (“5.2.2 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. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.”)
EDIT: yes, now we’re back into insufficient losing chances.
Finally, I note that this kind of position seem highly likely to result in a draw under 14K (quintuple repetition or 75 moves without a pawn move or capture); see also Blitz 8 (draw claims under regular rules are alllowed in blitz other than ILC).
The critical qualifier was that it was deadlocked with no way either could penetrate even if the opponent helped. An example would be White Ke1, Pa4, Pc4, Pf4, Ph4 Black Ke8 Pa5, Pc5, Pf5, Ph5.
With no legal sequence of moves that can lead to checkmate then 14D4 exists and either player can successfully claim a draw, regardless of whether or not the flag has fallen. 14D4 is not “insufficient losing chances”. It recognizes that losing is impossible with legal play.
Note that blitz rule 8 a says that draw claims in regular chess can also be made in blitz with some listed adjustments. “Insufficient losing chances” is adjusted but not “no legal moves leading to checkmate”.
I would allow the draw in blitz.
Add a lever (allowing at least one theoretical way to win, even if it is a helpmate) and there is no valid draw claim unless 14H is in play in a game with no delay (and even that might be handled by simply putting a delay clock on and cutting the claimants time in half).
True, but then it goes on to state only some of the ways the game can end in a draw in sub-rules 8a-8d which makes things confusing.
Isn’t the main “insufficient losing chances” rule the same in regular and blitz now that it’s a variation under both? If a tournament simply stated that ILC claims are allowed without any further variation, wouldn’t the rule be the same regardless of if it is regular or blitz? One could theoretically use a variation on variation 14H (such as the TD Tip in the blitz rules about ILC but that TD Tip is garbage and it’s only a Tip, not a rule).