But what’s the point of having a special rule for blitz that K+N vs K is a claimable draw only when someone flags? The rules should be the same except when there’s a compelling reason to vary.
As a practical matter, I’d doubt if there is usually enough TD coverage to quickly handle multiple such claims at the same time, and handling them slowly (particularly if a claim is erroneous) can significantly impact the quick schedule of a blitz event. Waiting until after a flag means that there is no resumption of the game after an erroneous claim.
P.S. It looks like the main thrust of the rule is to state that such a position is still drawn even if there is a flag or an illegal move. I’d be likely to simply declare it a draw after unobtrusively verifying the position (the only possible result barring people illegally putting pieces back on the board) so that the tournament can keep moving. The only time I can see such a position not ending in a draw would be in a position like: White Ka6, Ne6, Rc7; Black Kb8; Black plays Kxc7 and claimes an insufficient mating material draw (8d) following an illegal move. Such a position will likely require TD involvement anyway (either due to the immediate Nxc7 claim of a win - with the result that White wins, or after a reflexive Kb5 and White then realizing what happened - with the result being a draw).
But what if you play in a Blitz tournament where a variation is not posted (like most blitz tournaments). In this case do “triple occurrence of position” and “the 50-move-rule” exist?
If I understand the discussion, let me say that I see 14D and 14E as being needed to distinguish the difference between b both[/b] players having insufficient material [to win on time] (14D), and b [/b] only one player having insufficient material to win on time (14E).
Under 14D if neither player has mating material, then the game shouldn’t continue, and a draw is in order. 14E simply provides that a player who doesn’t have mating material can’t win on time. Under 14E, player (A) may not have mating material, but his opponent might. If (A’s) opponent flags, (A) can’t win, but if (A) flags, then (B) does win.
I know you all knew that. 
I would say “no”, based on the way it’s written. Since a score sheet is necessary to prove the claim, if one player objected to the TD using other means to verify the draw, I believe the TD would have to deny the claim.
Note that the 50-move rule was never specifically provided as a drawing option. The previous editions did mention all other Sudden-Death rules being in force. ??
Either it was intentional to leave the triple repetition of position out of the rules, since it was in the previous two editions, or someone didn’t research the WBCA rules enough.
Rule 14D is not (directly) concerned with “winning on time.” Its equivalent in the FIDE Laws of Chess is Article 9.7 (the “dead position” rule):
This is worded more strongly than USCF rule 14D insofar as it includes “this immediately ends the game” (the same language as used in USCF rules 13A (checkmate) and 14A (stalemate). So, for example, under the FIDE rules, as soon as a player releases a piece in a legal move that produces a dead position, and then his flag falls, the game is still drawn. The point is that, once a dead position occurs on the board, the only possible result of playing the game out is a draw, so the outcome of the game is known. (Of course, this disregards the possibility that one of the players could resign in a dead position.)
One of the issues I have with USCF rules in general is the need to decide whether a claim is necessary for the rule to be applied. I infer from the wording of rule 14D (“The game is drawn when …”) that a claim is not necessary. Compare this with the wording of rule 14C (triple occurrence of position): “The game is drawn upon a correct claim by the player on the move when …”
Is a player allowed to resign a drawn position such as king and bishop versus king?
Sure, why not? TDs aren’t instructors, or coaches, they’re directors. That’s one of the reasons I’m against the idea of helping scholastic players determine whether or not the position is checkmate. When asked, I generally try to get the players to agree, and if they don’t, then I simply make the ruling.
I am not convinced the question has as clear-cut an answer as Mr. Winchester states. The pertinent question is when the game actually ends in a draw. Under the FIDE Laws of Chess Article 9.7 (the rule covering “dead positions”), the game immediately ends in a draw as soon as a legal move creates a position on the board in which no sequence of legal moves can result in checkmate for either side. So, under FIDE rules, neither player in a K+B vs. K position could resign the game because the game is already over.
An interesting question is whether rule 14D works the same way. The beginning of rule 14D reads “The game is drawn when one of the following endings arises, in which the possibility of a win is excluded for either side”. There is no reference to a player having to make a claim that the game is drawn. Contrary to Mr. Winchester’s assertion, I would argue that “the game is drawn when …” should be interpreted as “at the moment a legal move has been determined which produces one of the following endings, the move is also completed and the game immediately ends.” If this is correct, then it is not possible for either player in a K+B vs. K ending to resign simply because the game is already over at that point.
I can’t argue with your interpretation, Ken 
It’s much like, if not the exact same as, “Checkmate immediately ends the game”, with an agreed draw being impossible. I believe it has been said that anything that happens after checkmate is irrelevant in the result of the game. The same must hold true, I suppose, in Ken’s case.
I stand corrected.
If a position arises where the position on the board is drawn, the director should fold the pieces in at once and declare it so. This action would avoid a player being able to claim a win by an illegal move (blitz) or needlessly dragging on a position with a result.
Once the game is over (which it would be in this case) nothing which follows is relevant. So, there’s no need for the director to go to that extreme. Simply declare it drawn and move on. Besides, folding the piece in wouldn’t necessarily prevent further questioning; it might create more. 
OK, now that we’ve settled that one, let me throw in a monkey wrench. I love doing that. 
In this position, as soon as white touches his king, the game is over (drawn).
Agreed?
Bill Smythe
Not agreed.
Under USCF rules the bishop can still be moved if the opponent does not declare touch move. In both USCF and FIDE it needs the COMPLETION of a move to trigger the draw.
I believe Mr. Wiewel is correct. USCF rule 14D reads “The game is drawn when one of the following ending arises, …” (emphasis mine). It is true that once White touches the king, the only possible legal move is Kxd2, which then yields a dead position. However, White is still under the obligation to determine that legal move before his flag falls. If White’s flag were to fall before White has determined the legal move Kxd2, Black would win the game. The fact that White’s only legal move would result in a dead position is immaterial.
I concede that’s what the FIDE and USCF rules say, but is it logical? It could be argued that a dead position has already arisen (“The game is drawn when one of the following ending arises”) once white has touched his king, because there is no legal sequence of moves (a first move with the bishop is not legal because another piece has already been touched) leading to checkmate.
You see, I sometimes prefer to discuss how things ought to be, rather than just how they are.
Bill Smythe
As Mr. Wiewel points out, under USCF rules, White could move the bishop after touching the king. If Black does not claim a violation of the “touch-move” rule, the director does not intervene and White’s move stands.
Therefore, yes, to the extent that a director witnessing a blatant violation of a rule and doing nothing about it is logical, I claim Mr. Wiewel and I are logically correct.
Consider the following (ridiculous?) hypothetical position with White to move:
Suppose White touches the knight. Would you claim that at that point Black is checkmated? What if White’s flag falls before White releases the knight on g6? If this is your contention, how would you rewrite rules 13A and 9E to handle this?
Let me give a general answer to this sort of question, before I proceed to the specifics.
The purist in me hates to see rules that conflict with logic. This is when I start talking about what the rules should be, not what they presently are.
So, when I’m wearing my purist hat, the following seem axiomatic to me:
- Once a position arises where a specific physical outcome over the board (white checkmates, black checkmates, or draw by stalemate or repetition) is no longer possible through any sequence of legal moves, the corresponding outcome (white wins, black wins, or draw, via resignation, agreement, flag fall, ruling, etc) should be disallowed.
- Once two of the three possible outcomes (white wins, black wins, draw) have been disallowed according to the above, the game is over, with the third outcome.
- The phrase “legal moves” in the above takes into account the touch-move and determined-move rules. Once a player has touched a piece that can be legally moved or captured, any move not involving the touched piece is not a legal move. Similarly, once a player has determined a legal move, any other move is not a legal move.
It would follow, for example, that:
- Once a piece (that has any legal move) has been touched, if every legal move of that piece creates either stalemate or a dead position, then the game is over (draw).
- Once a piece (that has any legal move) has been touched, if every legal move of that piece delivers checkmate, the game is over (that player wins). (That takes care of the diagrammed position above.)
- A still more extreme example: If, even without a piece being touched, all legal moves deliver checkmate, the game is over (the player on move wins).
- Suppose white has only two legal moves. One delivers immediate checkmate, the other leaves black with only one legal move, which delivers immediate checkmate. In that case, a draw (by agreement) is not allowed; white must make a move.
Somebody please think up a position fitting that last one – this could get interesting.
Now, of course, certain items of reality interfere with my utopian, purist feelings. One is the wording of the USCF touch-move rule, where it is stated (10J) that, if a player wishes to claim a touch-move violation by his opponent, he must do so before he himself touches a piece. This implies, but does not state – no rule writer would dare state explicitly, I suppose – that it is legal to violate the touch-move rule if the opponent does not object.
Ken, maybe you could fill me in on the FIDE viewpoint here. If a FIDE arbiter witnesses a touch-move violation, is he required to enforce touch-move, even if the opponent doesn’t say anything (or, worse yet, doesn’t want the rule enforced)? If so, we may have yet another wrinkle.
Note, by the way, that in the last two of the four examples above, the touch-move rule plays no role. So, perhaps in those two cases at least, the purist view should prevail?
Bill Smythe
Under FIDE rules, an arbiter who observes any rule violation must enforce the rule and take corrective action. There is no need for the opponent to complain if the arbiter witnesses the violation.
In that case, perhaps the purist approach could prevail, at least in FIDE-rated events, even in cases where touch-move is involved.
Yippee!
Bill Smythe