In the August 2010 Chess Life for Kids, GM Evans answers his “best question” in a way that appears to be at best misleading, and at worst absolutely wrong. Yuanqi Cai asks a question about whether two knights count as mating material for 14E purposes. GM Evans then appears to answer about 14D, but he never correctly addresses Mr. Cai’s question directly, and in fact implies that K + B vs. K + B (of opposite colors) should likewise be declared a win if the opponent’s flag falls. He is in direct opposition to 14E2 and 14E3.
I feel very sorry for Mr. Cai when he makes a claim based on GM Evans’ column, only to find out that GM Evans either didn’t answer his question or was dead wrong.
Are these rules different in scholastic chess? I’m not being facetious. I know that the scholastic committee/council has unilaterally changed some of the rules, and was wondering if this was one of them.
I have not seen the Evans article mentioned, but I believe this is a case of how FIDE and USCF rules differ.
In FIDE events, (played under FIDE rules), all you need to win on time is a position where mate is possible, i.e. “can be constructed.” It’s either funny, weird or bad, depending on your POV: A player with hanging flag, with K+R vs. K+N, plays on hoping for a blunder. His flag falls—under USCF rules, it’s a draw; under FIDE rules, the player with K+R loses on time, since you could construct a position in which the player with K+N mates.
Perhaps a veteran TD with experience directing under both FIDE rules and USCF rules can enlighten us further. Of course, widespread use of increment will all but eliminate this quagmire…