How about 8 pawns and king vs. 8 pawns and king, all locked with kings behind their respective pawn chains. In this situation it is impossible for one side to even check, much less mate. A flag falls. Insufficient losing chances are claimed. (More realistic might be 4 sets of locked pawns on the a4-a5, c4-c5, e4-e5, g4-g5 squares with no other pieces than the kings behind their respective pawns.)
How would you rule:
a) if there’s a delay clock?
b) if there’s no delay clock?
Should the rules include this particular situation which is harder to get mated than 2 knights vs. king?
Should the current rule be more flexible?
Well, if the flag falls, then the game is over. It is too late for a claim.
However, with no delay if an ILC was made I would grant the draw claim. There is no way that a C-player couldn’t draw a master in this situation. In fact, a monkey could draw a master since there is no way for either king to make any progress, and no possible pawn sac or other complications. In this case, it is the player’s responsibility to claim ILC BEFORE flag fall.
If they are using a delay clock, then I gess they would be getting to 50-moves or triple repetition. I don’t have my rulebook with me right now (but I will look it up when I get home), is there a way for a TD to intervene in a dead position when there is a delay clock and checkmate is impossible?
If they don’t have time to keep score, they can request a TD help count moves for a 50 move claim. I don’t know the exact wording of the rule, so I don’t know if the TD will write down all the details to support a repetition claim, but I saw this happen at a tournament a few months ago with the TD just counting moves.
There was a dead drawn position and one player was living on the delay. A couple of people were watching the game, and one of the TD’s noticed it and stood there watching. The player who was just about out of time and didn’t have time to write down moves to make a 50 move claim got kind of frustrated and sort of looked and said “Can’t I get someone to count moves or something?”. At that point, the TD who was watching sat down and grabbed a pen and paper from someone. He (the TD) had intentionally waited for a player to request his aid before he intervened, even though he saw what was going on before that.
If a flag is down, no claim of insufficient losing chances can be made - no matter what kind of clock is in use. The game is over - mark it up and leave the playing room, please.
If the flags are both up, and there is a delay clock on the game, then no claim of insufficient losing chances can be made. Warn the player making the claim on the first instance, and penalize by adding two minutes to the opponent’s clock on subsequent claims.
If the flags are both up, and there is a non-delay clock on the game, then double-check to see if there really is no way for either player to screw up. It’s not enough to see that you know how to hold the draw - you must consider if there is a significant chance that a Master might swindle a C player from this position. If there is no swindle, accept the claim, mark up the score, etc. If there is such a swindle, deny the claim (probably without prejudice).
Beware of flanking maneuvers that work if the defense is not vigilant.
Beware of sacrificial breakthroughs that work if the defense is not vigilant.
Usually, the presence of multiple pawns on the board is a red flag - telling you that you actually have to look carefully at the position.
With no, or very few, pawns on the board, a balanced position tends to qualify for an insufficient losing chances claim, and you need to look for reasons why it is NOT. With many pawns on the board, the burden of proof is on the other side, and you should start from the presumption that the claim is INvalid and then see if you can analyze deeply enough to accept the claim.
Almost by definition, the drawing technique should be obvious to a C player. it doesn’t matter how strong the players actually are - but it might matter how strong the TD is! If you are the TD and you are a D player or below, it is useful to ask the opinion of stronger players - but beware!!! - a strong player may not appreciate the rules and may declare positions as “dead draws” which do NOT qualify under the “insufficient losing chances” rule. Your best bet is to find a strong player who is ALSO a competent TD.
All of you, except John Hillery, are overlooking that both of these positions are automatic draws under 14D:
14D. Insufficient material to continue. The game is drawn when one of the following endings arises, in which the possibility of a win is excluded for either side … 14D4. No legal moves leading to checkmate by opponent. There are no legal moves that could lead to the player being checkmated by the opponent.
These positions are automatic draws, regardless of whether any flag is up or down, regardless of what kind of clock is in use, regardless of whether either player claims a win on time, even regardless of whether either player claims a draw. The draw occurs as soon as the position is reached.
If the players, out of ignorance, mistakenly report a win for one of the players, the situation should be handled using 15I. Results reported incorrectly.
Thank you Bill and John, I hadn’t my rulebook handy when I submitted the question. Let’s up the ante now to the next level. What if, in the pawn chain question of Bill’s diagram A (thanks, didn’t know we can add diagrams), we added one White rook beside the White King on c2. Now, the Rook, which can never ever capture a pawn, can itself be captured by a pawn, which could lead to both sides theoretically possibly winning.
How would you rule based on a claim of 14D4:
if Black’s flag falls?
if White’s flag falls?
would your ruling change if the flag fell with White’s Rook en prise on c3?
would your ruling change with a time-delay clock?
would your ruling change if both sides had a rook behind their pawns?
would you have the rules be more explicit to cover this situation?
does the phantom “spirit of the rules” come into effect in any way (i.e. “out of the scope of this rulebook”)?
Just trying to brighten up your humdrum Fridays.
Ben
So Hal, at least in some sense of the word, would penalize the White player for having an extra Rook. If the Rook were off the board, a draw would have been awarded. But now that he has a rook, he can technically lose the game.
Interesting hypothetical situation, at any rate. How many other non-tactical situations is it better to have less material than more? Something to keep in your trivia pockets.
Hey, a couple of points…don’t call me or anyone else a troll. If you need to report something to a moderator feel free but a post like that serves no purpose and is mean-spirited. Secondly, I have never heard a response to this question even if you think it is “truly thrashed out”, so I would honestly appreciate your feedback. If you would like to point me to the many links where it was thrashed out, that would be helpful. Finally, if you knew it was a draw beforehand, you might have mentioned that point. As far as I can see, Bill correctly called you and the rest of us (except John) out on it.
I repeat my previous question…should a player be punished for actually playing better chess? If the White player in my previous hypothetical situation had lost his rook from some error, he would have been given a draw if his flag had fallen. By playing good chess he saves his rook, but earns a loss. This seems to be against common sense. I think it can stir up healthy debate, and no matter what an applicant decides on the subject might make an interesting TD test question.
There are other cases where having additional material harms your position. If your opponent has K+2N then you are much better off with a lone K as opposed to a K + P(on original square). White’s Kh8, Ph7 versus black’s Qg2 Ka1 is much better than if white had an additional Na2 (Q->g6->f7->f8). Many other stalemate positions are lost with additional material. Playing a “better” game and having more material is not always better.
Good point, Jwiewel. I was not very clear earlier when I said except due to tactics, and honestly meant to include your stalemate exceptions. How about this: is there any other rule in the rulebook that helps a player if he has a worse position than otherwise?
Hal is correct. Either there is some legal sequence of moves leading to mate, or there is not. If there isn’t, the game is immediately drawn. If there is, you have to play it out.
I think I agree with you guys despite this seemingly special case. Obviously, if nothing else, you guys are just following the rules which is a major point in favor of forfeiting either side in this +rook case. Basically, the worst that can happen is one side loses on time, and both sides learn a lesson, and it never happens again. The other way either simply breaks the rules, or if the rules get rewritten, get exponentially more confusing. I might claim that the +rook scenario is harder to lose than the two knights scenario already enumerated in the rulebook, and on that grounds should be a draw. However a player with 9 queens vs. a lone pawn whose flag falls, still loses on time, which should be hardest of all to lose of those three. Maybe someone will one day write a fair rule to the effect that if you are a queen ahead in the game, your time-forfeit losses are draws, but that seems to add a lot of confusion for not much benefit, when you simply go back to one quick loss educates both parties forever, and non-delay clocks are disappearing. Well, I’m still looking for other opinions, but I thank Hal and John for their wisdom and agree with them. If their opinions pro forfeit were different than the analysis above, I respectfully submit them to reply as well.
And, as I said before, I still think it would make a decent TD-test question.
With the rook, 14D no longer applies, since either side could now theoretically win.
14E does not apply either, since 14E covers only specific situations involving bishops and knights.
So the player must use his delay time to stave off defeat, or in the event of no delay, claim ILC and hope for a sympathetic TD.
As for the anomaly of a player with an “improved” position now losing because of it, well, that’s life. Chess, and life, are full of gambles. You might have the opportunity to force a draw by repetition, but instead choose to play for the win, and end up losing. I’m comfortable with that, and feel no need for a rule change.
(Side note, irrelevant but interesting: In your added-rook position, after 1.Rb2 Kf7, white can win by sacking at b4, but only if black suckers for it and takes the bait. )
I’m not going to bother with the mate in five requirement. Give black Kf8, Qg8, Bh8, Pd7, c6, b5 and white Kd4, Pa5, f6, g6, Rh6. White plays Rxh8 and after Qxh8 and g7+, black is a full queen ahead and yet will eventually lose with decent play by both sides.
What are you trying to say? That I am not trying to be fair? Obviously, if a rule existed that allowed something like what you describe it wouldn’t be a fair rule. Don’t claim that I’m advocating something I’m not. In fact, I didn’t even advocate for such a rule at all, merely speculating that someday one such will exist.
So you’re calling me an unfair troll, taking single quotes out of their contextual posts. What epithet is next?
)