I was asked about the following scenario. It seemed to come down letter of the law verus spirit of the law. How would one rule in a situation like this?
White has a king and a queen. (a pawn promoted a few moves earlier.) Black has a king and an h pawn. Both players have less then 10 seconds each, and they’re playing with a time delay clock. (14H does not appy here.) White’s flag falls. Is it a draw based on 14E? It is not one of the positions mentioned under 14E, but white’s king is controlling h1 and g1 so even without the queen on the board, black is not going to promote.
Is the h pawn considered enough material to claim a win on time?
I’d like to hear how some of our esteemed NTDs or rulebook writers would handle this situation. I constantly hear players and coaches say a pawn is mating material, therefor one can claim a win. On the other hand rook pawns with the opposing king controlling the queening square is a draw.
If they’re playing with a delay clock, there’s really no excuse for White not being able to make moves that should eventually win the game, I would have no problem giving Black a win on time under those circumstances, he DOES have a pawn, if White blunders the queen away (which we’ve seen even good players do in time trouble) that could lead to a winnable position for Black.
Win. 14E is specific, not general – only the situations listed there count. Admittedly, this is a little illogical when you compare 14E2 (can’t win on time with K+B or K+N even though mate may be possible, and you would have to play nearly as badly to lose with Q vs. h-pawn), but that’s the way the rule reads.
I think 14E3 is really my last favorite rule. There are plenty of positions if someone isn’t paying attention that he could get mated in this endgame, and yet for some reason there is a rule against it. It seems unfair to have two players who would draw a K + Q + Q + R v K ending have a K + N + N v K ending automatically drawn. What is the reason for that particular case to be in the rules but no other “known draw”?
I’d be curious about the actual position. I’m guessing that the position was a standard K+Q vs K+hP draw and either:
A) the K+Q player played on gambling that the other player would make a losing mistake
or
B) the K+Q player didn’t realize it was a draw and used up the time trying to find the non-existent win.
If it was case A then I have no sympathy for the player, and if he opted to gamble then he pays the price if the gamble loses. If it was case B then I have some sympathy in that the player had this type of learning experience (the player still lost on time).
Case C would be if it actually was a win and the player gambled that he could win it before flagging, in which case I still have no real sympathy for the player if the gamble fails.
Even if a non-delay clock was being used and the player didn’t have time to take the pawn, an ILC claim could still be made.
I don’t know what the exact position though I don’t think the h pawn was advanced very far, and the white king was close the the queening square. I guess the possible drawing scenario would be black K controlling h1 and g1 and the pawn on h2 and white having to allow the promotion or give up stalemate. Outside of that scenario I’m having trouble picturing a case where the queen would not be able to force the pawn’s king away from the pawn and then have the white king come down and capture the pawn. It would seem to me that using the standard K&Q vs K mating method of driving the king to an edge would work here.
If there had not been a time delay clock, then white could have made an ILC claim and been given an immediate draw. Then the question would not have even arisen.
As a player I much prefer having a delay clock so that I have the opportunity to win a game like this. BDC (before delay clocks) I would reach a position like this and end out offering the opponent a draw, or if he didn’t take it, claim no losing chances.
If you take a thorough look at this ending, you’ll find that the only ways to get mated are (1) by voluntarily moving into the corner when you could move the other way, or (2) by failing to capture a hanging knight.
The insufficient material rule has always been messy since its inception. The rulebook has wrongly assumed the TD would have a knowledge of many drawn or easily drawn positions.
The usual scenario is a very well meaning TD/organizer who is U1200 in strength. He loves chess and doesn’t want to offend anyone. The easiest thing for him to do is to put down a clock with 5 second delay and make the players play out the game regardless of the position on the board. Who can blame him? He may not know what a C payer can do against a GM. He could turn to the highest rated payer for advice, but that player probably has a bias as to the result of the game in question. In the old days (pre-digital clocks), TD’s often let the players play on, except in cases of wrong B+RP v. K or Q+K v. Q+ K. The games were like NFL games where you just ran out of time even if you were on the one yard line.
Without absolute guidance on positions in the rulebook, the TD is at a loss in the gray areas, and there are many gray areas, about what is a true position of insufficient chances to win. The TD should not be put in a situation where he has to determine the quality of the game. The clock is his only way out. Unless the players act with sportsmanship and resolve the game for him. But heaven forbid that the players act with sportsmanship! I have only seen a few players who call their own flag or acquiesce to the hopelessess of winning a dead drawn positon. As a master and Senior TD, I usually would get players to end a game with a raised eyebrow, an adjournment card, or a sigh, but a TD who is U1200 should not be pressured to make a qualitative decision.
Are you referring to 14D or 14E? Either way, both of these rules are explicit. No significant knowledge of the positions is required.
And that’s fine. Even in a position which qualifies under 14D or 14E, there is no real harm in continuing the game with a delay clock. After the inevitable draw is realized by all, everybody will be satisfied.
Maybe the chess world would be better off if all our TDs were rated under 1200.
Agreed about the clock. Of course, there can be no “absolute guidance” which can cover all 5 trillion trillion trillion trillion possible chess positions adequately. Just a few can be covered, as 14D and 14E do. After that, the delay clock is usually the best solution.
I think you’re underestimating the strength of the typical TD.
Since 1/1/2007 there have been 1425 TDs listed as a chief or assistant chief in a tournament or section.
Of those only 214 have a published rating under 1200, 193 of those are club TDs.
Another 66 TDs have no published regular rating, 52 of those are club TDs, for whom there is no requirement to have a published rating. (I assume the others all became TDs before there was a rating requirement to become a certified TD, including one NTD and IA, Carol Jarecki.)
The two highest 100 point intervals are 1600 (with 157 IDs) and 1700 (with 153 IDs.)
So roughly 1/7 of TD’s are U1200. I think that actually confirms the point that many TD’s aren’t qualified to judge these endgames. And the standard everyone keeps mentioning is the TD judging if a class C player could draw a grandmaster. So how many TD’s are U1400, since that’s the low border of class C?
And who came up with the “class C vs grandmaster” standard anyway? Not all class C players are the same - many are very good at endgames, while others are completely clueless in the endgame and are better at other areas of the game. I recently drew a lone pawn endgame at a tournament, and a guy with a 1550 rating who was watching insisted afterwards that my opponent with the pawn could win. The king wasn’t in front of his pawn, and I was able to grab the king opposition. Game over, dead draw, but a class C player didn’t know that. Luckily, he’s not a TD.
As a C player, I’ve always thought the ‘C player vs Grandmaster’ rule didn’t take into account the physical or mental state of a C player placed in such a position.
Here are all the rules that contain the wording “C player.”
14H2c. The claim is clearly correct.
A director who believes the claim is clearly correct should declare the game drawn. The draw shall be awarded if the director believes that a Class C player would have little chance to lose the position against a Master with both players having ample time. The exact losing chances of any position cannot be calculated, but a director wishing a more precise standard may consider little to mean less than 10 percent. A director unsure whether a position meets the above standard should use option 14H2a or 14H2b. See also 14I, Advice on claims of insufficient losing chances in sudden death under rule 14H.
14I2. Types of positions.
In complex positions often neither side has a valid claim, while in simple positions both sides may have one. For instance, with much material on the board a Master may be down a piece without compensation but still has better than a small chance to beat a C player. But in endings such as described in 14I3, even a player behind in material should sometimes be awarded the draw.
14I3. Opposite-colored bishop endings.
In some opposite-colored bishop endings (one player having a light-squared bishop and the other player a dark-squared bishop) with most or all pawns fixed, a Master, even if a pawn or two ahead, may have little chance to outplay a C-player; these positions should be ruled draws.
I’m a C player and TD as well. For me, the drawing technique would need to be plainly obvious, with little study. I would use my “Ben Finegold” rule: Could I hold a draw against Ben in that position?
