Insufficient material to win on time

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Rule 14E (“insufficient material to win on time”) says that a player cannot win on time with a lone knight, or a lone bishop, or two knights vs no pawns, unless he has a forced win.

99% of the time, this rule is a reasonable compromise between two absurd extremes. (One extreme would be to let a player win on time with just a minor piece and no plausible winning chances. The opposite extreme would be to deny a player a win on time just because he is “probably” not winning.)

There are, however, a few cases where 14E seems to produce unsatisfactory results. Here’s one:

white: Kh8, Ph5 black: Kf8, Nf3
This is not a forced win for black. White can draw easily with 1. Kh7, followed by keeping his king as far from the corner as possible.

Suppose, instead, that white’s time expires in the above position. He can then claim a draw under 14E.

Black, however, would prefer that the game continue, just in case white plays the plausible 1. h6?? giving black a forced win.

If white’s draw claim is granted (with the pawn still on h5), isn’t black being screwed? It seems to me black ought to be entitled to a reasonable test of white’s technique.

Can anybody suggest a possible rule change, or wording change, that would account for this sort of position, without running afoul of either of the extremes this rule was designed to avoid?

Bill Smythe

2

I doubt it. How far back should we go? What if you put the pawn on h2? Or how about two Knights against King? Should Black have to show that he won’t move his King the wrong way after he’s been driven to the edge of the board ten of fifteen moves in the future?

If you want an extreme case, try this one: W: Kc7, Bh3; B: Ka8, Pa7/d6, Qe1, Ra6/b2, Bh5. Obviously, if Black’s flag falls in this position the game is drawn. But suppose he plays 1. … Rb8 (never mind why he should). White would then have a mate in 6. So, if Black’s flag falls before his hand releases the piece on b8 the game is drawn, but after he takes his hand off the piece he can lose on time? So it seems.

3

Bill: Well, my first reaction was, “but doesn’t the insufficient-material provision of 14E come into effect only when the opponent (Black, in your example) claims a time-forfeit win? If Black wants the game to go on, all he has to do is ignore White’s flag fall.” But the rulebook says no, 14E says “when a player exceeds the time limit”. Although the first sentence of Rule 14, and the Rule 14E TD Tip, speak about a “Rule 14E claim”, the Rule 14E itself says nothing about a claim at all - it makes the draw automatic upon the fall of the flag. I suppose this is reasonable, since it doesn’t make sense to let the player with no time play for a win, and it is generally not supposed to be sensible to let the player with insufficient material play for a win either.

My second reaction, though, was that maybe the rule could be reworded so that it comes into effect only when a player makes a Rule 13C time-forfeit claim. That way Black, in your example, could let the game continue. Here is the problem, though: how are you going to make white move? His or her time has already expired. Any rewording of this rule in order to make the game continue in these uncommon positions where a player has only a knight but has “winning chances” also would have to impose a new time control on the other player. But then you get into questions like “what was the original time control of the event”, “were they using a delay clock”, “how much time does the opponent have”, etc.

The other way to solve it would be to carve out an exception to 14E and allow Black’s time forfeit claim, but I think there’s a big difference between “I have some hope of a win, so I would like the game to continue” (which I can sort of see) and “I have some hope of a win if the game were to continue, so I want to win the game on time after all” (which I think is too much for a player with King and Knight and no forced win to really expect).

But if you would like the game to continue, how much time do you think it’s fair to give White?

Ultimately I think that the number of positions where Player A has “winning chances” (but not a forced win) with a King and Bishop, King and Knight, or King and two Knights vs. King and Pieces is probably so small that it’s not worth making rules for it.

I also had another thought, but I’ll put that in another post.

p>

4

True. I was thinking along the following lines:

  1. A player in an unwanted 14E draw situation may request a one-minute, ten-move extension of the game.

  2. The TD has the option of rejecting the request and declaring the 14E draw. (This is a good way to handle frivolous claims.)

  3. If the TD decides to honor the request, he puts one minute on the requestor’s opponent’s clock. This opponent is then required to make 10 moves before his time expires.

3a. If the opponent fails to make ten moves, the requestor wins (unless, at time expiration, the requestor no longer has even a help-mate).

3b. If, on the other hand, the opponent makes ten moves, the game is drawn, unless the requestor now has a forced win.

In my original example:

white: Kh8, Ph5 black: Kf8, Nf3
– the sequence might run like this:

White is unsure how to continue, but figures he has a draw under 14E, so he just lets his time expire, then claims a draw.

Black objects, and requests a one-minute, ten-move extension. The TD puts one minute on white’s clock.

White makes ten moves without losing on time, and without getting into a forced losing position, so the game is drawn.

Or, white runs out of time, or gets into a forced losing position, so black wins.

This should take care of any reasonable K+N vs K+RP position, or, for that matter, any other plausible position where 14E may be questionable. This includes John Hillery’s quasi-self-mate in six.

Exactly – and I think the one-minute, ten-move extension recognizes the difference properly.

K+N vs K+RP comes up every once in a while, and seems worth the trouble.

Bill Smythe

5

Last year at the Amateur Team, I had someone insist on playing out K+N vs. K+B, long after everyone else wanted to go home.

Wouldn’t your proposal have the drawback of requiring a TD to deal with each claim individually? This is no big deal for a 20-player club tournament, but many of the rules were explicitly designed to accomodate the Big Tournament organizers. If you had half a dozen people at the World Open simultaneously make such claims, there could be difficulties.

6

14E is rare enough so that I doubt there would be half a dozen simultaneous claims, even at the World Open. And even if there were, five of them would probably be frivolous and could be dismissed quickly.

Bill Smythe