First, this is a win for white, regardless of which side is to move (although with black to move it’s a little bit more complicated):
Let’s say that black flags in this position - obviously if white knows the rules, he’ll claim a win and demonstrate that there is a forced win in the position. Fairly simple…
Now consider the following position:
This is a draw with either side to move, however, if black (to move) plays 1…h3, then the position becomes lost.
So if black is playing and can’t figure out how to draw in this position, is black allowed to let his time run out and then draw because there is not a forced sequence of moves that leads to mate? What if, instead of just letting his time run out, black first touches the h pawn, then realizes that pushing the pawn to h3 will lead to a lost position and instead flags himself in the above position (instead of making the move and then flagging himself).
Under FIDE rules, it’s pretty simple to rule a win for white in any case because there exists at least one legal sequence of moves leading to a mate for white, but with USCF rules I’m not as convinced. Realistically, if I were the TD and I saw the black player touch the h4 pawn, I think I would rule a win for white (the move has been determined, even if it never gets completed, back to previous debates on this forum). I’m honestly not sure how I would rule if the h pawn remained untouched. Is there any precedent for a ruling here or can anyone think of similar situations that have occurred?
Rule 14E2 states that if you run out of time and the opponent has only a King and one minor piece and does not have a forced win the game is a draw. Here the win depends on a blunder by the opponent (…h3??), so there is no forced win. It’s analogous to why under USCF rules the ending of K+N+N vs K is a draw if the defender flags and does not have a forced win; a win is possible, but it requires the opponent to blunder in order to achieve it.
About a decade ago, such a situation occurred in a MO state championship.
Namely K+N v K+B. Under FIDE rules FlagFall = Loss; under USCF draw.
IMHO FIDE rule is far superior = I had always applied the model that once your flag is down, you lose control of move choice. Your opponent chooses legal moves for you.
It’s not hard to help mate from either side of B v N.
There was much discussion at this MO case, not sure of final result but somewhat recall it was a very reluctant USCF draw.
If tourney is rated in both FIDE+USCF, both would certainly be the same, and therefore Loss.
If it is only USCF rated, then Draw (is my understanding).
With modern clocks (delay or increment) it should not be a problem, although the case I mentioned might have had the complication of old style clock being replaced in time trouble with delay/increment, which could change the result.
This is utter ridiculousness; when has this ever been the case? It doesn’t even make sense, why would any move be made after a flag down has been claimed?
He’s not talking about moves actually being made, he’s talking about the analysis if the position. He’s basically describing the FIDE rules (which were also the USCF rules at various points in time).
