Stripping away the deadwood, the real question here is whether a draw under 14D is automatic or contingent. This, in turn, depends on how the first sentence of 14D should be construed. Should it be “The game is immediately drawn when one of the following situations occurs,” or “The game is drawn upon presentation of a valid claim that one of the following situations has occurred”? The latter is defensible, but I think it leads to logical consequences which most players would find distasteful.
Once again, for some reason you cannot seem to figure out what Terry is saying. First of all, his example has nothing whatever to do with “insufficient losing chances”. Second, he is not requiring anybody to demonstrate a mate in one.
Terry is talking about a position in which there is a legal sequence of moves LEADING to a position where mate in one cannot be prevented even though it is the defender’s move.
Consider, for example, the following position:
White: Kh8, Ph2.
Black: Kf8, Nb1.
– with white to move. Certainly, there is no mate in one.
There is, however, a sequence of legal moves, namely:
- h4 Nd2 2. h5 Ne4 3. h6 Ng5
– LEADING to the following position:
White: Kh8, Ph6.
Black: Kf8, Ng5.
– in which white, even though it is his move, cannot avoid mate in one.
Do you understand, now?
Bill Smythe
Localtdforsythe,
Your recent posts are extremely inappropriate and rude. Whatever your personal political and social beliefs may be, please do not include them in this discussion group. This is a forum to discuss chess.
I have submitted a formal complaint against your recent posts.
I would encourage other members of this discussion group to do the same if they are as upset by these posts as I am.
The inappropriate posts, including those that quoted the inappropriate material, have been deleted.
The USCF reserves the right to delete inappropriate posts and to take further actions against those who cannot behave themselves.
Mike Nolan, USCF Database Consultant and Forum Moderator
Thank you Mr. Nolan. We appreciate it.
Amen.
And it was also appropriate to delete my post (and others) which responded to the original inappropriate post.
Bill Smythe
Thanks so much Nolan.
OK - I have just always heard from other TDs that as long as the opponent of the player whose flag has fallen has a pawn on the board, that that pawn is sufficient “mating material”. I have always argued this opinion. I was always of the opinion that there are certain “dead postions”, and the one I listed in my original post isn’t the only one of its kind. I just want to get it clear here: do you agree that it is incorrect to say that “as long as a player has a pawn on the board, that player has mating material”?
BTW: I have shown this position to other TDs (Seniors, not NTDs), and their conclusions have been that mating material exits. Bah humbug, I say!!
Bill: awhile back, pre 5th edition editing, there was a forum of sorts that Tim Just put together, and you and I had some back and forth arguments along the lines of this topic, I think. Do you recall this? You used to jovially criticize my opinions as the “Terry Mate” idea 
I’d like to see a transcript of that dialogue, if possible. Do you remember any of this?
Ninety-nine percent of the time, a pawn is “mating material”, because the defender can allow the pawn to queen, and then to checkmate the defender.
In your problem position, I don’t see how you could describe those pawns as “mating material”, because there is no physical way they could queen, even with cooperation between the players.
The rulebook (both 4th and 5th editions), you will notice, never uses the phrase “mating material” – and for good reason, I think. The phrase is emotionally charged, and means different things to different people.
Instead, rule 14D talks about “insufficient material to continue”. The same concept in FIDE is called a “dead position”. Whatever the name, the idea is that, in a position in which it is impossible for either player to achieve checkmate even if the other cooperates, the game is drawn.
Rule 14E, “insufficient material to win on time”, is a bit different. Here, sufficient material to win on time is expicitly defined as either a queen, a rook, a pawn, two pieces, or a forced mate – and in the case of two knights, the opponent must have at least one pawn.
Bill Smythe
I do indeed remember, though I don’t have a transcript.
The concept of “a sequence of moves leading to checkmate” came up so often in our conversation that I started referring to it as a “help-mate”. This is standard terminology, I believe, in the world of chess problems. For example, white has a help-mate if there is a sequence of moves (by both players) leading to black being checkmated.
Rule 14D then states that, if neither player has a help-mate, the game is drawn. A simple example is K+N vs K.
Another concept (introduced by you in our conversation) was “a position in which there is a sequence of moves leading to a position in which the defender, despite having the move, cannot avoid mate in one”. An example is:
White: Kh8, Ph2.
Black: Kf8, Nb1.
White to move.
In this case, nobody has a forced mate, but black has a bit more than just a help-mate, because the following sequence of moves:
- h4 Nd2 2. h5 Ne4 3. h6 Ng5
– leads to a position:
White: Kh8, Ph6
Black: Kf8, Ng5
– in which white cannot avoid mate in one, even though it is white’s move.
In our conversation, I called such a position a “help-mate-minus-one”, or, eventually, a “Terry-mate”, rather than typing out the above 27-word phrase each time.
This concept was important to our conversation because apparently, at one time, FIDE had a rule that, in order to win on time, a player had to have a Terry-mate (just a help-mate was not sufficient).
But I’m pretty sure USCF has never had such a rule, and I’m also pretty sure that FIDE has now reverted to requiring only a help-mate in order to win on time.
Bill Smythe
Bill’s example of a helpmate seems to point up some muddiness in 14E.
14E. Insufficient material to win on time
14E2. King and bishop or king and knight. Opponent has only king and bishop or king and knight and does not have a forced win.
Now consider Bill’s example of a helpmate with
"White: Kh8, Ph2.
Black: Kf8, Nb1.
White to move. "
which doesn’t become a “forced win” until a few moves later. This proves that both White and Black can checkmate the other especially given the help-mate circumstance.
Now let’s suppose White’s flag has fallen, Black has called it to claim a win on time, and White has protested by claiming a 14E2 draw.
The letter of 14E2 would seem to allow White to claim a draw even if his flag has fallen since Black has only king and knight. In my USCF 5th Ed book, FIDE Article 5.2 doesn’t use the word help-mate, but it does say “any series of legal moves” which, barring a contradictory example, seems to be equivalent to help-mate. The help-mate standard of FIDE would seem to exclude White from successfully claiming a draw since his pawn could actually hinder his drawing attempts. Personally, I like the demonstrable help-mate standard since it seems clearer than language designed to tiptoe around “how many moves until a forced win”. With White’s flag down in Terry’s example, I would like to rule a draw. With White’s flag down in Bill’s example, I would like to rule a win for Black.
I was going to point out that 14D doesn’t mention flags until I reread Bill’s post that already addressed this issue with the language “the game is drawn”.
Perhaps my concept of the clock is that when one side’s flag falls, the opponent gets to play both sides and if he can demonstrate any legal mate, including help-mate, then he should get the win. Otherwise it’s a draw. Before the flags fall, the struggling side gets to actively assist in his defense and justice is served when he can demonstrate it under the 14H Insufficient losing chances with a delay clock. After he flags, he only can watch to see if the opponent can demonstrate a help-mate.
White: Kh8, Ph2.
Black: Kf8, Nb1.
White to move.
Agreed in the first case, but I would feel extremely uncomfortable in the second.
The point of 14E is to allow a player to claim a draw when his opponent does not even have enough material to force mate against a lone king. Opponent’s K+N vs player’s entire army would be a good example, even if there is a helpmate. K vs K+N+N would be another example. Surely it would be a travesty to allow the lone N (or the two Ns) to win on time.
On the other hand, there are borderline cases which are extremely troublesome. In the example we have been discussing, such an unpleasant position arises after two moves:
White: Kh8, Ph5.
Black: Kf8, Ne4.
White to move.
If white’s flag is down, I’d hate to rule a win for black, since he has only a knight, and all white needs to do is move his king to stop all the nonsense.
On the other hand, I’d hate to rule a draw, since it seems extremely likely that white will blunder on the very next move (especially since he has just pushed the pawn twice, needlessly).
On balance, I prefer 14E the way it is, to avoid giving a win to somebody who could not force mate against a lone king and who does not have a forced win.
The only really satisfactory solution seems to be something slightly complicated, such as a one-minute, ten-move extension of the game. That could work along the following lines, in the above example:
-
White’s flag falls, black claims a win, white claims insufficient material (by black) to win on time.
-
Director sees this is one of those borderline, uncomfortable situations, so rules a one-minute, ten-move game extension.
-
Director gives white one minute on his clock, and adds two minutes to black’s clock.
-
The game continues for ten more moves. If white’s flag falls during these ten moves, he loses. But if, after ten moves, white’s flag is still up and black does not have a forced win, the game is drawn.
I know, I know, some say this idea is too radical. But that’s happened before (such as the ten-move limit on correcting illegal moves), and radical ideas have often been accepted eventually. How about it, folks?
Bill Smythe
It started as a CCA rule. When Bill Goichberg switched the World Open to SD in the mid-80s, the question of “insufficient losing chances” immediately arose. Early attempts to solve it by rule were met by increasingly ingenious counterexamples from those of us with a nasty sense of humor. Most of this became obsolete with the arrival of TD clocks.
No. If the flag fell before the dead position occurred, then we have a standard time-forfeit claim (same case as a player who doesn’t get his piece to the mating square before the flag falls). If the dead position arose before the flag fall, the game is drawn and further play is irrelevant.
Geeze, I spent 20 minutes writing my reply to this, in rebuttle mode, only to realize that I was apparently having a brain fart - AGAIN! Bill, you’re correct, and my question has been answered. Thank you!.
BTW: You can find the following in the 4th editoin of USCFs Rules:(p. 355 of the 4th edition). FIDE Regulations for Five-Minute (Blitz) Chess, Rule 14cii. 14. The game is won by the player: c. Whose opponent’s flag falls first, at any time before the game is otherwise ended provided: ii “he has sufficient mating material. Mating material requires that a position be possible in which mate in one is forced (opponent, to move, cannot avoid mate next move)”. Please note that the USCF Rules Committee had adopted this same language in their meetings following the publication of the 3rd edition, and subsequently printed in the Rating Supplements.
I’m not sure about this help-mate thing, though, since I find no mention of this term in the rulebook, though I do understand what a helpmate is.
On to other topics - coming up!! 
It is interesting to note that my visit to this forum had paid off. My kids went to an scholastic tournament today, one of my girl who just started learnig chess had a problem making a mate against a lone King. My daughter had K, P, R, & Q while her opponent only had K. Believe me we had gone over several times with mating basics, but some kids have more trouble understanding than the others.
As it happenned, while my daughter keep jockeying her Q around (for about 10 min) making a check, her time runs out. It was declared a draw. One other spectator (Not the TD) keeps saying that my daughter should have lost since she runs out of time, I told him the rule requires a mating material to win on time. And happily advice him to login to this forum to learn some basic rules.
Actually I was surprised the TD did not intervene to declare a draw early on. I had counted more than 50 moves (without capture or such) myself.
The TD is not allowed to intervene in games, with some minor exceptions. See rule 21D on page 88 in the 5th edition of the rulebook.
Tim Just
5th edition rulebook editor
TDs do not like to intervene, unless requested to do so by one of the players. And this is as it should be.
I’ve got to admit, though, that in scholastic events, the temptation to intervene may be overwhelming, and intervention may occasionally be necessary.
Your daughter’s opponent probably should have asked the TD to begin a 50-move count, when it became apparent that she might not know the technique. The TD could then declare a draw when 50 moves without a capture or pawn move had been played.
Bill Smythe
Thanks for the reminder. Mr Just.
You are absolutely correct. Heck it is my own daughter, but watching her straggle for about 10 minutes makes me want to stop the game and say… “Honey, I don’t think you will make it, so let just give your opponent a draw and start the next round.”
As far as intervening to scholastic players, I’ve seen several cases were the TD’s correct players (illegal moves, erroneosly claiming checkmate, etc.)
Parental intervention in a tournament game is usually a disaster, but in this case I don’t see why anybody would have objected. Her opponent was going for a draw anyway, and if the game ends sooner, the TD can start the next round sooner.
TDs ARE allowed to correct illegal moves they happen to see, except in a time scramble. It’s not too much of a stretch to consider an erroneous checkmate claim to be an illegal move, either.
Bill Smythe