Would someone clarify section the 14 E insufficient winning material rule for me, and how it might apply to basic chess etiquette in non-rated play?
In a quick chess game, with no delay, would it be proper for a person to resign if he only has a lone king vs. king and queen, however being significantly ahead in time? For instance, less than 10 seconds on the opponents clock after capture of last minor piece? Without delay, not enough time to force the mate. Would it be considered bad etiquette to play for either stalemate or lose on time?
In my opinion, it wouldn’t be unsportsmanlike to play on. All that rule means is that you can’t win, even if his flag falls. If his flag falls, though, you can claim a draw.
Part of the game of chess is completing your win within the time allowed. At a tournament in December, I had a player who was literally two moves from mate, and his opponent had just one pawn. As his flag fell, he claimed insufficient losing chances. I interpreted the claim as a draw offer, offered a draw to the opponent, and hoped like anything that he would accept. After about ten minutes assessing the situation, he declined the draw offer, I refused the claim because the player’s flag had fallen, and the opponent claimed the victory. Personally, I thought that that was a bit unethical, but there wasn’t anything I could do about it.
Playing without the delay can put a player in an extremely uncomfortable situation, assuming he WANTS to do the right thing but isn’t quite sure what the right thing is.
The player with the lone king has a reasonable right to test the opponent’s technique. If the opponent, even with a 3-second delay, cannot mate with K+Q vs K, then this opponent doesn’t deserve to win. So the player can play on with a clear conscience.
Without the delay, even a top-notch player might not have time to win, so the player has to struggle with a moral decision – play on and risk being labeled (or even thinking of himself as) a poor sport, or resign and risk the possibility that the opponent’s technique might not have been good enough.
The solution, I think, is to refuse to play in tournaments (even quick-rated tournaments) where there is no delay.
A 3-second delay is standard in quick-rated events. If there is to be no delay, this fact must be announced in all pre-tournament publicity, including the Chess Life TLA if there is one.
I see nothing wrong with trying to win on time. Maybe if you had taken all that time earlier in the game that your opponent took you wouldn’t be in a bad position. They spent their time working up the so-called ‘perfect’ position and now they pay the price.
Now before insufficient losing chances existed for non-delay play I can understand the twinge of guilt about winning on time in a hopeless position. I still don’t see anything wrong with this, but I understand. These days though there is no excuse to letting your flag fall.
We had a tournament recently where an Expert and a Master were playing with a non-delay clock. The Expert lost on time in a mate-in-one position.
14E. Insufficient material to win on time. The game is drawn even when a player exceeds the time limit if one of the following conditions exists:
14E1. Lone king. Opponent has only a lone king.
If its’ lone king vs king and queen, with the player with the king not in time trouble, and the player with king and queen with only 10 seconds – why resign? If you have a lone king, and your opponent flag does fall you have a draw game. Then again the opponent does have 10 seconds on the clock.
If standing over a board with K vs K+Q, with the player with 10 seconds on the clock. The player with the K is going to lose the game if resigning or a checkmate happens. The player with the K still has a change to get a draw if the flag falls. If a person resigns a game like this, as a director would be thinking you are sandbaging your rating. Even would be thinking the game was pre-arrange too lose the game. If a player did resign a game like this, without a clear mate in X number of moves. Would be asking some questions after the game.
As there are two different types of quicks, G/10 - G/29 as quick and G/5 - G/9 as blitz. If myself having a K vs K+Q, and the person with K+Q has G/0:10, G/0:10 (t/d 3) or G/0:10 (t/d 2) would play on till checkmate or the flag falls. If myself having a K+Q vs K, and only have G/0:10, G/0:10 (t/d 3) or G/0:10 (t/d 2) would play on till checkmate or the flag falls. As the other player only has a lone king, the game would still be a draw (rule 14E1) if my flag does fall.
Even if having G/0:10, G/0:10 (t/d 3) or G/0:10 (t/d 2), it would not make myself play faster or slower. Im not the type of player or owner of a clock going around beating the heck out of a clock. If the flag falls the flag falls. When talking to people that love time delay, their clocks do take a great deal of a beating for some reason. William, how fast do you take to smash up a clock?
Yeh, when a player claims insufficient losing chances, and the TD doesn’t want to grant the claim immediately, a little spiel by the TD (in front of both players) is appropriate. Something like “X has claimed a draw, therefore he has also offered a draw. Y may accept the draw offer any time before he touches a piece or his time expires. If Y picks up a piece, he has declined the offer, and thereafter X can still win.” Then the TD restarts the clock or, alternatively, substitutes a delay clock.
I guess the same spiel would be appropriate if X’s time had expired when he made the claim, and Y hasn’t noticed yet (or hasn’t called it). Of course, when Y does notice, and claims the win, it has to be granted (most draw claims cannot be granted after the claimant’s time has expired).
On whose time did player Y spend those ten minutes? There was no need for you to postpone restarting the clock while he decides whether to accept the draw offer. Just start the clock, and let him use his own clock time to decide.
Maybe so, but the use of a delay clock (from the beginning of the game) would have prevented the whole mess, so I don’t sympathize too much with player X. He had the full right to insist on the delay from the start of the game, provided only that he furnished a delay-capable clock.
Both players had gotten so loud by the time I could get to them that I immediately moved the whole thing into the skittles room. The player who won (and in fact both players) had A LOT of questions for me, but after we got everything taken care of, I did start his clock.
I mentioned the same thing about the delay clock to the loser after the game. Sigh.
So it pretty much comes down to something a player has to expect when not using a delay clock. However, rule book aside, I still think there is also the issue of ettiquette, esp. in a friendly, casual game, that a resignation in such case is in order.
In the casual game I refered to in the intial post, once the last minor piece was captured, the player with the lone king said “thats it” making the opponent with the K+Q assume he meant “resign” (assumption isnt a good thing). The K+Q opponent then paused the clock and sat back when the other player looked at the clock and anounced “wait, I can still play for the draw!” slamming the clock back into action and then moving his king. I think thats ugly behavior on the casual level.
I agree, there are a lot of positions like that. There are also a lot where offering (or accepting) a draw would be proper etiquette.
There are, however, also the borderline cases – such as a near-Lucena position which should be drawn with best play, but where the stronger side still has a few practical chances. If the weaker side has just a few seconds left, and no delay, the stronger side who wishes to be ethical is on the horns of a dilemma. He can offer the draw, depriving himself of the very real possibility that he may have won legitimately. Or he can play on, and risk being seen as a poor sport. Having the delay in use helps the ethical player in these situations, as he no longer needs to face that choice. He can play on, knowing full well that the 5-second delay will be sufficient to allow his opponent to draw IF he knows what he is doing, yet allowing a reasonable test of the opponent’s technique without having the game degenerate into a contest of mere physical dexterity.