The rule says that “Insufficient Losing Chances” claims will be allowed, “If both players each have just one identical piece and if neither side can show a forced win.”
http://www.uschess.org/images/stories/scholastic_chess_resources/blitzrules_revdec2015.pdf
Are pawns included in that definition of “piece”?
It should be clarified that this is not a US Chess rule, but a scholastic rule. As a result, any answer by a member of the Rules committee would be just a guess.
Alex Relyea
I would certainly hope not, given that there are diabolically tricky K+P vs K+P endgames.
Even if the claim is allowed, there is absolutely no reason to assume it will be granted.
That also seems rather oddly worded. What does “if neither side can show a forced win” add to that? There are at least a few tricky K+Q vs K+Q positions that aren’t a forced win but which require accurate defense so an ILC claim should be denied. (Interestingly, as worded, if I have a forced win I can’t claim ILC even if I have so little time that I can’t mate or win the opponent’s piece before I flag).
This is true but K+Q vs. K+Q was (is?) specifically mentioned in the rulebook as a valid ILC claim, in the absence of a forced win. I used this example to extol the advantages of delay-digital clocks over analogs and ILC back in the day, when even reasonable chess friends would pout about time delay and how “artificial” it was.
Letting the game be decided by who has the fastest hands in a clock-smash finish is bad. Granting a draw to either side in a position that is not very clearly non-losing is also bad.
Giving both players at least a few seconds to think each move, which rules out total farce and TD intervention/adjudication, is so much better than either of the first two options. So went my argument. Took years and years to sink in with some.
Proper Terminology:
There are 6 “types” of pieces: R N B Q K P.
There 2 general “categories” of pieces: Pawns and Officers.
Two endlessly ambiguous terms in chess are ‘piece’ and ‘move’.
Centuries ago, it would have been better if individual moves were numbered, instead of our current convention of numbering pairs of moves. Better if all odd numbered moves were by White, and all even moves by Black.
I had heard what you describe as “pieces” as “men” and as “officers” “pieces”. I don’t think I’ve heard of anyone use the word “officers” in that context before. As to what the scholastic blitz rules mean, that is anyone’s guess.
Alex Relyea