Then again, i assume that K+2Ns vs K is automatically called a draw, and the same thing applies there.
Insufficient material
Sort:
Dec 18, 2016
0
#2
There could occur a strange checkmate in the corner with that material. But once a piece goes it's no longer possible.
Then again, i assume that K+2Ns vs K is automatically called a draw, and the same thing applies there.
Then again, i assume that K+2Ns vs K is automatically called a draw, and the same thing applies there.
Dec 18, 2016
0
#3
Yes, I think insufficient material should apply if either side cannot _force_ a checkmate (also K + 2Ns vs K can force a checkmate if the initial position happens to be favorable).
Dec 18, 2016
0
#5
That position cannot be forced unless it's a mate in one when that material starts to appear on the board.
I think also officially that material is considered a draw (unless there is a mate-in-one position on the board). If a game with that material ends due to time in chess.com, how will the engine judge the result?
chess.com rules are not identical to FIDE rules.......
But, although your actual game position was a theoeretical draw (before the B was captured), it was still possible for one side to deliver checkmate. Neither chess.com nor FIDE rules suggest a draw can be awarded in those circumstances, save for 3-fold or 50 move rule.
In a timeout situation, FIDE rules are quite clear. A mate only need be possible for the side who has remaining time to win. So it would be a win for the side with time remaining.
chess.com uses a different set of programming rules and would declare it a draw on timeout.
both 3-fold rep and the 50 move rule are available on chess.com
Both need to be "claimed" by pressing the offer draw button, and if the circumstances are correct the game is immediately drawn.
Lagomorph hat geschrieben:
chess.com rules are not identical to FIDE rules.......
Yeah, they have some outright weird rules like the game being aborted automatically when I need more than 20 secs for my first move.
Even accounting for this being the internet the opponent should have a choice at least to abort or wait.
Graf_Nachthafen wrote:
Lagomorph hat geschrieben:
chess.com rules are not identical to FIDE rules.......
Yeah, they have some outright weird rules like the game being aborted automatically when I need more than 20 secs for my first move.
Even accounting for this being the internet the opponent should have a choice at least to abort or wait.
Why do you need 20 seconds to decide your first move ?
Lagomorph wrote:
chess.com rules are not identical to FIDE rules.......
But, although your actual game position was a theoeretical draw (before the B was captured), it was still possible for one side to deliver checkmate. Neither chess.com nor FIDE rules suggest a draw can be awarded in those circumstances, save for 3-fold or 50 move rule.
In a quickplay finish, where a player claims the opponent is not trying to win by normal means, would be another instance where a FIDE arbiter could declare a draw.
Lagomorph hat geschrieben:
Why do you need 20 seconds to decide your first move ?
FIDE rules don't require me to make that first move within 20 secs, instead I can use the time on my clock as I like.
Quite a big rules difference. Which is what my post is about, not the reason for each individual possible delay.
Those could be as simple as me geeting something to drink or anything else really but the reason can hardly matter cause on the internet reasons cannot be verified anyway so there would be no way to differentiate between valid and invalid reasons.
Dec 18, 2016
0
#13
Lagomorph kirjoitti:
chess.com rules are not identical to FIDE rules.......
But, although your actual game position was a theoeretical draw (before the B was captured), it was still possible for one side to deliver checkmate. Neither chess.com nor FIDE rules suggest a draw can be awarded in those circumstances, save for 3-fold or 50 move rule.
In a timeout situation, FIDE rules are quite clear. A mate only need be possible for the side who has remaining time to win. So it would be a win for the side with time remaining.
chess.com uses a different set of programming rules and would declare it a draw on timeout.
Isn't it illogical that chess.com lets the game continue because a checkmate is possible (if one of the players plays silly), but then in a timeout case it still declares it a draw? I understand that this is kind of fair, because in real life neither player can checkmate and it is not reasonable to assume the 50 moves rule to take place in a blitz game (and the player who has more time will avoid threefold rule anyway if he does not realize to agree a draw), but I'm just wondering if it is logical and if declaring it a draw instantly would be more logical and save everyone's time.
iljamaki wrote:
Isn't it illogical that chess.com lets the game continue because a checkmate is possible (if one of the players plays silly), but then in a timeout case it still declares it a draw?
chess.com tries to follow closely the rules of chess... FIDE or USCF
Letting the game continue when a checkmate is still possible (however unlikely) is following the rules of chess.
In a timeout on chess.com there is no arbiter to call on to adjudicate, it can only be done by programming. The choices are :
1. Do an engine analysis of the final position , assuming best play by the first party (with time remaining) and worst play by the other (the one who ran out of time)...if a mate is possible then the first party wins.
2. Make the win/draw decision based on a simple piece count (which is how they do it at present).
I am not a programmer, so cannot comment how difficult method one would be. The answer may not be "logical", but for a website it is probably expedient.
Dec 18, 2016
0
#15
iljamaki wrote:
Lagomorph kirjoitti:
chess.com rules are not identical to FIDE rules.......
But, although your actual game position was a theoeretical draw (before the B was captured), it was still possible for one side to deliver checkmate. Neither chess.com nor FIDE rules suggest a draw can be awarded in those circumstances, save for 3-fold or 50 move rule.
In a timeout situation, FIDE rules are quite clear. A mate only need be possible for the side who has remaining time to win. So it would be a win for the side with time remaining.
chess.com uses a different set of programming rules and would declare it a draw on timeout.
Isn't it illogical that chess.com lets the game continue because a checkmate is possible (if one of the players plays silly), but then in a timeout case it still declares it a draw? I understand that this is kind of fair, because in real life neither player can checkmate and it is not reasonable to assume the 50 moves rule to take place in a blitz game (and the player who has more time will avoid threefold rule anyway if he does not realize to agree a draw), but I'm just wondering if it is logical and if declaring it a draw instantly would be more logical and save everyone's time.
It's a programming problem. There are rules that apply before the flag falls, USCF's "insufficient losing chances," and FIDE's Appendix G (both of which are obsolete and not always applicable). Then there's the rules after the flag falls. FIDE states checkmate by any series of legal moves is a win. USCF lists certain conditions that are draws unless checkmate is forced.
Chess.com's rule is a compromise because of programming issues.
Shouldn't it be insufficient material and a draw if one side has king + knight and the other side has king + bishop? That occurred in my game against Nykolay but the game did not end until I let him take my bishop. How could the game have ended otherwise (except that I had less time left)?