King v King & Knight end game

My understanding is this situation is stalemate through insufficient material left on the board (I have the lone King). I don't seem to able to claim a draw under any of the three situations referred to in the FAQs (insufficient material only mentions a K v K end game) and my opponent is playing on, presumably on the basis the game can still be won. I have offered a draw, but this was declined.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by FlyingWolf
My understanding is this situation is stalemate through insufficient material left on the board (I have the lone King). I don't seem to able to claim a draw under any of the three situations referred to in the FAQs (insufficient material only mentions a K v K end game) and my opponent is playing on, presumably on the basis the game can still be won. I have offered a draw, but this was declined.

Any thoughts?

Offer him a draw again and point out that forcing mate is impossible with K vs King/Knight and he's being a big doosh.

He's offered the draw :-)

Just to clarify, the RHP software does recognize a stalemate and ends the game automatically when it occurs.

Definition of stalemate:
Stalemate is a situation in the game of chess where the player whose turn it is to move is not in check but has no legal move.
The rules of chess provide that when stalemate occurs, the game ends as a draw (i.e. having no winner).

There are several reasons that a game can result in a draw, with stalemate being just one of them. See the FAQ to see more information about a draw.

Originally posted by mwmiller
Just to clarify, the RHP software does recognize a stalemate and ends the game automatically when it occurs.

Definition of stalemate:
Stalemate is a situation in the game of chess where the player whose turn it is to move is not in check but has no legal move.
The rules of chess provide that when stalemate occurs, the game ends as a draw (i.e. having ...[text shortened]... draw, with stalemate being just one of them. See the FAQ to see more information about a draw.

I'm quite clear both on what constitutes stalemate and also how a draw can be claimed as described in the FAQs - in fact I've managed to scrape a draw on a number of occasions via the three identical moves rule when my opponent has quite possibly been none the wiser ;-)

However neither would seem to apply to this particular position, i.e. I don't believe a King v King & Knight constitutes stalemate in so much as the lone King can make a perfectly legal move without being in check - it's just that his opponent can't checkmate him with a King and a Knight. Also RHP software doesn't seem to be enabled to automatically enable a draw to be claimed as you can with two Kings remaining and/or under the three identical moves rule. On the basis checkmate can't be achieved, perhaps this should be enabled?

FW

Originally posted by FlyingWolf
He's offered the draw :-)

That's why I said to DO IT AGAIN and explain to the thick wit that it is a draw no matter what

Originally posted by FlyingWolf
I'm quite clear both on what constitutes stalemate and also how a draw can be claimed as described in the FAQs - in fact I've managed to scrape a draw on a number of occasions via the three identical moves rule when my opponent has quite possibly been none the wiser ;-)

However neither would seem to apply to this particular position, i.e. I don't beli ...[text shortened]... ical moves rule. On the basis checkmate can't be achieved, perhaps this should be enabled?

FW

Well, since you stated that a king v. king/knight was a stalemate in your original post, I got the impression that you actually were not "quite clear", so therefore thought it would be helpful to show the definition of "stalemate".

But since you are quite clear, we can leave it at that! :-)

Originally posted by FishHead111
That's why I said to DO IT AGAIN and explain to the thick wit that it is a draw no matter what

Oh....sorry....I just now saw that you were the OP and you were referring to your opponent.
Oops.

Originally posted by mwmiller
Well, since you stated that a king v. king/knight was a stalemate in your original post, I got the impression that you actually were not "quite clear", so therefore thought it would be helpful to show the definition of "stalemate".

But since you are quite clear, we can leave it at that! :-)

What if in a timebank only game someone runs out of time.
Will the software allow a lone king to win on time?

Originally posted by jb70
What if in a timebank only game someone runs out of time.
Will the software allow a lone king to win on time?

It shouldn't. Insufficient material is an immediate draw according to the FIDE rules.

It has to be clarified that insufficient material, here, means "cannot mate at all, even with the opponent's help". Therefore, K v KNN is not insufficient material: you can put those pieces on the board so that the lone king is checkmated, and if the lone king blunders badly enough, that position can in fact be reached over the board. You can't force mate with two knights, but you can reach it with stupendous luck - therefore, two knights are not insufficient material to mate.

By contrast, one knight, or one bishop, cannot possibly mate a king. Try it - there is always one square left for the king to go, even in a corner. Therefore, KvK, KvKN and KvKB should all be automatic draws. At the very least, you should be able to claim the draw.
A funny situation arises here: add a single pawn on either side, and the automatic mate is lifted. Not only can either pawn queen, given bad enough play of the opponent, but even a single pawn can, in the right place, cover that one escape square if it's the attackers - or block it if it's the defender's!

Originally posted by jb70
What if in a timebank only game someone runs out of time.
Will the software allow a lone king to win on time?

In a normal RHP game when one player is out of time it is still up to the other player who still has time on their clock to claim the win.
In a game where conditions are met to claim a draw, it is up to the player whose turn it is to move to claim the draw. Otherwise the game goes on.

So I would say this:
If conditions for a draw exist and it is player A's turn to move but he is out of time, then it is up to player B to claim the win when the skull appears and he should claim it before player A gets around to moving and claiming a draw.

If player B claims the win on time, he wins the game.
If player A gets around to claiming the draw, then there is no win for player B. Just a draw.

I have never personally experienced these exact conditions so please understand that I am only guessing here!

Originally posted by mwmiller
In a normal RHP game when one player is out of time it is still up to the other player who still has time on their clock to claim the win.
In a game where conditions are met to claim a draw, it is up to the player whose turn it is to move to claim the draw. Otherwise the game goes on.

So I would say this:
If conditions for a draw exist and it is play ...[text shortened]... personally experienced these exact conditions so please understand that I am only guessing here!

So,what about say lone king against king and Queen with no time left to mate next move?
Would the lone king get the full point if he pressed the skull?

Originally posted by jb70
So,what about say lone king against king and Queen with no time left to mate next move?
Would the lone king get the full point if he pressed the skull?

I would think so. When you're out of time you lose unless your opponent does not claim it.
In tournaments, the win is claimed automatically after two days if it isn't claimed. In regular games it is optional.

Ignoring the Timeout/Timeout issues for a moment, on the basis that a KvK&N always results in a draw (i.e. the lone King can't be mated and therefore insufficient material exists) why doesn't RHP software automatically award a drawn game as it would do for a KvK situation?

I have asked Russ to make it a draw (either automatically or can be claimed) for K+N vs K and K+B vs K. As for the timeout issues, for FIDE rules, if the person that timed out cannot be checkmated at all, the game is drawn. So for example, White times out. But Black has only 1 legal move and that 1 move will lead to stalemate. It will be a draw according to FIDE rules.

For USCF Rules, in order to win on time (i.e. get the full point), the claimaint must have a forced win (i.e. can force checkmate) in the following cases: a) The claimant has a lone king (this will always be drawn as checkmate is never possible with a lone king), b) the claimant has a king and bishop, c) the claimant has a king and knight, d) the claimant has a king and 2 knights and the person that timed out has 0 pawns. If checkmate cannot be forced in those 4 cases (always true for the first case), it will be a draw. So for example K+R vs K+N position which is a tablebase draw. The player with the N timed out. Under Fide Rules, it will be a win, but under USCF rules, it will be draw.

In real life, in the 2008 Women's World Championship game between Monika Socko and Sabina-Francesca Foisor, which was played under FIDE rules, both players had a K+N left. Sabina-Francesca Foisor ran out of time and the arbiter ruled it a draw (which was correct under USCF rules, but not under FIDE rules). Monika Socko appealed and she won the appeal.

To cut the long story short, I don't know whether RHP enforces any of these rules and I wouldn't purposely lose on time just to find this out.