13 Jul 06
2 edits
Btw, the type of automatic ICC decision I am thinking of usually goes along the lines of, "Game Drawn. Black has run out of time and white has insufficient material to mate." Now I have often wondered if the ICC analyses such positions sufficiently. For instance, let's say black ran out of time in the following position, after white had just played 1. Ng4+:
White has insufficient material to mate normally speaking. But this position is a special case, viz 1. Ng4+ Kh1 2. Kf1 h2 3. Nf2# I guess what I am wondering is, does the ICC take such specifics into account?! It would be interesting to know . . .
13 Jul 06
Originally posted by TommyCR+N+K v's R+K is a win, but it is immensely complicated and won't always be possible inside 50 moves. If the ending is pawnless, accept a draw, if you've got a pawn however, obviously you play on...
No, I wouldn't play that endgame on. But isn't R+N v R a draw?! That I would play on until the 50 move rule or a blunder came into play. I don't have any examples to hand unfortunately - if one comes through soon I will post it here though. Maybe there is an ICC policy statement somewhere...
13 Jul 06
Originally posted by marinakatombTommy,if that's an autodraw on ICC you must kick them...I mean send an admin a message 😉 You clearly have a forced mate and earned the win and ratingpoints.
R+N+K v's R+K is a win, but it is immensely complicated and won't always be possible inside 50 moves. If the ending is pawnless, accept a draw, if you've got a pawn however, obviously you play on...
Ehr....R+N+K??Oops,I read R+K vs N+K LOL
Anyway,they're both very hard 😛
13 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by marinakatombIt is? Are you sure? What about R+B+K v R+K? Possibly I am getting confused...
R+N+K v's R+K is a win, but it is immensely complicated and won't always be possible inside 50 moves. If the ending is pawnless, accept a draw, if you've got a pawn however, obviously you play on...
13 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by GorgarYou mean the diagram I posted, rather than the endgame discussed on the text you quoted?! I'm not sure . . . . hopefully it'll never be relevant. I'm only a member now of FICS anyhow so the discussion is a bit academic for me. Btw, I found a prettier example of a forced mate with insufficient material, quite pleased with this one:
Tommy,if that's an autodraw on ICC you must kick them...I mean send an admin a message 😉 You clearly have a forced mate and earned the win and ratingpoints.
1... Kh1 2. Nf1 h2 3. Ng3#
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
13 Jul 06
Originally posted by marinakatombAccording to all the endgame manuals, rook plus knight (or bishop) versus rook is generally a draw with best play (there are exceptions, such as when the King is badly placed on the edge of the board).
R+N+K v's R+K is a win, but it is immensely complicated and won't always be possible inside 50 moves. If the ending is pawnless, accept a draw, if you've got a pawn however, obviously you play on...
The defending side has to be very careful though, especially in the R+B v R ending.
In OTB games (mainly because of blunders brought about by tiredness at the end of a long game), the side with the extra bishop wins very frequently. Whereas, R+N v R is usually drawn.
I don't know the statistics for correspondence game, but they should be a lot less. But if I had the extra piece, I would definitely give it a try for a few moves to see if my opponent knew how to defend.
13 Jul 06
Originally posted by David TebbYes, I thought so. I just plugged a few positions into the Shredder online tablebase and they all came back as draws, too. And here's a glorious example of the R+B v R endgame in action... http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1268705
According to all the endgame manuals, rook plus knight (or bishop) versus rook is generally a draw with best play...
13 Jul 06
2 edits
Originally posted by ArchrivalOn a point of pedantry, this isn't what the rule says. The problem came up at my chess club recently (I had K+R+B + 3 seconds vs K + 15 minutes). There are two cases:
According to Fide, and ECF guidelines. Should your opponants time run out and you do not have at least 1 pawn left on the board, the Result is a draw.
What the rule states, is if you do not have enough to material to win normally then the game should be a draw.
1. A player's flag falls, then he has lost if it is possible for his opponent to give checkmate by any legal series of moves; no matter how easily defendable the position is. So for example, K+Q vs bare King is a draw if the player with the queen's flag falls, it is a win in the case of K+Q v K+P as there is a legal sequence of moves to checkmate. The only other possibility is when the pawns are locked all the way across the board and there are no sacrifices possible to force a breach in the wall and allow a legal sequence of moves to give checkmate.
2. In the last 2 minutes of a quickplay finish (ie. no increments, the game to be finished in that session of play) then it is possible for a player to claim a draw in the last 2 minutes if it is not possible for his opponent to win by normal means, or if the opponent is not putting sufficent effort into winning the game. It is not clear what they mean by "by normal means", I think you would have have a very clear case to get away with claiming this.
Basically this is like the en-passant rule with pawn captures, when clocks were introduced the idea was to prevent people from trying to win on time alone. The exception to this is blitz (defined as 15minutes of less per player for all moves) where you can, and to some extent the point is to, force your opponent to lose on time, but then you still need to be able to execute a help-mate, rule 1 applies, rule 2 doesn't.
13 Jul 06
Originally posted by TommyCYes I meant the diagram.
You mean the diagram I posted, rather than the endgame discussed on the text you quoted?! I'm not sure . . . . hopefully it'll never be relevant. I'm only a member now of FICS anyhow so the discussion is a bit academic for me. Btw, I found a prettier example of a forced mate with insufficient material, quite pleased with this one:
[fen]8/8/8/8/8/7p/3N1K1k/8 b - - 0 1[/fen]
1... Kh1 2. Nf1 h2 3. Ng3#
But,now I think of it,it doesn't qualify as a case of insufficient material because there's still a pawn on the board,heh.Ironically black's mating potential is his downfall.Very nice position really,if you think about it 😵
13 Jul 06
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSo,if I understand this correct,you're saying that in a non blitzgame I can't claim a draw if my flag falls and my oppo has 2N+K vs my lone king?
On a point of pedantry, this isn't what the rule says. The problem came up at my chess club recently (I had K+R+B + 3 seconds vs K + 15 minutes). There are two cases:
1. A player's flag falls, then he has lost if it is possible for his opponent to give checkmate by [b]any legal series of moves; no matter how easily defendable the position is. ...[text shortened]... but then you still need to be able to execute a help-mate, rule 1 applies, rule 2 doesn't.[/b]
I'd have a hard time accepting that 😕🙁
13 Jul 06
Originally posted by TommyCICC employs USCF rules which permits claim of a draw by insufficient losing chances. If, given enough time, a C player can hold the position against a master, he or she may claim a draw once under two minutes of time remaining in OTB play. Time delay clocks, however, trump this rule, as the player may play on indefinately, and thus must prove the capacity for holding the position. In an OTB position with sudden death and analog clocks, the TD may place a time delay clock on the game and ask the playing making the draw claim to prove it.
I disagree. ICC often declares a game drawn where you still might mate, but can't force it, and I dislike this (although think it should be enforced when time is an issue.) And after all, the initial position is probably a draw - if this were established as fact, then surely anyone could claim a draw on move 1?!
Every C player can hold a position against two knights against anyone.
13 Jul 06
11 edits
Originally posted by WulebgrThe insufficient losing chances rule can only be invoked before the flag has fallen. After the flag has fallen, the player who has timed out cannot invoke the insufficient losing chances rule.
ICC employs USCF rules which permits claim of a draw by insufficient losing chances. If, given enough time, a C player can hold the position against a master, he or she may claim a draw once under two minutes of time remaining in OTB play. Time delay clocks, however, trump this rule, as the player may play on indefinately, and thus must prove the capacity fo ...[text shortened]... raw claim to prove it.
Every C player can hold a position against two knights against anyone.
There is a separate rule regarding insufficient mating material. This rule can be invoked after the flag falls and requires no demonstration or evaluation by the TD as to how a class player would fare against a master. Under USCF rules, the only logically possible way for a player with a lone King to score a win is if his opponent resigns. It is in this regard that the original poster has a legitimate complaint against the implementation of timeouts at RHP.
Two knights constitutes sufficient mating material, so after the flag falls, it is immaterial that it is trivial for a C player to avoid mate. The opponent of the two knights loses on time because he does not have a valid claim of insufficient mating material.
13 Jul 06
Originally posted by TommyCI ended up in a position with R+N+K v R+K and took the time to look it up before i offered a draw. It is winable, but it is not a simple case of following an algorythm to solve it. It relies heavily on the position of the defending king. If he is centered, the possibilities of drawing are increased immensely (as it takes a considerable number of moves to force him to the edge of the board). I found it too complicated and offered a draw, but the article i found gave a complete mating method. The real problem with this ending is the defending king can use long range checks with his rook to make life very difficult to win. One would assume that K+B+R v K+R would also be won for the same reason, i'd have to look it up though...
It is? Are you sure? What about R+B+K v R+K? Possibly I am getting confused...
13 Jul 06
Originally posted by David TebbThis is the case that i am alluding to, when the King is against the edge of the board. Obviously a centered King can use his rook to remain centered with the obvious resource of insufficient material should a rook exchange take place... I didn't look into it in great detail as it was glaringly obvious that i'd be incapable of playing the ending with perfect play. 😉
According to all the endgame manuals, rook plus knight (or bishop) versus rook is generally a draw with best play (there are exceptions, such as when the King is badly placed on the edge of the board).
The defending side has to be very careful though, especially in the R+B v R ending.
In OTB games (mainly because of blunders brought about by tired ...[text shortened]... ece, I would definitely give it a try for a few moves to see if my opponent knew how to defend.
13 Jul 06
Originally posted by marinakatombK+B+R v K+R is drawn with best play from any normal starting position (no hanging pieces, simple tactics, mates in one or the like) according to my endgame book. It's not necessarily an easy balance to hold though.
IOne would assume that K+B+R v K+R would also be won for the same reason, i'd have to look it up though...