Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Standard member Wulebgr
    Angler
    18 May '07 13:52 / 1 edit
    In OTB games, players are allowed to ask the tournament director questions regarding the rules, and may even stop the clocks to do so. Questions regarding the definition of insufficient material are among these (but the how with minimum material is not). Such questions do not violate the rule not to discuss a game in progress with other players or spectators.

    Why, then, was Thread 69224 closed? I see nothing inappropriate there.

    A single knight, two knights, or a single bishop each constitute insufficient material. A single rook, on the other hand, is sufficient.
  2. 18 May '07 13:55
    I am guessing it was because he was asking for help with a game in progress. He wasn't asking about the definition for insufficent material, he wanted help checkmating the guy with a knight.
  3. 18 May '07 14:05
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    In OTB games, players are allowed to ask the tournament director questions regarding the rules
    Does RHP have an equivalent of a tournament director? Maybe the admins support this role, but I guess it's not via a forum since this may lead to someone getting help when they shouldn't.

    I guess we can't expect everything about CC, and RHP in particular, to be the same as OTB. RHP should just declare the game drawn when insufficient material arises.
  4. 18 May '07 14:07
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    A single knight, two knights, or a single bishop each constitute insufficient material.

    Two knights is not insufficient; a checkmate can be formed (not forced is irrelevant).
  5. 18 May '07 14:19 / 1 edit
    please help me check mate this guy, he says i cant beet him with a king and knight, vs his king in 50 moves, i have been tying with no sucsess, is it possible?

    There wasn't a link to the game, and the player asked if it was possible, which is a perfectly valid question. Therefore, I don't believe the thread should have been closed.

    If it was possible (which it isn't, in this case) and he asked for help on how to do it, then he will be breaking the rules.

    EDIT: You could argue that it will encourage players to find the game and give advise on that, but it will be the person who dug up the game's fault, not the person who started the thread.
  6. 18 May '07 14:37
    Originally posted by lausey
    the player asked if it was possible, which is a perfectly valid question.
    But where do you draw the line?

    I ask: "can I mate with king and rook versus king?, is it possible"
    Forum: "yes"
    I say: "thanks, I was tempted by his draw offer but will now decline it"
  7. 18 May '07 16:22
    Originally posted by Varenka
    But where do you draw the line?

    I ask: "can I mate with king and rook versus king?, is it possible"
    Forum: "yes"
    I say: "thanks, I was tempted by his draw offer but will now decline it"
    That will still be a valid question. If he didn't know he could mate with a rook and king, then he wouldn't know the theory behind knowing how to do it. It will then be up to him how to carry out the mate within 50 moves. If he can't, it will still be a draw.
  8. 18 May '07 16:41
    Originally posted by lausey
    That will still be a valid question. If he didn't know he could mate with a rook and king, then he wouldn't know the theory behind knowing how to do it. It will then be up to him how to carry out the mate within 50 moves. If he can't, it will still be a draw.
    But since he knows it can be done he may be able to find the right way just based on that knowledge. Even in a situation where there is insufficient material to force a mate, it is still possible that the opponent can blunder into one. Therefore, telling someone that it is possible to checkmate his opponent would be considered giving advice and so is against the rules. It is up to the players to determine whether or not a checkmate is possible - no one else.

    Also, if you are looking at a tactical puzzle, it is much easier to find the solution if you are told whether that solution is a checkmate or simply a gain of material, thus, giving the solution to a game-in-progress, whether you are telling a move order or not, could still be valuable knowledge.
  9. 18 May '07 16:46
    Originally posted by lausey
    That will still be a valid question. If he didn't know he could mate with a rook and king, then he wouldn't know the theory behind knowing how to do it. It will then be up to him how to carry out the mate within 50 moves. If he can't, it will still be a draw.
    Playing chess is a series of decisions. At each turn we decide whether to resign; offer/accept a draw; or make a move. Just because someone may not be capable of making the right decisions later in the game, does not justify helping them with a current decision.

    If this doesn't convince you, suppose I have an arbitrary endgame position where I've been offered a draw. I can't see any way to win. Should I be allowed to access an engine/tablebase if it tells me whether or not it is indeed drawn? (assume it doesn't tell me how to win, if a win is possible)

    Do you think this question is valid:
    "with KBP vs K, and with my opponent's king controlling a8, is it possible to win with my pawn on a3? what about if it's on b3? the bishop controls dark squares"
  10. 18 May '07 16:52
    Originally posted by Varenka
    But where do you draw the line?

    I ask: "can I mate with king and rook versus king?, is it possible"
    Forum: "yes"
    I say: "thanks, I was tempted by his draw offer but will now decline it"
    Would, In your opinion, thingg be any different if i did any of the following:

    a) without explaining, linked to a game with a R+K vs K mate.
    b) linked to a teaching chess site
    c) copy & pasted from a teaching site



    personally i think the difference is semantecs

    QED:-

    "is it theorectially possible to win K+R vs K endgames?"

    "in one of my games, its K+R vs K, I want to know, is it theorically won or drawn?"

    Id draw a very simple line, tell them the priciple, how to, the concept, etc --- just don't post anything about the actaul position.
  11. 18 May '07 16:54 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Varenka
    Do you think this question is valid:
    "with KBP vs K, and with my opponent's king controlling a8, is it possible to win with my pawn on a3? what about if it's on b3? the bishop controls dark squares"
    That question will be valid if it wasn't referencing a specific game. Chess positions that aren't for a particular game are shown in these forums all the time. However, asking if it is possible to mate with specific pieces shouldn't be a problem if there isn't any mention of where the pieces are on the board (even if this game might possibly be in progress).
  12. 18 May '07 17:00
    Originally posted by ChessJester
    But since he knows it can be done he may be able to find the right way just based on that knowledge. Even in a situation where there is insufficient material to force a mate, it is still possible that the opponent can blunder into one. Therefore, telling someone that it is possible to checkmate his opponent would be considered giving advice and so is aga ...[text shortened]... ame-in-progress, whether you are telling a move order or not, could still be valuable knowledge.
    Yes, and tactical puzzles do give a specific position. I am talking about if it was possible to mate with a given set of pieces, without the position shown.
  13. 18 May '07 17:07
    Originally posted by Shinidoki
    Id draw a very simple line, tell them the priciple, how to, the concept, etc --- just don't post anything about the actaul position.
    That's assistance.
  14. 18 May '07 17:11
    Originally posted by lausey
    That question will be valid if it wasn't referencing a specific game.
    The thread in question was discussing a specific game. From the initial poster's point of view it was being referenced. He wasn't asking a general question; he wanted help with his specific game.
  15. 18 May '07 17:15 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Varenka
    The thread in question was discussing a specific game. From the initial poster's point of view it was being referenced. He wasn't asking a general question; he wanted help with his specific game.
    Yes, in the question you asked, it will be invalid for a specific game, which was:

    with KBP vs K, and with my opponent's king controlling a8, is it possible to win with my pawn on a3? what about if it's on b3? the bishop controls dark squares

    because it mentions actual positions.

    If you asked, "Is it possible to mate KBP vs K?" though, it doesn't matter if the game is in progress, because no positions are mentioned. It is a general question with a given set of pieces. In this case the answer will be "It depends on the position".