Insurfficant material-timeout ='s a draw not a...

During a friendly non-rated game, I tested out what happens, when the person runs out of time and you don't have enough material to mate.

According to Fida, 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.

with both with this time out, and normal time the person is awarded the win. Which is incorrect, I feel this should be changed, Also the Time out rule altered, If you do not have material to win and your opponant time out has expired you can claim a draw not a win.

The rule was imposed to stop people just playing for time when they don't have a hope of winning. In theory if you feel your opponant is just trying to waste time and isn't trying to win you can claim the draw.

I don't know what other players opinions of this is, however as it's in the FIDA and all nation's -CF rules, I feel RHP should adapt to this.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/organisation/fide/lawsofchess2005.htm
6.10
Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay.

Originally posted by Archrival
During a friendly non-rated game, I tested out what happens, when the person runs out of time and you don't have enough material to mate...

I cannot find such a game in your public games.

Maybe I am being blind or something. Could you post the game ID so I can see what you're talking about?

Hmm...would 2 knights be considered enough material?

Originally posted by Lenzar
Hmm...would 2 knights be considered enough material?

On their own, I believe not - even though mates are possible with them, just unforceable. K + 2N v K + P is a win for the 2Ns in the majority of cases, however, although rarely in under 50 moves with best play.

Originally posted by Lenzar
Hmm...would 2 knights be considered enough material?

Yes...

Originally posted by marinakatomb
Yes...

[fen]7K/4n3/6nk/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]

Nope LOL 2 knights cannot force a mate.Of course you can have a position with more pieces and after a combination end up mating with 2 knights as in your diagram.Or the lone king can simply not play the best moves and walk himself into mate.

Originally posted by TommyC
I cannot find such a game in your public games.

Maybe I am being blind or something. Could you post the game ID so I can see what you're talking about?

To my knowledge in the Help section or somewhere it states the games only shows up in the public section if the game is a rated game, where the game I practice this on was a friendly between, friends and unrated. There for does not show up.

It does not escape the fact, that this flaw in the current RHP system concerning the matter at hand excists and needs to be corrected.

with the matter concerning the Knights, It would be concerned a drawn if the mate can not be forced, if you could not force the mate on someone even against a totaly new person to the game then it would be a draw

Originally posted by Archrival
To my knowledge in the Help section or somewhere it states the games only shows up in the public section if the game is a rated game, where the game I practice this on was a friendly between, friends and unrated. There for does not show up.

My unrated games are visible on my public games thing. But go ahead and post the game number anyhow ("Insert link to a game" under the post button and box there) and I'll see if I can see it.

Cheers,
Tom.

Originally posted by Gorgar
Nope LOL 2 knights cannot force a mate.Of course you can have a position with more pieces and after a combination end up mating with 2 knights as in your diagram.Or the lone king can simply not play the best moves and walk himself into mate.

You don't have to force a mate as a player can blunder into it. So in the example given K(g8)h8, Ng6++ is totally possible. Of course k(g8)f8 avoids the mate but not all players are wise enough to realise this!

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
You don't have to force a mate as a player can blunder into it. So in the example given K(g8)h8, Ng6++ is totally possible. Of course k(g8)f8 avoids the mate but not all players are wise enough to realise this!

This is right, according to FIDE if a player COULD get into mate then the game continues.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
You don't have to force a mate as a player can blunder into it. So in the example given K(g8)h8, Ng6++ is totally possible. Of course k(g8)f8 avoids the mate but not all players are wise enough to realise this!

Yes,I know,I even said that.But there are rules and there's such a thing as sportmanship.I do not consider it enough material to mate cause,unless you're extremely drunk or moving in your sleep,you can avoid being mated even if all you know is how the pieces move.
Quite frankly,if I see someone playing on hoping to "steal" a win in such a position I'd consider them a very poor sport even though it is his/her right.It's the same as trying to win on time in a dead draw(even worse actually).It's within the rules but,imo,against the spirit of the game.Just accept the fact you didn't get any further than a draw and move on.

Originally posted by Gorgar
Yes,I know,I even said that.But there are rules and there's such a thing as sportmanship.I do not consider it enough material to mate cause,unless you're extremely drunk or moving in your sleep,you can avoid being mated even if all you know is how the pieces move.
Quite frankly,if I see someone playing on hoping to "steal" a win in such a position I'd consid ...[text shortened]... rit of the game.Just accept the fact you didn't get any further than a draw and move on.

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?!

Originally posted by TommyC
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?!

LOL!That's stretching it quite far 😛
But yeah,when getting a draw from move 1 is as easy as getting a draw with a lone king vs 2 knights then,as far as I'm concerned,you may claim a draw after 1.e4(or whatever move you prefer to open with) cause nobody will play the game anymore anyway.
Do you play on with R+K vs R+K (and no special position where it's forced mate in a few moves)?After all,you never know your opponent won't make a mistake allowing mate or he might hang his rook!
I don't exactly know what ICC declares autodraw.Maybe you can give some examples from your experience?

Originally posted by Gorgar
Do you play on with R+K vs R+K (and no special position where it's forced mate in a few moves)?After all,you never know your opponent won't make a mistake allowing mate or he might hang his rook!
I don't exactly know what ICC declares autodraw.Maybe you can give some examples from your experience?

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...

Originally posted by TommyC
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...

Uh,yeah,that's a very tough endgame.I sure wouldn't like to defend the side with the knight 😕
I don't think it's a draw though but not sure,would have to look it up.