I learnt chess. Then I learnt the en passant (I know this is a contradiction).
I noted the castling thread which is fairly obscure.
My nomination though is the rules that a game is a draw if you lose on time if opponent has insufficient material to mate. If (big if) I understand it correctly your own material is used against you on self mate principles.
If an arbitrator in a tourney are you expected to simply know the combinations? Actually who calls them on this site?
I am pretty sure that at this site if A runs out of timebank, B can claim the win even if B has nothing but a king left, and A still has lots of material.
Originally posted by Paul Dirac II I am pretty sure that at this site if [b]A runs out of timebank, B can claim the win even if B has nothing but a king left, and A still has lots of material.[/b]
in otb tournament rules...if player A has less than 2 minutes on the clock, and if playerB cant force mate...player A can claim a draw.
it happened to me a few months ago i had a king and rook against a king rook and pawn, i had over 20 minutes to his 2 on the clock. as i could not force a mate without him making a blunder he claimed the draw on 1 minute 58 seconds...i could have won on time but...rules are rules...ðŸ˜
Originally posted by roma45 in otb tournament rules...if player A has less than 2 minutes on the clock, and if playerB cant force mate...player A can claim a draw.
it happened to me a few months ago i had a king and rook against a king rook and pawn, i had over 20 minutes to his 2 on the clock. as i could not force a mate without him making a blunder he claimed the draw on 1 minute 58 seconds...i could have won on time but...rules are rules...ðŸ˜
What does "can't force mate" mean? If it meant what it literally means, then I don't think it would be a good rule at all. It's very difficult to tell whether a player can force a mate or not in a lot of positions (including the starting position). If a player claims that the other player can't force a mate, who decides whether they indeed cannot? Is anyone supposed to provide a proof?
Originally posted by WanderingKing What does "can't force mate" mean? If it meant what it literally means, then I don't think it would be a good rule at all. It's very difficult to tell whether a player can force a mate or not in a lot of positions (including the starting position). If a player claims that the other player can't force a mate, who decides whether they indeed cannot? Is anyone supposed to provide a proof?
it depends on what pieces are left...if i had a pawn and rook it would not have been a draw..but king and rook v king rook and pawn...mate cant be forced without a blunder so he claimed a draw with under 2 minutes on his clock...the arbitor was watching and explained it to me after the game was over
Originally posted by roma45 it depends on what pieces are left...if i had a pawn and rook it would not have been a draw..but king and rook v king rook and pawn...mate cant be forced without a blunder so he claimed a draw with under 2 minutes on his clock...the arbitor was watching and explained it to me after the game was over
Hmm, that sounds wrong. Under FIDE rules the game goes on because both sides have mating material. Not sure what rules your local federation may have.
Originally posted by SwissGambit Hmm, that sounds wrong. Under FIDE rules the game goes on because both sides have mating material. Not sure what rules your local federation may have.
Kinross and Perthshire, they make up their own rules!
Originally posted by roma45 in otb tournament rules...if player A has less than 2 minutes on the clock, and if playerB cant force mate...player A can claim a draw.
it happened to me a few months ago i had a king and rook against a king rook and pawn, i had over 20 minutes to his 2 on the clock. as i could not force a mate without him making a blunder he claimed the draw on 1 minute 58 seconds...i could have won on time but...rules are rules...ðŸ˜
What OTB rules are those, some sort of scholastic or private club?
Never heard of such in FIDE or USCF.
Someone explained to me that mating material does not mean material sufficient to force a mate but to mate assuming your opponent is actually going to assist in getting mated. Is this correct for long play in fide?
any other nominations for obscure rules? eg starting with board wrong way round?
I am not sure that your opponent can claim a draw when you can't force mate. If you have a mating possibility, then how can your opponent claim a draw because you can't force mate? Have you read the official rule book on that situation for OTB chess?
Secondly, insufficient material of your opponent is a reason for you to claim a draw even if you can run out of time for OTB chess if I am not wrong. Check the official rule book for that situation too on OTB chess. If I am not wrong, the US Chess Federation rule allows you to claim a draw when your opponent has insufficient material to check mate you. I don't think that Grandmasters just allow a draw to oblige his or her opponent.
Do you play within the US Chess Federation rules or do you play under FIDE rules?
Originally posted by Habeascorp I learnt chess. Then I learnt the en passant (I know this is a contradiction).
I noted the castling thread which is fairly obscure.
My nomination though is the rules that a game is a draw if you lose on time if opponent has insufficient material to mate. If (big if) I understand it correctly your own material is used against you on self mate principle ...[text shortened]... tourney are you expected to simply know the combinations? Actually who calls them on this site?
Castling queenside when I have a great kingside attack. WTF!
nominations for most obscure rule in chess
31 Dec '13 00:42
Back to Top