Originally posted by Mad Rookon some online sites where they have implemented this rule you can let your time run out in case your opponent has 2 Ns and forced mate against your pawn and you will get away with a draw...Insufficient material to win on time
Yeah, they're right, it's a draw per USCF Rule 14E (Insufficient material to win on time). If you have the 5th edition of the USCF rules book, it's on page 46.
In some cases a position can look like it is a draw, with unsufficient material. Like KN vs KP. But in the opening posting of Thread 76078 I show that it is possible to win. And there is a numerous positions that should be a fool-proof draw unless the other part does bad moves, which he sometimes does.
Some positions are a clear draw due to insufficient material, like K vs K, KN vs K, KB vs K, etc, but what about KN vs KB? If the other part plays foolish there can (?) be a win. This is a gray area of the 'insuffisient material' draw rule.
If it was possible to claim a draw and automatically get it, then the Thread 76078 position also could be claimed as a draw by black. I don't think this is wise.
Originally posted by FabianFnasThat position can't be claimed as a draw as there is still a pawn on the board.
In some cases a position can look like it is a draw, with unsufficient material. Like KN vs KP. But in the opening posting of Thread 76078 I show that it is possible to win. And there is a numerous positions that should be a fool-proof draw unless the other part does bad moves, which he sometimes does.
Some positions are a clear draw due ...[text shortened]... 078[/threadid] position also could be claimed as a draw by black. I don't think this is wise.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhen a player loses on time but his opponent has insufficient material to checkmate (as in this case my opponent only had a king) then it's a draw. If my opponent still had a pawn, however badly placed, then I believe he would have won.
That should have been a win for the Dad. Why was it a draw?
Originally posted by FabianFnasI don't think it's really a grey area. Insufficient material only covers cases where checkmate is physically impossible. The case of KN v KB or KNN v K would be covered by the player claiming to the arbiter that their opponent can't win by 'normal means' (I think that's the phrase) if they're short of time.
Some positions are a clear draw due to insufficient material, like K vs K, KN vs K, KB vs K, etc, but what about KN vs KB? If the other part plays foolish there can (?) be a win. This is a gray area of the 'insufficient material' draw rule.
Last weekend there was an open tournament here in my region. In round 3 or so this charming teenager girl was paired against old veteran chess player who has been playing in tournaments for decades i guess. Well, at one point of the game this old player touched his king having intention to castle. However, as the young girl pointed out, castling there was illegal coz the old man had already moved his rook. She also pointed out the "touch-rule", correctly demanding the old man to move his king to somewhere else. However, as odd as it sounds, the old player started arguing and said that he can castle...basically saying that you can move your rook and still castle later on. Well, the teenager girl, being pretty new to the game of chess, finally agreed to allow old player to castle, thinking that she just does not know the rules well enough. Game continued and in the end the girl lost.
Lot of people, including me, were pretty angry when the incident was revealed later on. Funny thing is that the old player was actually paired against me on next round, and although me being lot higher rated, I was somehow struggling in that game. Finally I won it because in pretty even position he accidentally moved his king to very bad square, and realised it about 0.5 seconds after he had let his king off his fingers. So although he almost instantly picked it up again and moved it to better square and pressed the clock, I immediately claimed that he had to play the first move no matter how terrible it is. He muttered something for a moment, but didnt object my claim (he knowing that I am very familiar with the rules). So I won a full piece, and he resigned couple moves later.
I cannot imagine what Morphy would think of the way some players act while playing a game of chess. Some of the World Chess Champions have not played so nicely as well. It is enough to make me wonder if some players should be banned from tournament chess. What has happened to sportsmanship and fair play?
Originally posted by SchumiI don't think the term 'normal means' is well defined. So if you have to rely on 'normal means' you are in the gray mentioned area.
The case of KN v KB or KNN v K would be covered by the player claiming to the arbiter that their opponent can't win by 'normal means' (I think that's the phrase) if they're short of time
I fold if I get a strict definition of 'normal means' in this context.
Originally posted by gambit3Morphy at the board was above all else a complete gentleman. He didn't make faces, sigh, groan, take forever to move, or otherwise act like an a$$hole.
I cannot imagine what Morphy would think of the way some players act while playing a game of chess. Some of the World Chess Champions have not played so nicely as well. It is enough to make me wonder if some players should be banned from tournament chess. What has happened to sportsmanship and fair play?
Originally posted by FabianFnasFair enough.
I don't think the term 'normal means' is well defined. So if you have to rely on 'normal means' you are in the gray mentioned area.
I fold if I get a strict definition of 'normal means' in this context.
My understanding of the rule though is that the only way the game could be won is on time. You're right though afaik that it's not strictly defined.