time out/isufficient material ??

Originally posted by aginis
yesterday i was playing blitz OTB and I ran out of time with 3 pawns but my opponent only had a bishop. I claimed a draw because he had insufficient mating material. He said that he had a win because i could help-mate myself (e.g. walk my king into a corner promote a pawn to a bishop and then let him mate with the B on the daignol.)
This sounds absurd to me ...[text shortened]... 3.h7 Ng6#
so why can't white just run down his time and claim a draw by insufficient material?

You just answered your own question. Your own pawn gives him sufficient mating material.

Originally posted by Stives
Yes I realised when I posted this I had made a mistake...I was actually thinking about forced mates with B+B being possible, B+N also being possible but not N+N...I realise I didn't put that though and apologies to all....

And a note to Zebano...try not to get too excited when someone makes a mistake we all do it from time to time.

What you don't understand is that this topic comes up about once per week and yet it every time it gets posted, someone feels obliged to say.. "You can mate with king and bishop". I just feel that knowing the minimum amount of material needed for mate is something every chessplayer should know.

Interesting question. Go to www.chesscafe.com and send your question to Arbiter's Notebook. He is an international arbiter. If anyone can help, it's him.

Originally posted by CeeWinM
Interesting question. Go to www.chesscafe.com and send your question to Arbiter's Notebook. He is an international arbiter. If anyone can help, it's him.

thanks thats helpful, let me just clarify my question a bit.
I'm pretty sure that if i have QRRPvKBP then i can CLAIM a draw prior to running out of time. (not that an arbiter must acceed to my claim, i believe he can give me a small delay and make me prove the draw.) Should my time run out i would then clearly lose.
Similarly in a KNNvKB position for example i should also be able to claim a draw. In this case i would also agree that with most unskilled defense the two knights could mate using the bishop to prevent stalemate.

however in a KBvKP scenario this is no longer "unskilled" nor is it "counterplay" unskilled means a completely passive defense not an active participation in a mate. i.e. my idea of unskilled is taking a 300 rated player and having him play out the game, he may not win but its unlike he would promote pawns into bishops instead of queens.
Counterplay means defense helping mate yourself can't really be described as counterplay it requires premeditated cooperation.

In the situation at hand i think any 5 year old could avoid being checkmated thus qualifying for unskilled counterplay.

There is Article 10 in FIDE handbook laws of chess concerning Quickplay finish which relates to the issue mentioned here. However, I do not think this is relevant to correspondence (turn based) play, and there is to my knowledge no rule specific to this in the Correspondence Chess regulation.

"Article 10: Quickplay Finish
10.1 A `quickplay finish` is the last phase of a game, when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time.

10.2 If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter.

If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.

b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue in the presence of an arbiter, if possible. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.

If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes thinking time.

The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to 10.2 a, b, c."

Originally posted by lioness
There is Article 10 in FIDE handbook laws of chess concerning Quickplay finish which relates to the issue mentioned here. However, I do not think this is relevant to correspondence (turn based) play, and there is to my knowledge no rule specific to this in the Correspondence Chess regulation.

"Article 10: Quickplay Finish
10.1 A `quickplay finish` is ...[text shortened]... nutes thinking time.

The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to 10.2 a, b, c."

yes this is what i was referring to in my previous post, i find it difficult to believe that in such a situation when i remove my opponents last pawn that he can claim a winable position.

Originally posted by mtthw
The relevant law seems to be:

[b]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 serie ...[text shortened]... counterplay[/i].


But he can legally mate you if you co-operate. I think he's right.[/b]

In blitz if a mate can be achieved even if not forced a win can be claimed. So this is a win



Substitute the black Bishop for a Knight and it is not a win.

Substitute the black Bishop for a Rook or Queen and it is still not a win but substitute it for a pawn and it is a win if the pawn was already on h7 or if the pawn queens on a white square (as black could "queen" it as a bishop). If the pawn queened on a black square a mate is impossible so the position would be drawn.

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
In blitz if a mate can be achieved even if not forced a win can be claimed. So this is a win

[fen]5K1k/7b/8/8/8/2B5/8/8[/fen]

Substitute the black Bishop for a Knight and it is not a win.

Substitute the black Bishop for a Rook or Queen and it is still not a win but substitute it for a pawn and it is a win if the pawn was already on h7 or if the ...[text shortened]... p). If the pawn queened on a black square a mate is impossible so the position would be drawn.

according to your theory any pawn would lose, as it can promote to a knight and mate is as follows.

Originally posted by aginis
according to your theory any pawn would lose, as it can promote to a knight and mate is as follows.
[fen]7k/5KBn/8/8/8/8/8/8[/fen]

You are correct. That is a win so it is only the Q and R that fail.

u still have ur pawn, its not insufficient...u gotta drop your pawn first

I am playing a game where my opponent has only a bishop remaining against my lone king. Since this seems to be a draw due to insufficient material, why is my draw claim rejected by RHP?

Someone else asked about draws in a situation where they were running out of time, but had an overwhelming advantage. I'm not sure about FIDE, but USCF rules certainly do cover this with "Insufficient Losing Chances." Essentially, if you have no chance of losing a game, you may claim a draw. The rule of thumb is that if a Class C player (1400-1600) could hold the position 90% of the time against a Master, the draw claim should be accepted - regardless of the actual ratings of the two players involved in the game.

Essentially, it's there for times when, in time trouble, you are either so far ahead that you would certainly win if you had the time, or you are in a dead drawn endgame (like opposite-colored bishops with a pawn each) where any class player could never expect to lose against a computer with a tablebase who played perfectly.