Originally posted by vaginisDo all your jokes involve alphabetically itemized lists?
1. i take note of your abusive tone and language
2. your so called problems do not involve anything practically useful
a draw is a draw.
3. in your second puzzle the position will never be achieved in a game between two players who are both trying to win not to mention that the game is drawn prior to the last move in that position and would be declared a ...[text shortened]... olved.
if you're wondering why i'm reacting in such a belligerent manner please see point #1
"A draw is a draw" -- What a naive statement. As endgame studies show, there are plenty of positions where it is not readily obvious what the result should be.
Buchanan's problems involve retrograde analysis. People who limit themselves to game-like puzzles usually dislike retros; therefore, your response is predictable (typical narrow-mindedness) and doesn't concern me.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemTrue, but from my understanding of when the rule was called (please forgive me if I'm wrong, like I said this was 3 years ago) if it gets down to 2 rooks, no matter the position, a side could claim the draw. Again, not positive but I think it was something like the current situation when it was called. One side had the win and the other claimed a draw, which the tournament director gave to him.
How can PBE6's variation result in a correct ILC claim when white has a [b]forced win after the Rook promotion??[/b]
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldI found this on the US Chess Federation website: http://www.uschess.org/tds/clockrules.php
True, but from my understanding of when the rule was called (please forgive me if I'm wrong, like I said this was 3 years ago) if it gets down to 2 rooks, no matter the position, a side could claim the draw. Again, not positive but I think it was something like the current situation when it was called. One side had the win and the other claimed a draw, which the tournament director gave to him.
The "Insufficient Losing Chances" Rule
"Tournaments with sudden death time controls have become increasingly popular. One reason for this is that these types of events allow several games to be played in one day.
However, one side effect of sudden death time controls is that a player with a winning position may find that he or she does not have sufficient time remaining to actually win the game. In some extreme cases, the player may lose on time in a grossly winning position.
This situation strikes many players as unfair, because the game ought to be decided by moves made on the board. In response to this situation, the USCF created the insufficient losing chances rule:
14 H1. In a sudden death time control, a player with two minutes or less of remaining time may stop the clock and ask the director to declare the game a draw on the grounds that the player has insufficient losing chances.
The draw shall be awarded if the director believes that a Class C player would have little chance to lose the position against a Master with both having ample time. The exact losing chances of any position cannot be calculated, but a director wishing a more precise standard may consider "little" to mean less than 10 percent."
It seems that in this case, black has very significant losing chances (ie. a forced win for white), and the presiding director should reject the claim.
Originally posted by PBE6Ahhh, ok, thanks for cleaing that up 🙂. Interesting rule..Hard to remember too 😛.
I found this on the US Chess Federation website: http://www.uschess.org/tds/clockrules.php
[b]The "Insufficient Losing Chances" Rule
"Tournaments with sudden death time controls have become increasingly popular. One reason for this is that these types of events allow several games to be played in one day.
However, one side effect of sudden death ti ...[text shortened]... chances (ie. a forced win for white), and the presiding director should reject the claim.[/b]
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldI didn't say that. My claim was that you stating: "..... It's the same with Q+K vs Q+K. I think you're only given 1 move after you promote the pawn to either get an edge in material/have a clear win. Maybe not even that." is nonsense.
How can you win K+Q vs K+Q without a blunder?
Originally posted by uzlessAfter Kf5, Re1, if you promote the pawn Rf1+ skewers it.
explain
The correct answer is:
Kg5, Re5+
Kg4, Re4+
Kg3, Re3+
Kf2 (black can no longerget to Rf1) Re4!! (If f1 = Q then Rf4+!!... If QxR then its a stalemate so the key is to promote to a rook!)
f1=R!, Rh4 (stopping Rh8++)
Kg3 (threatening to captuer the rook or mate with Rf1++)