Ok, i just found a won position, but thats not really realistic, is it?
lichess.org/editor/KB6/B1B5/kN6/8/8/8/8/3b4_b_-_-_0_1
lichess.org/editor/KB6/B1B5/kN6/8/8/8/8/3b4_b_-_-_0_1
Consistency is paramount. No bunch of rules and exceptions. Thank you lichess, evrything sound!
I want to castle queen's side with my king to b1 instead of c1, I want to move instead of 1 pawn 2 squares move 2 pawns 1 square and I want en passant abolished if I have 2 pawns against 1 and I want the right to move my bishop once in a game to an adjacent square of opposite colour...
The FIDE Laws of Chess are the laws of chess.
If you lose on time you lose. Only exception: draw when there is no series of legal moves leading to checkmate.
That is simple and plain and amply justified as the examples in #9 show.
If you do not like to lose on time, then play with increment.
That is easy to do and needs no tampering with the Laws of Chess.
The FIDE Laws of Chess are the laws of chess.
If you lose on time you lose. Only exception: draw when there is no series of legal moves leading to checkmate.
That is simple and plain and amply justified as the examples in #9 show.
If you do not like to lose on time, then play with increment.
That is easy to do and needs no tampering with the Laws of Chess.
@tpr you are mixing things up here. There are the universal rules how to move the pieces and there are the practical rules, for example regarding the clock. I do not want to change the universal rules. However, i agree to your inc statement. If only players would then accept my challenges! If only there were regulary inc tourns on lichess and in real life!
@Sarg0n
The problem is that in an OTB game with this endgame a player can claim, and he will, and the referee will agree in 99,9% of cases. We agree on that, no?
A claim is not possible in an internet game. #10 simply automates this claim, knowing that a mate in this position has (at least according to my database) never been given.
I dont see this as a change of FIDE rules, this is an implementation of them! The claim is not possible in online chess, so we automate it for the simple cases.
@Sarg0n
The problem is that in an OTB game with this endgame a player can claim, and he will, and the referee will agree in 99,9% of cases. We agree on that, no?
A claim is not possible in an internet game. #10 simply automates this claim, knowing that a mate in this position has (at least according to my database) never been given.
I dont see this as a change of FIDE rules, this is an implementation of them! The claim is not possible in online chess, so we automate it for the simple cases.
You cannot claim draw otb in Blitz and you cannot claim with increment. Only in a few cases §10a (edit: article 10.2a "quick play finish") was valid. So there are losses in otb chess with one minor piece each. Once an IM lost rook vs. a GM (with knight) during one of the biggest open in GER, no pawns and the "knight" won on time.
I would be careful to spread half-wisdom as we call it in Germany.
But actually I don't have any problem with clear rules. So evrything alright with me, I am the wrong person to address to.
I would be careful to spread half-wisdom as we call it in Germany.
But actually I don't have any problem with clear rules. So evrything alright with me, I am the wrong person to address to.
which §10a are you referring to? I would be careful to quote non existing paragraphs, as we call it in Germany :->
You are right regarding the claim in blitz and with increment. I was referring to slow OTB chess. (This is discussed in 'Appendix G. Quickplay Finishes' in the FIDE handbook). I am fine if this is only implemented in classical.
You are right regarding the claim in blitz and with increment. I was referring to slow OTB chess. (This is discussed in 'Appendix G. Quickplay Finishes' in the FIDE handbook). I am fine if this is only implemented in classical.
We seem both to be quoting outdated FIDE handbooks. I checked again.
The current FIDE handbook is ...
www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=207&view=article
The relevant part regarding draw claims is at the very bottom:
'III. Games without increment including Quickplay Finishes'
... and the relevant paragraphs are III.2.2, III.4, III.5, and III.6.
The current FIDE handbook is ...
www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=207&view=article
The relevant part regarding draw claims is at the very bottom:
'III. Games without increment including Quickplay Finishes'
... and the relevant paragraphs are III.2.2, III.4, III.5, and III.6.
#14 This is not an implementation of FIDE rules; FIDE games require an arbiter. The Lichess rule is that if a checkmate can be constructed, the timeout counts as a loss. This ensures that the opponent is never unjustly denied a half-point.
@Toadofsky
It is an automated arbiter decision. If the arbiter decides for draw in 99,9% of cases (in slow games), then it can as well automatically be declared draw.
Remember, mate has never occurred in K(N|B) vs K(N|B) according to my database. Out of 1300+ games there are just 7 wins, all on time, three in internet games. Without being able to prove it, it can very well be possible that the mate never ever ocurred in a chess game.
Again, im just suggesting K(N|B) vs (K + any pieces except pawns). And i formulated the reason in #10:
"in all of those piece constellations there exist no won postition (except the mate) for the K(N|B) party where it is the opponents move."
This means in practice that the opponent can _not_ just let his time run down. Because it is not his move. And the only way to _enforce_ this position is to have sacrified a piece directly before, which means it doesnt fit into our piece constellation any more.
See @Sarg0n s first example in #9. Black moves Rb1+ and white decides to let his time run down. This is not draw, because black still has the rook. But if white takes, then it is blacks move and he mates. Black can not enforce the mate if he doesnt have the rook.
So the automated draw is always given to a drawn position (with the bizarre exception i found in #11, and this could also simply be included). The N|B party is never unjustly denied a half-point.
It is an automated arbiter decision. If the arbiter decides for draw in 99,9% of cases (in slow games), then it can as well automatically be declared draw.
Remember, mate has never occurred in K(N|B) vs K(N|B) according to my database. Out of 1300+ games there are just 7 wins, all on time, three in internet games. Without being able to prove it, it can very well be possible that the mate never ever ocurred in a chess game.
Again, im just suggesting K(N|B) vs (K + any pieces except pawns). And i formulated the reason in #10:
"in all of those piece constellations there exist no won postition (except the mate) for the K(N|B) party where it is the opponents move."
This means in practice that the opponent can _not_ just let his time run down. Because it is not his move. And the only way to _enforce_ this position is to have sacrified a piece directly before, which means it doesnt fit into our piece constellation any more.
See @Sarg0n s first example in #9. Black moves Rb1+ and white decides to let his time run down. This is not draw, because black still has the rook. But if white takes, then it is blacks move and he mates. Black can not enforce the mate if he doesnt have the rook.
So the automated draw is always given to a drawn position (with the bizarre exception i found in #11, and this could also simply be included). The N|B party is never unjustly denied a half-point.
@impruuve Thanks for the feedback.
I had considered that K+B/N versus K+X (one piece) can only win in cases where the opponent randomly blunders mate in 1; as you say, there is no forced mate. A player low on time (with no increment) could make such a random blunder, in the same sense that White could win lichess.org/editor/rnbqkbnr/ppppppp1/7p/8/8/8/7P/4K3_w_KQkq_- if Black loses on time.
Note that K+N versus K+Q as well as K+B versus K+Q/R are ruled a draw because checkmate is impossible. So your concern is about other K+B/N versus K+X endgames.
I had considered that K+B/N versus K+X (one piece) can only win in cases where the opponent randomly blunders mate in 1; as you say, there is no forced mate. A player low on time (with no increment) could make such a random blunder, in the same sense that White could win lichess.org/editor/rnbqkbnr/ppppppp1/7p/8/8/8/7P/4K3_w_KQkq_- if Black loses on time.
Note that K+N versus K+Q as well as K+B versus K+Q/R are ruled a draw because checkmate is impossible. So your concern is about other K+B/N versus K+X endgames.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.