Interesting. Thanks @FletchMK64 (#9) & @MoistvonLipwig
Just want to point out that you cannot claim draw otb successfully either in many cases. This is a myth due to this former paragraph 10.2a which allowed it in some cases but not „always“.
One example: otb blitz without supervision (which is normal case). There have been championship finals where one „flags“ N-N without pawns.
„Appendix G4“: right, but consider the rest like G2 and G3:
„G.2. Before the start of an event it shall be announced whether this Appendix shall apply or not.
G.3. This Appendix shall only apply to standard play and rapidplay games without increment and not to blitz games.“
One example: otb blitz without supervision (which is normal case). There have been championship finals where one „flags“ N-N without pawns.
„Appendix G4“: right, but consider the rest like G2 and G3:
„G.2. Before the start of an event it shall be announced whether this Appendix shall apply or not.
G.3. This Appendix shall only apply to standard play and rapidplay games without increment and not to blitz games.“
And right, the UCSF makes its own soup as we say in German.
If an infinite number of monkeys play the given position randomly there will be things like mates in 5 or 7 and so on - for both sides. Where does one draw the line?
If an infinite number of monkeys play the given position randomly there will be things like mates in 5 or 7 and so on - for both sides. Where does one draw the line?
Thanks @Sarg0n - I accidentally linked to the previous set of Laws. The current set is here :
http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=207&view=article
There is Guideline III in there covering games without increment but as you say, it doesn't cover blitz without increment - so you're right that you couldn't claim a draw in this way in a blitz game (I think you still can in rapid or standard play, though only if the use of the guidelines is pre-announced?)
Personally I think that's a bit of a shame - whilst I understand that when the flag falls the rule is based on any legal set of moves, it doesn't quite feel right that you should be able to get a win in this sort of position purely by shuffling the pieces and flagging your opponent.
But I guess it's a moot point for most chess, because of the increment - no-one would play on for more than a couple of moves in the positions you've given in that situation.
http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=207&view=article
There is Guideline III in there covering games without increment but as you say, it doesn't cover blitz without increment - so you're right that you couldn't claim a draw in this way in a blitz game (I think you still can in rapid or standard play, though only if the use of the guidelines is pre-announced?)
Personally I think that's a bit of a shame - whilst I understand that when the flag falls the rule is based on any legal set of moves, it doesn't quite feel right that you should be able to get a win in this sort of position purely by shuffling the pieces and flagging your opponent.
But I guess it's a moot point for most chess, because of the increment - no-one would play on for more than a couple of moves in the positions you've given in that situation.
Well, the point of playing with increment is that you can't get flagged.
So if you play without it you shouldn't complain about it, it's your decision, if you don't like it play with increment.
So if you play without it you shouldn't complain about it, it's your decision, if you don't like it play with increment.
@FletchMK64 Thanks for the research. "Normal Means" puts a nail in the coffin of the argument that I hear here. They have always left that part out when citing FIDE rules.
Unless we can cite an arbiter that said, "play on", in a KB KN endgame, then the case about, "if a ++ is AT ALL possible, even by ABNORMAL MEANS", is completely wrecked.
-
The example that's cited about someone flagging someone in a dead draw, fails on all levels:
#1. Even if that happened, it is completely against chess etiquette. It is considered rude and disrespectful. Arguing that we make allowances for this behavior is not in sync with the chess community as a whole, nor with the reasoning behind why FIDE would bother to distinguish "Normal Means" in their interpretation.
#2. The person who was mated in a DEAD DRAWN position (by normal means), failed to stop the clock and call an arbiter as would have been his/her right, and as the arbiter would have declared the game a draw.
#3. Possibly the player was playing with an increment, where the rule doesn't apply.
-
I play standard, no increment. KN KB is an auto-draw, there and everywhere, except for here.
-
Thanks again for the research Fletch.
-
By The Way, I haven't had a "favorite number" since I was a child...
...but having achieved 2000 today...
...I think that "64" will be my new favorite number.
So I appreciate that suggestion, as well.
Unless we can cite an arbiter that said, "play on", in a KB KN endgame, then the case about, "if a ++ is AT ALL possible, even by ABNORMAL MEANS", is completely wrecked.
-
The example that's cited about someone flagging someone in a dead draw, fails on all levels:
#1. Even if that happened, it is completely against chess etiquette. It is considered rude and disrespectful. Arguing that we make allowances for this behavior is not in sync with the chess community as a whole, nor with the reasoning behind why FIDE would bother to distinguish "Normal Means" in their interpretation.
#2. The person who was mated in a DEAD DRAWN position (by normal means), failed to stop the clock and call an arbiter as would have been his/her right, and as the arbiter would have declared the game a draw.
#3. Possibly the player was playing with an increment, where the rule doesn't apply.
-
I play standard, no increment. KN KB is an auto-draw, there and everywhere, except for here.
-
Thanks again for the research Fletch.
-
By The Way, I haven't had a "favorite number" since I was a child...
...but having achieved 2000 today...
...I think that "64" will be my new favorite number.
So I appreciate that suggestion, as well.
@SummerSparkle As it is stated in the rules and also was mentioned before this is for non blitz games. When playing blitz it is wanted from the players that time is an alternate win condition otherwise they wouldn't play blitz.
Yes, if in a long game you claim draw in KB vs KN and it really is draw then you'll get the draw. However if you don't claim draw and lose on time instead you of course lost.
However it would also be silly if you were allowed to claim a draw when there were actual losing chances or possibly in a lost position even. (which happens e.g. in N vs edge pawn; the losing player would just let his time run out)
And yes, time is part of the game. If you lose your time it means you needed more time to figure out your moves so your opponent is stronger in that perspective. But as mentioned simple increment will do the trick and is de facto standard in all FIDE tournaments and more and more also in lower class tournaments. (though more slowly as many clubs don't have a lot of digital clocks yet)
On a side note, I have seen players play on dead drawn positions because both needed to win and tried to flag eachother, that can happen too. ;)
Yes, if in a long game you claim draw in KB vs KN and it really is draw then you'll get the draw. However if you don't claim draw and lose on time instead you of course lost.
However it would also be silly if you were allowed to claim a draw when there were actual losing chances or possibly in a lost position even. (which happens e.g. in N vs edge pawn; the losing player would just let his time run out)
And yes, time is part of the game. If you lose your time it means you needed more time to figure out your moves so your opponent is stronger in that perspective. But as mentioned simple increment will do the trick and is de facto standard in all FIDE tournaments and more and more also in lower class tournaments. (though more slowly as many clubs don't have a lot of digital clocks yet)
On a side note, I have seen players play on dead drawn positions because both needed to win and tried to flag eachother, that can happen too. ;)
@MoistvonLipwig I've only ever discussed the matter from my own experience, which is standard and with no increment.
By FIDE rules, when I knock off that last pawn and we go KB KN or KN K or KB K, that's supposed to be auto-draw, same as any other site.
If LiChess set up this stipulation to reflect the FIDE rules, where there is a difference between blitz and standard with no increment, that would make LiChess ultimate boss.
LiChess is already boss, and not by a little...but this would make them ULTRA boss.
-
Either way, it happens so rarely that I absolutely don't care one little bit.
The way I see it, if one, here and there, end up like that, odds are I'll be on the winning side of half of them.
And on the other half that's left, if that's enough to make or break me, if those points were so sorely needed...then I'm hopeless anyway.
I'm supposed to be able to take that loss, (even if it's NOT per FIDE rules the way that people have tried to say that it is), and then set up the pieces and use my skill to royally thrash the next person that sits in front of me.
So no matter what, it's just such a minute issue that I'm not really at all concerned.
It's just a big deal to everyone that comes from other sites because they're not used to it. They're used to knocking off that last pawn and the clock auto-flagging a draw. It's more a shock from LiChess' interpretation of the rules, than anything about "fairness" or anything else. It's just the change that initially rubs people the wrong way.
That said, I still enjoy these discussions because I like to argue...
...because that's what chess is...
...it's nothing but an argument, a debate...
...where campaign dollars, media brainwash, lies, half-truths, slant, hypocritical analysis, slander, self-serving analysis, a lack of empathy, and a failure to treat your opponent as you would yourself be treated...
...will all be fatally punished and end you up in CHECKMATE.
-
I'm a little bit annoyed at Lasker for making me look like I plagiarized the idea, but it is what it is.
-
By FIDE rules, when I knock off that last pawn and we go KB KN or KN K or KB K, that's supposed to be auto-draw, same as any other site.
If LiChess set up this stipulation to reflect the FIDE rules, where there is a difference between blitz and standard with no increment, that would make LiChess ultimate boss.
LiChess is already boss, and not by a little...but this would make them ULTRA boss.
-
Either way, it happens so rarely that I absolutely don't care one little bit.
The way I see it, if one, here and there, end up like that, odds are I'll be on the winning side of half of them.
And on the other half that's left, if that's enough to make or break me, if those points were so sorely needed...then I'm hopeless anyway.
I'm supposed to be able to take that loss, (even if it's NOT per FIDE rules the way that people have tried to say that it is), and then set up the pieces and use my skill to royally thrash the next person that sits in front of me.
So no matter what, it's just such a minute issue that I'm not really at all concerned.
It's just a big deal to everyone that comes from other sites because they're not used to it. They're used to knocking off that last pawn and the clock auto-flagging a draw. It's more a shock from LiChess' interpretation of the rules, than anything about "fairness" or anything else. It's just the change that initially rubs people the wrong way.
That said, I still enjoy these discussions because I like to argue...
...because that's what chess is...
...it's nothing but an argument, a debate...
...where campaign dollars, media brainwash, lies, half-truths, slant, hypocritical analysis, slander, self-serving analysis, a lack of empathy, and a failure to treat your opponent as you would yourself be treated...
...will all be fatally punished and end you up in CHECKMATE.
-
I'm a little bit annoyed at Lasker for making me look like I plagiarized the idea, but it is what it is.
-
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.