is there anyway a helpmate could have possibly been achieved with a bishop+king vs. queen and king? i lost on time in a 3 0 match and thought it should have been insufficient material for a draw

thanks

I couldn't produce a mate setup without other pieces or pawns(I'm connected from my mobile phone now so I don't know if you had some). The queen would need to block the escape square for its king, but in that case it could take the bishop, or interpose as these would be only legal moves. In any case bishop can't produce a checkmate(I think). If further analysis would confirm this, you would have a valid clame for staff to give you a half point for that game

Am I missing something here? Whereas White can't win with only the bishop vs. the Queen, Black can win with the Queen vs. the bishop. Therefore, mate can be achieved, and it's not a draw by insufficient material. That draw only happens if neither player can mate with the material available to them.

Why not 63. Bxf2

thanks for your replies, i'll go talk to the staff

---

Be sure to tell us what happened

got unlucky, kohai emailed me and gave me a :\ sort of response

The game only ends on insufficient material when one player only has a king remaining and the game time hits zero sorry :(
- Kohai
Chess.com Support

i was wondering if theres an area online where you can find information on this type of draw

thanks

Sounds to me like there is a definite bug in the way that chess.com scores results.

It is correct that the position is certainly not a draw due to insufficient mating material, because there is sufficient mating material. However, a player cannot win on time if that player does not possess sufficient material with which to mate.

And, in general, judging by the response, the way chess.com determines insufficient mating material is also flawed, and needs to be fixed, so that chess.com actually adheres to the rules of chess.

These are definite errors that need to be fixed.

---

In my line of work , I have a pretty big experience with such answers.

Lot of them are ruled like that just because the claimant didn't make a correct claim and/or make a correct reference to the document that justifies his claim.

 

FIDE laws of chess:

http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article

 

You can note that there is no "insufficient material" mentioned anywhere in the text, that is because this is just a casual name that describes certain type of situations, but this is not what you are complaining about.

 

So this is what happened:  You played the game and you needed to finish all your moves in allotted period as described in Article 6.2.a. below. Since your time expired as indicated in Article 6.1. your flag fell. According to Article 6.9. since neither of 5.1.a - 5.2c applies(checkmate, resign,stalemate,dead position, draw by agreement), you would have lost a game.

However, also according to Article 6.9. since the position is such that your oponent cannot checkmate your king with any possible series of legal moves, the game is drawn!   Q.E.D. (end of proof)

 

Article 6: The chess clock

6.1	‘Chess clock’ means a clock with two time displays, connected to each other in such a way that only one of them can run at one time. ‘Clock’ in the Laws of Chess, means one of the two time displays. Each time display has a ‘flag’. ‘Flag fall’ means the expiration of the allotted time for a player.

6.2

a.

When using a chess clock, each player must make a minimum number of moves or all moves in an allotted period of time and/or may be allocated an additional amount of time with each move. All these must be specified in advance.

6.9

Except where one of the Articles: 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c applies, 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 series of legal moves.

thanks for your replies, i'll try a second time and see what they'll say.

What if this were to happen:

 

I wonder if they considered this type of position in my post above when FIDE created article 6.9.

This situation from diagram is highly unlikely to ever occur in the real game.

But I think that preface from Laws of chess explains what to do in "murky" situations:

 

Preface

The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors.

---

Below that it says:

 

FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view.

A member federation is free to introduce more detailed rules provided they:

1. do not conflict in any way with the official FIDE Laws of Chess, and
2. are limited to the territory of the federation concerned, and
3. are not valid for any FIDE match, championship or qualifying event, or for a FIDE title or rating tournament.

 

In part 'a' it says that the arbiter is not allowed to conflict with the Laws of Chess.  This would mean that he must obey article 6.9 which would claim the position to be a draw rather than a win for white.  Perhaps article 6.9 has too many details (or not enough)?