12624 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
H5 g6 f7 d8...black can't stop that....then heads to c7
wafflemaster showed the correct response to that - White only draws by moving directly to get IN FRONT of the Black pawn, and must be very careful not to stray a single step on the way.
G5 does not lose, g5 f6 e7 d8 comes to c7, lost black pawn, nice puzzle Eric, what do I win LOL
I already showed that line. Here, your move for white, whats your move. By the way I premove king takes pawn so take your time lol
Every move loses except 1. Kg3.
Oops, in my 25 black has to go to c2. If he goes to b2 white can draw again... ok I fixed it and noted the error.
but anyway, yeah let them play it out lol.
Which part of black playing Ka6 in response to Kc7 you did not understand?
Back in the old days of correspondence chess, if an arbiter was called in to determine a result, the two players would submit their analysis of the position. If White showed he knew the drawing line, the arbiter would declare the game a draw.
To make it easier you can think of it as, every time black goes up a rank white needs to be able to go left 1 file.
In effect this means white wants to go to the low ranks because if the black king can both go up and stop you from going left you lose... this is impossible if you're on a low rank.
Anyway something like this:
There's one more, basic idea for white: When Black finally takes the pawn, White must be able to play Kb4 immediately. So, it can never occupy b4 if Black can take the b6 pawn. For example:
Post 18 is correct, 15 is wrong!
Post 15 would be a win for Black. This is a classical case of Reciprocal Zugzwang. Player to move loses.
And also, this should NEVER be granted an Insufficient Losing Chances claim. A 1400 could lose this to a GM (by doing what White did in message 15).
People mis-use the ILC rule. It's not "This is drawn". It's "There is no way that anybody would ever lose this, including a 1400 to a GM.
For example: KQ vs KQ, or KR vs KR, or KB(RP) with B being the wrong color vs K that currently resides in the corner the pawn would promote at, etc.
Why would white move away from the pawn illustrated above...so what is the answer Mr Eric...lol
Because white has to move somewhere. See wafflemaster's post #32, where it is white's turn.
You see, in the game of chess one side makes a move, then another side makes a move. You cannot skip moves.
@bestovalltime - look up trebuchet -- white loses if he tries to go for the pawn.
That is absolutely correct. Dvoretsky called these positions, Mined Square position because whoever stepped up to the locked pawns last, their position is blown up.
The ideas that both sides would likely need to understand (and i am not certain I will get them all) are: Near, Distant and Diagonal opposition, triangulation, outflanking, Zugzwang and/or Zwiesenzhug (I never can speel that one right), Rule of corresponding squares and Trebuchet positions.
Taken sepereately, I can grasp all but the corresponding squares idea but to have an understanding of al these ideas, is still beyond me even after playing for 30 some odd years.
Both Dvoretsky and Hans Kmoch cover these ideas in their books, Dvoretsky's Endgame manual and Kmoch's Pawn Power in Chess. I have looked through both these books and though I have been told i could play and understand concepts at a Class B USCF level, the concepts still are foreign to me somewhat.
Nevertheless, I would have them play it out as well.
When you claim a draw / win by an arbiter, you don't have to just claim it. You have to provide analysis of what will happen to prove that you know how to play it.
In the current case, there are so many possibilities and no general idea that takes them all in account, so the players would never be able to explain the arbiter their claim so I let them play it out. (and substract time from the clock of the one who asked me to come )
If they both want it drawn then just offer a draw, then accept it.
They don't call an arbiter for that.
I am an arbiter (FIDE rules).
First, you didn't state who claimed the draw. If it is black, I would inform him that it isn't his turn and so he can't claim anything. If it is white, I check that the clock is stopped and ask him on what basis he's claiming a draw.
If it is rule 10.2 and that rule is in effect (it's a quickplay finish without increment, and white has less than two minutes), then I need to make a decision. First I inform black that this draw claim also counts as a draw offer, so he has until he makes his own move to decide whether he wants to accept.
Obviously, I won't accept the claim outright. This position can still be lost by white.
It is tempting to reject it outright, but as an arbiter I have nothing to lose by postponing my decision, on the off chance that black doesn't even try to win (in which case it would be correct to decide it is a draw).
So I announce I postpone my decision, give black two minutes extra time, and restart white's clock.
I will then stay to watch if at all possible (sometimes hard with many games) and make my decision after a flag falls. If white was making quick moves (not just waiting for his flag to fall...) and black wasn't trying to win, or white's flag has falling in a position that black can't realistically win anymore, it's a draw.
I hate rule 10.2. Increments for the win.
People are confusing OTB rules with correspondence rules here.
Over the board, no arbiter would grant a draw in this position.
If the game went to arbitration in a correspondence tournament, the players would submit their analyses and the arbiter would award the point accordingly.
They may be confusing arbitration with the forgotten practice of adjudication. Many years ago, when pairings where done by hand, tournaments sometimes had people in position to adjudicate the outcome of a game. This helped with pairing speed. There's a great article in the current New In Chess about Bobby Fischer serving as the adjudicator for the Greater New York Open and challenging critics of his decisions to play the positions out against him.
by pfren a few minutes ago
7/25/2014 - Sahovic - Karolyi 1986
by deepak64 3 minutes ago
New Forum Rules
by petrosianpupil 3 minutes ago
Only a 40 year break...
by mroyer 11 minutes ago
YOUR IQ compared to" World Chess Champion" Garry Kasparov ..
by petrosianpupil 11 minutes ago
Bumping Old Threads
by Ziggy_Zugzwang 21 minutes ago
kicked from livechess
by macer75 23 minutes ago
Friend is in prision
by macer75 27 minutes ago
Delete account or alter username
by zapped 28 minutes ago
Ruth Haring: 'Girls are bad at chess'
by kleelof 71 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!