oh
Rule Issue
Sort:
Most players agree, see this topic:
https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/discuss-uncaptured-kings-in-the-endgame
the fact is, yeah a player who is going to be 3rd can decide who will get 1st and who 2nd sometimes, as sometimes the player who gets first can decide on 2nd/3rd.... very difficult to do something about it. I think resignation should not be allowed (if not when there are only 2 players left) to make it a bit more fair
Oct 26, 2017
0
#5
Well there's not much you can do about first deciding 2nd and 3rd, but there is a clear solution to 3rd deciding.
This just came up in my most recent game.
There are 3 players left. Red is out and guaranteed 4th with 4 points.
Yellow is way behind (7 points, not close to promotion, not much material, sandwiched between myself and the other player)
Green has [38?] points, but not a ton of material.
Blue has [11?] points, good position, and a lot of material.
As blue is closing in on yellow, they resign, leaving blue a couple of moves from snatching the yellow king. As blue moves in on the yellow king, also attacking green's unguarded rook, green resigns. This gives blue just 20 points from green, but not the 20 that blue was about to get from yellow. I think it may have been split 10 to each? The final score is Green=48 Blue=31 Yellow=7 Red=4.
If one of the last 2 players resigns when there is an open king on the board, I think the non-resigning player should get the points for both remaining kings. It's one thing that 1st can decide who gets 2nd and who gets 3rd, but at least they earned that power. It seems silly that 3rd can decide who gets 1st and who gets 2nd.
Does this scenario end the way the powers that be believe that it should? I can see the argument for leaving it, as it encourages a little more action to make sure no one gets too far ahead, but I think the cons outweigh the pros. It also leads to more resigning, as 3rd can now resign in spite, giving the resign some actual power.