This subject is dead! If you want to play chess at this site then you accept the rules they use for playing chess. If you don't like these rules then go somewhere else!
arrakis09
How is this Draw via Insufficient Material?
Sort:
Jan 16, 2015
0
#23
KirbyCake wrote:
yes you are correct here.
the main problem is that insufficient material is not working on chess.com.
there are millions of positions where chess.com cannot tell whether to award the draw or not.
in a tournament game, black would have been given the win.
No, because black has insufficient mating material.
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
I really don't see a point why wouldn't we use the USCF rule set in these situations. Isn't it simple common sense?
Who on earth would actually stand up and claim it's a draw in real life?
"Well, you see, if my opponent would give up his queen and I underpromoted while he walks into the corner and jumps around the place with his knight, I can mate him."
Seriously?
Where's the dignity?
Considering that the USCF rule conflicts with the FIDE rule, I would say that no, it's not "common sense." It's certainly not common between FIDE and USCF.
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
leiph18 írta:
A bare king? That's... not the rule.
Speed chess sometimes has special rules, but that doesn't make sense to me at all. You'll have to give me a link. (Edit, wait, I seem to remember something like this...)
Anyway, I'm mostly posting for the Arrakis09 guy who said in #5 that black couldn't mate.
So that doesn't make sense but ridiculous selfmates do? What common sense would give black a win when he can only win if his opponent makes 7 completely illogical move deliberately losing the game?
Why is this even brought up? WHY?
Because a rule has to draw a line somewhere and it will be imperfect. So there will always be these absurd situations. It makes sense to me that if mate is possible by any series of moves then a rule should count it as a loss/win. In time scrambles it's hard to judge which moves are absurd and which are reasonable. Of course it's also not perfect to have no rule and let judges adjudicate.
It makes sense to me because if a clock can't end the game as a loss in most situations then it loses its point.
One of the better ideas, IMO, is (in tournament chess) to have a big increment like +30 so this is rarely an issue. Also this is enough time to avoid "absurd" moves... or at least 3, 4, 5 in a row.
Reached a position like this on chess.com a while back. I'd say this is the one exception to the idea that helpmates are rediculous.
After black plays Ka8 I would mate with Ndb6. Instead, my opponent sat there for about 5 minutes before running out of time. He was given a draw, even though he would be mated next move. This is incredibly rare of course.
I think both the USCF rules and FIDE rules stir up alot of controversy, because there have been people victim to both of these rules. The USCF rules has a nice rule to prevent these situations called "Insufficient Losing Chances." If there is no delay, you have less than 2 minutes, and you an prove the position is a dead draw, you can claim a draw. If there is delay/increment on the clock, I think players should need to play on.
Jan 16, 2015
0
#27
As various commenters have pointed out, it is a draw per USCF rules provided there is no increment and a black win per FIDE rules. There has been the infamous game Socko - Foisor from the 2008 European championship. Here is the article from Chessbase that covered it in detail:
http://en.chessbase.com/post/carry-on-up-the-armageddon
jposthuma írta:
Reached a position like this on chess.com a while back. I'd say this is the one exception to the idea that helpmates are rediculous.
After black plays Ka8 I would mate with Ndb6. Instead, my opponent sat there for about 5 minutes before running out of time. He was given a draw, even though he would be mated next move. This is incredibly rare of course.
I think both the USCF rules and FIDE rules stir up alot of controversy, because there have been people victim to both of these rules. The USCF rules has a nice rule to prevent these situations called "Insufficient Losing Chances." If there is no delay, you have less than 2 minutes, and you an prove the position is a dead draw, you can claim a draw. If there is delay/increment on the clock, I think players should need to play on.
That's a forced mate. It's the freaking opposite of a self mate depicted before by other people.
Jan 17, 2015
0
#29
jposthuma hat geschrieben:
(...)
After black plays Ka8 I would mate with Ndb6. Instead, my opponent sat there for about 5 minutes before running out of time. He was given a draw, even though he would be mated next move. This is incredibly rare of course.
(...)
Yes, cases like this show that the chess.com mechanism is broken. It should only be a draw when it is kk or knk or kbk.
No one falls victim to the rules (of Chess, as any particular organisation implements them)... they only fall victim to not knowing the rules, or not understanding the implications of them.
It's best to play as though you will only win with a checkmate, and anything else will lose for you. 
The USCF draw rules are moronic, and unfortunately, they are also adopted by chess.com
This postion is a draw in insufficent material.
Maybe a chess.com moderator could explain?
owltuna wrote:
Arrakis09 wrote:
KirbyCake wrote:
yes you are correct here....
Bollocks, but beside the point.You are giving out incorrect information. I have been playing in professional tournaments for over 40 years as well as writing for Chess Life and other magazines covering events. AND a TD many years ago!
The reason White was given the statement that the game was drawn is because White lost on time....
If you really are a professional writer, it is shocking that you use the very incorrect terminology, "White lost on time." Obviously, White did not lose, because the result is a draw. White ran out of time on the clock, White did not lose.
I think what he's saying is that he believes white did lose on time (or white should have lost on time), and chess.com incorrectly gave him a draw - which you could agree or disagree with, but there's nothing wrong with the writing itself.
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
I really don't see a point why wouldn't we use the USCF rule set in these situations. Isn't it simple common sense?
Who on earth would actually stand up and claim it's a draw in real life?
"Well, you see, if my opponent would give up his queen and I underpromoted while he walks into the corner and jumps around the place with his knight, I can mate him."
Seriously?
Where's the dignity?
the only people who use USCF are literally people in the US.
everybody else worldwide uses FIDE, even some tournaments in US uses FIDE.
the problem is that insufficient losing chances rule is so ambiguous that its really up to the arbiter to decide which positions are draws and losses.
FIDE makes it clear which positions are draws and losses. the judgment doesn't differ between arbiters.
Rules should be clear, and offer just ONE resolution to any problem. The USCF drawing rules do not do that. "Insufficient winning chances" is plain stupid. Either there are winning chances, or they are not. We don't have the Schroedinger's Cat problem here, where the cat can be alive and dead at the same time.
There is another difference between USCF and FIDE rules that I really dislike . In FIDE events , without increments , when a player gets under 5 min on his clock he may stop keeping score , but his opponent must continue keeping score until he is also under 5 minutes , which seems fair to me but in USCF rules BOTH players may stop keeping score when either of them has under 5 min left and I don't like this at all . The FIDE version is better imo and I would like to see USCF change theirs to the FIDE version . Ofcouse with increments of 30s , or more , neither side can ever stop keeping score , which I think is best of all . I wish uscf would use 30s increments instead of the stupid 5 second delay , which is useless and only favors young players in time scrambles .....
Jan 20, 2015
0
#37
pfren wrote:
Rules should be clear, and offer just ONE resolution to any problem. The USCF drawing rules do not do that. "Insufficient winning chances" is plain stupid. Either there are winning chances, or they are not. We don't have the Schroedinger's Cat problem here, where the cat can be alive and dead at the same time.
I have to disagree. Rules that - while black and white - lead to scenarios where a K+N vs K+N is a win for one side are equally silly as those zero tolerance rules in many American schools where a young student gets expelled for bringing a 3 inch long toy gun into school.
Welcome.