# Mating Material vs. Timeouts

In a position like this, if white's time runs out, he loses because black can                         theoretically mate white with the knight, right?

Black can theoretically mate white with the knight if white promotes to a bishop. knight, or rook and moves both to the corner.

After 1. Kg6... How's black supposed to stop mate? What happens if black loses                    on time?

Here's the best example:

After 1. C7 black cannot stop white mating or easily winning. What if black's time runs out here?

I think, in the first three positions, according to FIDE rules, Black wins. But on Chess.com (which follows USCF rules), the game is a draw.

In the 4th position, it's obviously White winning...

aravinds_ll wrote:

I think, in the first three positions, according to FIDE rules, Black wins. But on Chess.com (which follows USCF rules), the game is a draw.

In the 4th position, it's obviously White winning...

In the 3rd position, if black's time runs out, WHITE wins right?

Apparently Chess.com follows a draw ruling with a king and bishop only (or a king and knight only), even if the king and bishop (or knight) is capable on launching a checkmate on the next immediate move. So for example in this diagram (sorry, add one more White bishop on c8 so that it is a mate in one, not two, for White),

if Black's flag drops, the game is ruled a draw on Chess.com, not a win for White.

In the diagrams on post 1, having one pawn, rook or queen is sufficient for a win on time, so the final diagram is a win for White in all formats of games, while the first three games end in draws on Chess.com but end in wins for the player having time under FIDE rules.

Even this situation is similar.

In that last one, any knight move by black is check, and wins

EndgameStudy wrote:

In that last one, any knight move by black is check, and wins

As in, Black can be paranoid, for example, by playing a3.

I think in any position, where mate is theoretically possible, the computer should be able to detect if a player could reasonably FORCE mate in any given position, without the opponent's cooperation

For example:

In a position like this, White has forced mates. However, under time pressure, he might not calculate it correctly. If white flags, one could argue that the game should be a draw, because white can easily prevent black from promoting the pawn. One could say that white should win if he has a forced mate if a grandmaster could calculate the mate very quickly, and would have won if it weren't for time. It can't be only based on material. The white king alone can theorectically stalemate ALL of the black pieces in this position:

This is actually a perfect example of why stalemate HAS to be a draw (some guy complaining on forum that stalemate should be a win).

EndgameStudy wrote:

This is actually a perfect example of why stalemate HAS to be a draw (some guy complaining on forum that stalemate should be a win).

I am sure that there are players in favour of stalemates being a win for the stalemating player, as debated in another forum topic on Chess.com.

Anyway in the first diagram of post #11, Black wins on a White timeout according to FIDE rules, since it cannot be assumed that White will be clever enough to maneuver the knight around to checkmate Black king with the aid of the h-pawn and similarly it cannot be assumed that Black cannot escape the incoming checkmate (technically, it is possible for White to play weirdly, move the knight to a8 and allow the Black pawn to promote safely).

eric0022 wrote:
EndgameStudy wrote:

This is actually a perfect example of why stalemate HAS to be a draw (some guy complaining on forum that stalemate should be a win).

I am sure that there are players in favour of stalemates being a win for the stalemating player, as debated in another forum topic on Chess.com.

Anyway in the first diagram of post #11, Black wins on a White timeout according to FIDE rules, since it cannot be assumed that White will be clever enough to maneuver the knight around to checkmate Black king with the aid of the h-pawn and similarly it cannot be assumed that Black cannot escape the incoming checkmate (technically, it is possible for White to play weirdly, move the knight to a8 and allow the Black pawn to promote safely).

There is a forced mate in 7, but there is absolutely no way white would let black promote the pawn.

Also, for the stalemating position, how could stalemate be a win for white if white couldn't capture the king, and black cannot make a move?

EndgameStudy wrote:

Also, for the stalemating position, how could stalemate be a win for white if white couldn't capture the king, and black cannot make a move?

In that specific situation, the stalemate happens to end in a case where Black is not even able to move a piece, and clearly White cannot capture the Black king since the cave of the Black pieces is so solid that the Black king cannot be extricated from the cave. Thus, clearly White cannot win. In general situations, however, stalemates end up with the Black king being captured with any move made.

Of course, it is due to this reasoning of a zugzwang situation that some players argue that the winning side should be awarded a win, and we cannot do much to dissuade them from thinking that way, but I like the way stalemate threats and possibilities can be used as defensive ideas and techniques, and hence the outcome of a draw is perfectly reasonable.

EndgameStudy wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
EndgameStudy wrote:

This is actually a perfect example of why stalemate HAS to be a draw (some guy complaining on forum that stalemate should be a win).

I am sure that there are players in favour of stalemates being a win for the stalemating player, as debated in another forum topic on Chess.com.

Anyway in the first diagram of post #11, Black wins on a White timeout according to FIDE rules, since it cannot be assumed that White will be clever enough to maneuver the knight around to checkmate Black king with the aid of the h-pawn and similarly it cannot be assumed that Black cannot escape the incoming checkmate (technically, it is possible for White to play weirdly, move the knight to a8 and allow the Black pawn to promote safely).

There is a forced mate in 7, but there is absolutely no way white would let black promote the pawn.

The FIDE rules are in favour of 'all possibilities', not just 'reasonable' ones. Under the FIDE rules, we cannot assume that White will not allow Black to promote. Reasonably speaking, it is not very logical for White to allow the pawn to promote, but we cannot say with 100% probability that White will definitely stop the promotion, since White's other not very logical options are still legal under the rules of chess and they are possibilities, although extremely improbable.

"The FIDE rules are in favour of 'all possibilities', not just 'reasonable' ones. Under the FIDE rules, we cannot assume that White will not allow Black to promote. Reasonably speaking, it is not very logical for White to allow the pawn to promote, but we cannot say with 100% probability that White will definitely stop the promotion, since White's other not very logical options are still legal under the rules of chess and they are possibilities, although extremely improbable."

But in that reasoning, if black flags, white should win because he can theoretically force mate. If both sides can theoretically force mate, then whoever runs out of time should just lose.

Well, as long as either side can land a checkmate somehow (need not necessarily be forced, it just has to be a series of any legal moves, even if the moves are stupid-looking), the side running out of time is considered to have lost on time.

Take for example this.

In practical terms, it is clear that White is winning and can potentially launch a mate at the eighth rank. However, in absolute terms involving all possibilities, things like this can happen.

In other words, it is clearly possible, although we all know this is highly unlikely, that this situation can occur. On a White timeout in the first position of post #18, Black wins on time. Obviously on a Black timeout, White wins on time, since mate is clearly possible and in plain view by any good player in the first place.

The side having the knight in that diagram (White) in post #13 will win the game on time on a Black timeout because checkmating positions are available with those four pieces as you showed previously. However, the checkmate need not be a forced one for the win on time ruling to be declared; it can be stupid moves by both players also, like moving the knight to a8 before coming back and the Black king keeps moving back and forth while both parties try to evade a threefold repetition, before coming back for the checkmate. Or, Black can even promote the pawn to a bishop, knight or rook, where White can obviously still checkmate Black by weird means from both players.

Similarly, the side having the pawn in that diagram (Black) will win the game on time on a White timeout since White can be stupid enough to let the knight get captured before allowing the promotion.

Oh, when I mention White timeout, I mean that White in the player who lost on time, and the case is similar for a Black timeout.

EndgameStudy napsal:

After 1. Kg6... How's black supposed to stop mate? What happens if black loses                    on time?

EndgameStudy napsal: After 1. Kg6... How's black supposed to stop mate? What happens if black loses                    on time?