Lets not make this complicated. KNIGHT AND KING CANNOT REPEAT CANNOT FORCE MATE. Therefore, insufficient material.
Knight and King CAN force mate. For example, see the diagram below. It is White to move, and Black's flag just fell.
FIDE, This is easily a win!
USCF, This is a win because 1.Nf1 forces 1...h2 and then 2.Ng3 is MATE!
CHESS.COM, This is a draw because the programmers are lazy.
BUT IT WAS KNIGHT/KING VS. KNIGHT/KING
http://archive.uschess.org/tds/clockrules.php
The USCF rule enables a draw to be claimed via insufficient losing chances by the way. Hence why their rule differs from FIDE (possibly ).
This only applies if you have an Analog Clock, which will be very rare because the order of priority is now:
Digital with Delay functionality
Digital without Delay functionality
Analog Clock
The swapped the bottom two in the last year or so.
So it doesn't matter that you have Black, if you have an analog clock, and White has a digital, White gets to use his!
I will never play another tournament game with an analog clock, and therefore, there will never be another case of Insufficient Losing Chances in any of my games. You can't use it on digital clocks or increment clocks.
BUT IT WAS KNIGHT/KING VS. KNIGHT/KING
K+N vs K+N mate is also possible, though not forced.
In the Below Example, it would be a win in FIDE, draw in USCF, draw on Chess.com.
The "possible" way to mate is 1.Nf1 Nh2 2.Ng3#
And by the way, if White's flag fell, it would still be a win for Black, only it would take far more moves to create the scenario and would require a lot of stupidity by White, but it would still be a win for Black if White's flag fell unless White were to take the Black Knight, or if Black took White's Knight. Then it would be a draw.
SonofThunder2:
newengland7, in this case, if White actually MADE the move of Nb1 (you miss-labelled it Ng8) and his flag falls, then Black is under no obligation to claim time.
The director cannot call flag in USCF. Therefore, if I was Black, I wouldn't even rely on the rules of claiming time, I would simply play 1...Nc2#
Actually, the board I had flipped.
Really people? How would chess.com determan who won the game? "Both can force a mate" You did notice the " right?
Let's just make a new rule, then; draws should only be allowed when only two kings are on the board.
Problem solved.
Let's just make a new rule, then; draws should only be allowed when only two kings are on the board.
Problem solved.
SonOfThunder2,
Implementation of FIDE rules as opposed to USCF rules state that this is a win for black, not white.
Implementation of USCF rules as opposed to FIDE rules state that this is a draw.
As my main question has now been sufficiently answered, I think we can lock this thread before we lose all faith in civilisation.
SonOfThunder2,
Implementation of FIDE rules as opposed to USCF rules state that this is a win for black, not white.
Implementation of USCF rules as opposed to FIDE rules state that this is a draw.
As my main question has now been sufficiently answered, I think we can lock this thread before we lose all faith in civilisation.
If you are referring to the post 54, what you are saying isn't correct:
FIDE - This is a win for whoever didn't run out of time, INCLUDING WHITE! Black could play stupid and allow a mate for White.
USCF - This is a Win if it is Black to move as mate can be forced. This is a draw if it is White to move as while mate is eventually possible for one side, nothing is forced.
CHESS.com - This is a draw no matter what
"If you are referring to the post 54, what you are saying isn't correct:"
Post 1 actually.
We're beating a dead-horse now but thanks for clarification on what I meant in respect to post 54.
re: blunderfest
I remember that when I first learned the "insufficient material" rule (in the 1960's) the author explained that the player with time left wins if mate is possible with the player who has time left moving both black and white pieces. Alas I have forgotten the author , but this sounds like the discription of FIDE rules given above (i.e. NO mention of forced moves). I have endeavored in vain ever since to find a locked postion where muliple pieces cannot mate, but I'm still looking.
So Chess.com need to declare whose rules govern? USCF or FIDE? If the latter, NewEngland has a point ( eg K and N v K and P, depending where the pawn is). If the former, win must be forced.
Chess.com have their own rule. It's a combination of "Insufficient material" and "insufficient losing chances" (USCF wording). It's a compromise that was reached several years ago as "insufficient losing chances" requires stopping the clock and having the game adjudicated a draw. Can't be done on chess.com.
The best advice is don't worry about it. Just realize that the FIDE and USCF rules are not applicable.
" Chess.com have their own rule. It's a combination of "Insufficient material" and "insufficient losing chances" (USCF wording)."
Seems to be the accurate conclusion.
The game was drawn.
Done.
http://archive.uschess.org/tds/clockrules.php
The USCF rule enables a draw to be claimed via insufficient losing chances by the way. Hence why their rule differs from FIDE (possibly
).