insufficient mating material - Chess Forums - Page 2

eric0022

Mar 7, 2022

0

#21

FoxWithNekoEars wrote:

Uživatel eric0022 napsal:

FoxWithNekoEars wrote:

Uživatel eric0022 napsal:

TheUltraTrap wrote:

OK so I can explain this I think.

1. @B1ZMARK I'm pretty sure it does not. All you need is a check for the pieces.

2. @eric0022. If there is a timeout in such position the player timed out simply loses - I faced this situation before, although most times I can get a draw by threefold repetition or even 50-move rule.

There are some weird rulings on this site, one of which I am aware of (not certain if this has been corrected).

In a king and two bishops against lone king endgame (with nothing else on the board and the two bishops lie on the same colour squares), the side having the bishops win on time if the side having the lone king flags.

White wins on time on this site if Black's time goes to zero.

bruh... that should be illegal

In theory, yes.

Found the link.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/2449103502?username=fryedk

damn..

do you know how works two knights when other side has a pawn somewhere?

I think that this site declares a king and two knights against king and single pawn a draw if the side having the pawn flags - even if mate can be forced because of the presence of that pawn.

TheUltraTrap

Mar 7, 2022

0

#22

Answering the main post:

A "forced checkmate" means "a forced checkmate if the opponent loses all of their pieces".

2 knights vs pawn is declared a draw I think, which makes it so that the player with the pawn could possibly timeout on purpose to draw the game, quite unfair.

Rook and bishop should be a win because if the bishop is captured then there is forced mate.

The "forced mate" also ignores the actual placement of the pieces. If you are playing a drawn king and pawn endgame, timeout by the opponent is a win. While the 2 knights vs lone king for example never have a theoretical forced mate, just a voluntary mate, unless the king and knights are already arranged in such a way that it leads to a forced mate, which is a "specific" position and not kind of an "any placement of the pieces" position.

Does that help you? Also, if someone notices I'm wrong, please tell me so .

TheUltraTrap

Mar 7, 2022

0

#23

B1ZMARK wrote:

TheUltraTrap wrote:

OK so I can explain this I think.

1. @B1ZMARK I'm pretty sure it does not. All you need is a check for the pieces.

2. @eric0022. If there is a timeout in such position the player timed out simply loses - I faced this situation before, although most times I can get a draw by threefold repetition or even 50-move rule.

You would need to program an algorithm that can find a possible mating position that might arise from any given position so I’d say that’s pretty hard

Not really because thatas not the correct rule - read my latest post

TheUltraTrap

Mar 7, 2022

0

#24

eric0022 wrote:

TheUltraTrap wrote:

OK so I can explain this I think.

1. @B1ZMARK I'm pretty sure it does not. All you need is a check for the pieces.

2. @eric0022. If there is a timeout in such position the player timed out simply loses - I faced this situation before, although most times I can get a draw by threefold repetition or even 50-move rule.

There are some weird rulings on this site, one of which I am aware of (not certain if this has been corrected).

In a king and two bishops against lone king endgame (with nothing else on the board and the two bishops lie on the same colour squares), the side having the bishops win on time if the side having the lone king flags.

White wins on time on this site if Black's time goes to zero.

As I told before, the process does not care where the pieces are, only which pieces are there

eric0022

Mar 7, 2022

0

#25

TheUltraTrap wrote:

eric0022 wrote:

TheUltraTrap wrote:

OK so I can explain this I think.

1. @B1ZMARK I'm pretty sure it does not. All you need is a check for the pieces.

2. @eric0022. If there is a timeout in such position the player timed out simply loses - I faced this situation before, although most times I can get a draw by threefold repetition or even 50-move rule.

There are some weird rulings on this site, one of which I am aware of (not certain if this has been corrected).

In a king and two bishops against lone king endgame (with nothing else on the board and the two bishops lie on the same colour squares), the side having the bishops win on time if the side having the lone king flags.

White wins on time on this site if Black's time goes to zero.

As I told before, the process does not care where the pieces are, only which pieces are there

I'm not certain if the win/loss algorithm applies to other chess sites as well.

FoxWithNekoEars

Mar 7, 2022

0

#26

Uživatel TheUltraTrap napsal:

Answering the main post:

A "forced checkmate" means "a forced checkmate if the opponent loses all of their pieces".

2 knights vs pawn is declared a draw I think, which makes it so that the player with the pawn could possibly timeout on purpose to draw the game, quite unfair.

Rook and bishop should be a win because if the bishop is captured then there is forced mate.

The "forced mate" also ignores the actual placement of the pieces. If you are playing a drawn king and pawn endgame, timeout by the opponent is a win. While the 2 knights vs lone king for example never have a theoretical forced mate, just a voluntary mate, unless the king and knights are already arranged in such a way that it leads to a forced mate, which is a "specific" position and not kind of an "any placement of the pieces" position.

Does that help you? Also, if someone notices I'm wrong, please tell me so .

Hmm.. i see

Well thats the easy solution to make tho.. its kinda unfair sometimes...

but understandable

thank you

TheUltraTrap

Mar 7, 2022

0

#27

np

TheUltraTrap

Mar 7, 2022

0

#28

eric0022 wrote:

TheUltraTrap wrote:

eric0022 wrote:

TheUltraTrap wrote:

OK so I can explain this I think.

1. @B1ZMARK I'm pretty sure it does not. All you need is a check for the pieces.

2. @eric0022. If there is a timeout in such position the player timed out simply loses - I faced this situation before, although most times I can get a draw by threefold repetition or even 50-move rule.

There are some weird rulings on this site, one of which I am aware of (not certain if this has been corrected).

In a king and two bishops against lone king endgame (with nothing else on the board and the two bishops lie on the same colour squares), the side having the bishops win on time if the side having the lone king flags.

White wins on time on this site if Black's time goes to zero.

As I told before, the process does not care where the pieces are, only which pieces are there

I'm not certain if the win/loss algorithm applies to other chess sites as well.

lichess is different. But it has its downsides too. lichess uses the FIDE rules but if you timeout in a knight vs pawn position as the pawn side, you LOSE

Lagomorph

Mar 7, 2022

0

#29

eric0022 wrote:

I wonder how Chess.com will rule the following impassable position.

Imagine Chess.com rules this as a win for the side having the time simply because of the surviving pawns.

They will award the win to the player having time. You have been around long enough to know how this works on this website.

Lagomorph

Mar 7, 2022

0

#30

eric0022 wrote:

TheUltraTrap wrote:

OK so I can explain this I think.

1. @B1ZMARK I'm pretty sure it does not. All you need is a check for the pieces.

2. @eric0022. If there is a timeout in such position the player timed out simply loses - I faced this situation before, although most times I can get a draw by threefold repetition or even 50-move rule.

There are some weird rulings on this site,

Only if you go looking for them.

How many times have you encountered this problem in the lat 6 years ?

eric0022

Mar 7, 2022

0

#31

Lagomorph wrote:

eric0022 wrote:

I wonder how Chess.com will rule the following impassable position.

Imagine Chess.com rules this as a win for the side having the time simply because of the surviving pawns.

They will award the win to the player having time. You have been around long enough to know how this works on this website.

Ironically enough, I have not come across such scenarios even once before - I have only seen wins where a checkmate is possible with the worst possible play.

eric0022

Mar 7, 2022

0

#32

Lagomorph wrote:

eric0022 wrote:

TheUltraTrap wrote:

OK so I can explain this I think.

1. @B1ZMARK I'm pretty sure it does not. All you need is a check for the pieces.

2. @eric0022. If there is a timeout in such position the player timed out simply loses - I faced this situation before, although most times I can get a draw by threefold repetition or even 50-move rule.

There are some weird rulings on this site, one of which I am aware of (not certain if this has been corrected).

In a king and two bishops against lone king endgame (with nothing else on the board and the two bishops lie on the same colour squares), the side having the bishops win on time if the side having the lone king flags.

White wins on time on this site if Black's time goes to zero.

Only if you go looking for them.

How many times have you encountered this problem in the lat 6 years ?

Had the player holding the Black pieces not come up with a forum topic on this previously, I would not have known this ruling.

I am not certain if there are other instances of this so far, but this particular case is quite unique.

Lagomorph

Mar 7, 2022

0

#33

eric0022 wrote:

Ironically enough, I have not come across such scenarios even once before - I have only seen wins where a checkmate is possible with the worst possible play.

So the edge cases you make as a fault have never come up for you in 6 years.

It is well known how chess.com decide insufficient material. You just need to look at their rules.

To make a point about it being some kind of fault is itself pointless.

If you do not like the rule....leave.

TheUltraTrap

Mar 7, 2022

0

#34

Lagomorph wrote:

eric0022 wrote:

Ironically enough, I have not come across such scenarios even once before - I have only seen wins where a checkmate is possible with the worst possible play.

So the edge cases you make as a fault have never come up for you in 6 years.

It is well known how chess.com decide insufficient material. You just need to look at their rules.

To make a point about it being some kind of fault is itself pointless.

If you do not like the rule....leave.

Why are you arguing like this dude there are, indeed, things that are unclear. Not everyone was around for 12 years like you and even if everyone was not everyone would get those kinds of positions. Stop doing this

TheUltraTrap

Mar 7, 2022

0

#35

And also there's no reason to say "if you do not like the rule...leave". Staff often looks at community feedback and do change things. I'd suggest the creator of this forum topic to create a forum in the feedback category.

Lagomorph

Mar 7, 2022

0

#36

TheUltraTrap wrote:

Lagomorph wrote:

eric0022 wrote:

Ironically enough, I have not come across such scenarios even once before - I have only seen wins where a checkmate is possible with the worst possible play.

So the edge cases you make as a fault have never come up for you in 6 years.

It is well known how chess.com decide insufficient material. You just need to look at their rules.

To make a point about it being some kind of fault is itself pointless.

If you do not like the rule....leave.

Why are you arguing like this dude there are, indeed, things that are unclear. Not everyone was around for 12 years like you and even if everyone was not everyone would get those kinds of positions. Stop doing this

If i actually understood a word of your post I would reply.

But as the great Chris Hitchens used to say...."what babble is this?"

FoxWithNekoEars

Mar 7, 2022

0

#37