Magnus Carlsen is an embarrassment

Ridicolous wrote:
RonPaulsSteelBalls wrote:

Triggered soy flake thread of the day

What is a soy flake?

lfPatriotGames wrote:
Justs99171 wrote:
staples13 wrote:

Scottrf is right Justs9917 is wrong. There is no insufficient mating material rule with FIDE that is only.  The only FIDE ways to draw are by agreement, 3 gold repetition,  stalemate, 50 move rule, and positions where no legal set of moves could result in checkmate. The position in post 590 would be drawn on because a draw could be claimed as soon as the rook is exchanged as there would be insufficient mating material (despite there technically being a forced win) but it would not be drawn in a FIDE match because there is no insufficient material rule. The losing player could not claim a draw because there exists a legal set of moves that result in checkmate


No staples13, Scottrf is NOT right and I am NOT wrong. I never said anything about any FIDE rules. I said I used to be a USCF tournament director.

However, there is an insufficient mating material rule in FIDE. I suppose the wording is just a little too complicated for you.

After all this BS, I went and looked it up and:

The FIDE Laws of Chess says in article 9.6:
"The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled play. This immediately ends the game."

Well, that certainly covers what you would call insufficient mating material. Seeing how if one player has nothing but a knight or bishop, and the opposing player has nothing at all, that would be a position which checkmate cannot occur.

Basically, this is just the same rule. FIDE just doesn't specify or define insufficient mating material.

Whether or not one or both players have sufficient mating material is only an issue if one of the two players flag.

If neither player has sufficient mating material, obviously the game is drawn.

If one player flags and his opponent doesn't have sufficient mating material, the game is drawn.

But that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about a king and bishop vs. a king and knight. You said "The instant whatever material is removed from the board, resulting in a position where neither color has more than a bishop or knight (single minor piece) it's a drawn." I dont understand. It seems like your quoting of fide rules aligns more with what scott and staples are saying and not with what you said earlier.


The rules regarding insufficient mating material were more clearly defined 20+ years ago. What happened was that computers proved king+knight+knight could force checkmate against a lone king. The problem was that it took more than 50 moves, so it would be declared a draw by the 50 moves with no progress rule.

I don't know what the FIDE rule.

Sufficient mating material was considered to be queen, rook, bishop+bishop, and bishop+knight.

Now this seems obsolete, or whatever. I don't care. Some idiotic egomaniacs want to argue with me about this, but I just quit reading it.

A draw by insufficient mating material could be one of two things:

Neither player has sufficient mating material.

One player flagged and his opponent doesn't have sufficient mating material.

Also, prior to the invention of digital chess clocks with time delay, a player could claim insufficient losing chances. Some specific examples were listed, and I don't remember all of them. A draw by insufficient losing chances could be declared in a position where a 1400 rated player should be able to hold a draw against a 2200 player. This rule was abolished. With the time delay or increment, we're all forced to play it out.

Some examples would be:

king+rook vs king+rook

king+ rook pawn vs king in front of the rook pawn

easily drawn opposite color bishop endgames … maybe knight or bishop vs pawn.

I would have to go find the book and it's at my mother's house.

K_Brown wrote:

I thought staples13 was dense but they were just conveying an opinion... 

Justs99171 makes me want to apologize for thinking that....

Obviously wrong and they run away instead of admitting it.



I wasn't wrong, much less obviously wrong.

As I said, I was a USCF tournament director; NOT a FIDE arbiter.

I have better things to do than argue with egotistical morons.