Considering your opponent has a 2000+ rating knows it is unlikely but still possible to mate you... it cannot be forced but if you blunder into it, well.... sounds like a 50 move wait...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_knights_endgame
B
It's been a while since I looked at this problem, but as far as I know you can't "blunder" into a mate with K against K+N+N. I don't think it possible at all. Am I wrong??
Considering your opponent has a 2000+ rating knows it is unlikely but still possible to mate you... it cannot be forced but if you blunder into it, well.... sounds like a 50 move wait...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_knights_endgame
B
It's been a while since I looked at this problem, but as far as I know you can't "blunder" into a mate with K against K+N+N. I don't think it possible at all. Am I wrong??
You can definitely blunder into a mate in 1, but I'm pretty sure I've read that there is no such thing as a mate in 2 with 2N against a King, either you have mate in 1 or it is a draw
I think [in a tournament] you can claim a draw if you're the king, but if you flag you will lose.
You can compare that to the player with the 2 knights having their flag fall, but they will not lose the game.
The TD needs to learn how to set a clock.
Nope, not under the USCF rules. The clock owner is responsible for setting the clock. If the owner cannot operate the clock, the opponent may chose the clock.
This said, it is a good idea for a TD to bring a well-understood clock (I always do that).
No, you cannot claim a draw, and if you flag with the lone King you lose. The rule is "possible mating material" not "having a forced mate."
Insofar as clock rules go, it's not enough to have a "theoretical draw" on the board if the opponent could possibly win through your "worst possible play."
Only under FIDE rules. Under USCF, insufficient losing chances can be claimed in positions where a C-class player could defend against a Master, with both players having sufficient time to think. K+N+N against K would qualify, IMO.
If the claim is unclear, the preferred resolution is to use delay clock to finish the game. BTW, a claim of insufficient losing chances constitues a draw offer.
Speaking of which, I was at a recent tournament where the rules specifically stated no delay or increment on the clocks. So I'm watching two players down to an endgame. One of them is losing, but the other is just down to 20 seconds left on his clock. I'm thinking the guy losing will at least be able to claim a draw when the other guy's flag falls (he himself was down to just a king and knight). Much to my shock, I noticed there was a two-second increment being added each time they made a move, making it just long enough such that the winning player would never run out of time as long as he blitzed his moves out.
The TD was informed, and the best he could think to do was to stop their clock and give them a new one... Only with 5 minutes each! Now there was literally no hope of the winning player flagging and he went on to checkmate the other player. Since the clock was set and owned by the winning player, I felt the more fair thing to do was to at least forfeit him half the point. As it ended up, not only did he not get punished, but he ended up getting even more time when it was caught by the TD!
What say you guys about that? Do you think the TD made the correct call?
Under USCF rules, incorrectly set clock is handled in the same way as a defective clock. This means that one of the players, not a spectator (nor the TD) must request a replacement of the clock. If you were the one who informed the TD about the clock issue, the TD should've done nothing.
If one of the players requested that the clock settings be fixed, the clock should've been set as accurately as possible to reflect the remaining time.
I suppose the TD must have misinterpreted the rule that says that if the remaining time is reduced for one or both players, the clock will be set to at least 5 minutes per player.
Incidentally, the delay/increment clocks are considered standard equipment, so it is rather unusual (but legal, if announced in the tournament ads) that the rules disallowed it.
What a game is chess.
Winning a knight for two pawns is usually a good thing right...? But in the endgame against a lone king, 2 pawns is always a win and 2 knights is a draw!
That's why they teach us that the value of a piece is relative 
The TD needs to learn how to set a clock.
Nope, not under the USCF rules. The clock owner is responsible for setting the clock. If the owner cannot operate the clock, the opponent may chose the clock.
This said, it is a good idea for a TD to bring a well-understood clock (I always do that).
Perhaps try to learn comprehension before spouting your l33t knowledge with USCF rules?
Testy, aren't we, Borg? Maybe the hormone drip needs adjustment? 
I was saying that the TD needs to learn how to set a clock so as to reflect the remaining time on the clock rather than just setting it to 5 mins ;-)
My bad. Haven't noticed all that verbiage tucked in between the word "clock" and the period. Or was this because of the invisible font??
I don't give much attention to USCF rules anyway; they mean nothing to me!
Since FirebrandX lives in the US, those are the rules most likely relevant in the described case.
I'm dissapointed LegoPirateSenior, I was expecting a cool picture of a lego pirate... and with the word senior I was thinking maybe also with a beard... but all I get is this:
How about something like this?
I'm dissapointed LegoPirateSenior, I was expecting a cool picture of a lego pirate... and with the word senior I was thinking maybe also with a beard... but all I get is this:
How about something like this?
epic.
The TD felt he had to because the whole reason for no delay was because the room we used was allowed to us on a very strict time schedule. He didn't want their clock to keep adding time if they blitzed fast enough, so he felt he was forced to replace the clock in order to ensure a clear end to the game as far as time goes. Indeed because of their incorrectly set clock, our last round was delayed and we had to play on faster time controls because of it.
Just goes to show that the devil is in the details. But in any case, 5 minutes each was not right.
With schedule constraints, the TD really should've verified all clocks' settings as the games were starting.
I agree that LPS' avatar is lacking in lego pirateness.
I'm dissapointed LegoPirateSenior, I was expecting a cool picture of a lego pirate...
Hope ye be happy now, matey...
Arrr.
I'm dissapointed LegoPirateSenior, I was expecting a cool picture of a lego pirate...
Hope ye be happy now, matey...
Arrr.
Very cool, you got chess peices in there and everything 
Why not just cut the legs off the horsies and demoted to a pawn then push it up to the end and promote to queen and win !
That's the smartest thing I've read all day!