Yeah, that's how it goes. It just happened to me a few games ago, when they had only a rook and I had nothing.
...Really disappointing, actually.
Running out of clock, but opponent has issuficient material to mate
Sort:
It is a rule of chess and is implemented in chess.com.
Do a forum search for insufficient material to see some interesting threads on the subject.
Thanks guys.
causticCynic: you were disappointed that you drew when you otherwise would have lost?
Draws are always kind of disappointing, in my opinion. Whether by running out on time or stalemating, whether I'm on the side that got off easy or the side that messed up. Is that not the common sentiment?
Does anyone know what piece(s) constitute insufficient material? As one of the above posters said I've also had games where either I had a rook or my opponent had a rook and the game was drawn due to insufficient material when a rook is clearly able to force mate.
kromhawk_31 wrote:
Does anyone know what piece(s) constitute insufficient material? As one of the above posters said I've also had games where either I had a rook or my opponent had a rook and the game was drawn due to insufficient material when a rook is clearly able to force mate.
Are you sure it was the side that had the Rook? And not the other side?
BigDoggProblem wrote:
kromhawk_31 wrote:
Does anyone know what piece(s) constitute insufficient material? As one of the above posters said I've also had games where either I had a rook or my opponent had a rook and the game was drawn due to insufficient material when a rook is clearly able to force mate.
Are you sure it was the side that had the Rook? And not the other side?
I don't recall. Although what you said makes sense, I'll have to do some further investigation
Kromhawk_31
If it is K+R vs K, and the side with the king runs out of time it is always a win for the side with K+R. If the K+R player runs out of time it is always a draw.
In order to win a game where your opponent runs out of time you must have in addition to your King.... a Queen; or a Rook; or two bishops; or Bishop and Knight; or a pawn.
This subject is more complicated than first appears, as FIDE and USCF rules are slightly different, and chess.com uses a "hybrid" rule. Do a forum search to see some interesting discussions.
Yeah, if the side with the rook times out, it's a draw. If the side without the rook times out, it's a loss for them. Assuming there are no pawns on the board. That's the kicker! Even though pawns can mate, they can promote into something that does!
So, in completely pawnless endgames, one knight, one bishop and two knights are considered insufficient material. Mate cannot be achieved with these. Actually, two knights Can mate, but only if the other player is intentionally trying to get mated! ;)
causticCynic wrote:
Draws are always kind of disappointing, in my opinion. Whether by running out on time or stalemating, whether I'm on the side that got off easy or the side that messed up. Is that not the common sentiment?
I suppose, yes, but I still prefer it to a loss! :P
soothsayer8 wrote:
causticCynic wrote:
Draws are always kind of disappointing, in my opinion. Whether by running out on time or stalemating, whether I'm on the side that got off easy or the side that messed up. Is that not the common sentiment?
I suppose, yes, but I still prefer it to a loss! :P
A draw can be quite rewarding if you've been struggling to survive a bad endgame for awhile.
Can someone confirm that it is true that if one player runs out of time on the clock, but the other does not have enough material to mate the player whose clock has run out, that the game ends in a draw? I seem to remember that as a rule, but I could just be crazy...