Should stalemating count as 3/4ths of a win?

Sort:
EndgameEnthusiast2357
playerafar wrote:

You could consider that K+R versus K+R scored as a win against the flagged player who loses - is absurd even though it has helpmates.
Its essentially a drawn position.
How many types of position where flagging loses that are actually draws - are there?
Queen versus queen is usually a draw.
Many pawnless endings are a draw.

Queen plus knight versus Queen plus knight should be a draw but it could be easy for one side to blunder.
In some over the board tournaments USCF had a rule they may still have that if one player wants a draw to be adjudicated in a simplified position then the tournament director is to form an opinion as to whether a master could swindle a C player in the position and if he thinks the master might be able to do so then no draw.
Maybe FIDE has a similiar rule.

But you can't have something like that in an online chess site.
The computers just have to decide instantly.
And in some cases the players have to agree.
And absurdly - the computer won't give a draw in K+R verus K+R.

Isn't it reasonable to suppose that USCF and FIDE must both have a rule that either player can claim a draw there?
I've encountered some situations on chess.com where I pressed a draw button and the draw was instantaneous. Years ago.
Had the impression the computer did it. But wasn't sure.

That's called insufficient losing chances. Not sure if FIDE has a similar rule but unlikely as it already has the "any possibility of checkmate rule", but you can argue that if a position is really dead drawn like KRKR, then both players should have no trouble holding the position even with 1 second on the clock. In other words they shouldn't flag in the first place. Not sure where they got "Master vs Class C" judgement decision from, sounds arbitrary. Maybe something like "against someone 1000 points higher" would make more sense IDK.

ThrillerFan
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
playerafar wrote:

You could consider that K+R versus K+R scored as a win against the flagged player who loses - is absurd even though it has helpmates.
Its essentially a drawn position.
How many types of position where flagging loses that are actually draws - are there?
Queen versus queen is usually a draw.
Many pawnless endings are a draw.

Queen plus knight versus Queen plus knight should be a draw but it could be easy for one side to blunder.
In some over the board tournaments USCF had a rule they may still have that if one player wants a draw to be adjudicated in a simplified position then the tournament director is to form an opinion as to whether a master could swindle a C player in the position and if he thinks the master might be able to do so then no draw.
Maybe FIDE has a similiar rule.

But you can't have something like that in an online chess site.
The computers just have to decide instantly.
And in some cases the players have to agree.
And absurdly - the computer won't give a draw in K+R verus K+R.

Isn't it reasonable to suppose that USCF and FIDE must both have a rule that either player can claim a draw there?
I've encountered some situations on chess.com where I pressed a draw button and the draw was instantaneous. Years ago.
Had the impression the computer did it. But wasn't sure.

That's called insufficient losing chances. Not sure if FIDE has a similar rule but unlikely as it already has the "any possibility of checkmate rule", but you can argue that if a position is really dead drawn like KRKR, then both players should have no trouble holding the position even with 1 second on the clock. In other words they shouldn't flag in the first place. Not sure where they got "Master vs Class C" judgement decision from, sounds arbitrary. Maybe something like "against someone 1000 points higher" would make more sense IDK.

USCF No longer has insufficient losing chances either.

They have abolished it within the last 5 years. Now, if they are using an analog clock, tough luck. The assumption is that nobody will use an analog any more. You cannot use ILC with any clock that has a delay feature or an increment feature.

ThrillerFan
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:

That's why any mating material left rule would be the simplest. KBKB same colors, KBKR, KBKQ, and KNKQ are the only piece combinations where the former side cannot mate the latter. Any other piece combinations that isn't insufficient mating material for one or both sides, the side that flags loses, simple to program.

That depends. There also must be a legal sequence of moves that leads to mate for the side with time. In the following cases, it is a draw if Black is to move and his flag falls, despite the material, in FIDE:

 
 
ThrillerFan
Optimissed wrote:

Fide has lost the plot.

How so? FIDE has it right. USCF is the one that's bleeped up!

jetoba
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:

That's why any mating material left rule would be the simplest. KBKB same colors, KBKR, KBKQ, and KNKQ are the only piece combinations where the former side cannot mate the latter. Any other piece combinations that isn't insufficient mating material for one or both sides, the side that flags loses, simple to program.

Although K+B+4P vs K+B+4P is sometimes drawn in USCF and FIDE even if one player flags. Special positions like White Pa4, Pc4, Pe4, Pg4, Bf3, Ke2 and Black Pa5, Pc5, Pe5, Pg5, Bf6, Ke7. Though Chess.com sees that K+B+4P can beat a lone K and awards a win.

jetoba
ThrillerFan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

Fide has lost the plot.

How so? FIDE has it right. USCF is the one that's bleeped up!

In the three positions you gave USCF would also call them drawn, though not every TD/Arbiter knows it.

jetoba
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
jetoba wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:

FIDE rules don't necessary stop seemingly unfair results such as black losing up 2 queens to 1 pawn, but at least that makes everything consistent. It doesn't make you draw a position that you have a forced mate in while also making you lose drawn positions. Either any checkmate being possible determines the outcome, or every position would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and I prefer the former.

US Chess also does not award a draw to a flagged player when the opponent has forced mate, and also does not assign a loss to a flagged player in a position so blocked that the only possible result is a draw.

The only difference between US Chess and FIDE is when one player flags and the opponent has K+2N (while the opponent does not have a pawn) or K+B or K+N, In those cases a draw is given unless the non-flagged player has a forced mate. While in FIDE positions like K+N vs K+N or K+N vs K+B or K+N vs K+R are a loss for the flagged player regardless of whether or not the win is forced. In FIDE K+N can win on time against K+2Q+2R+2N+2B+6P. In FIDE K+B can win on time against K+2Q+2R+7P (a pawn can be promoted to B or N). In FIDE and US Chess K+P can win on time against K+9Q+2R+2B+2N.

What defines a "forced mate". Where do you draw the line? A mate in 3 or a mate in under 20? Either you include all mates, forced or not, or let an arbiter have the discretion to award a draw to any person reasonably up on material that flags. I see nothing special about the king + 2 knights vs king that makes it any more drawish than KNKB. As I said, in some positions just making the wrong move can get you mated:

Yet actual Endgame studies exist where the last move results in a KNKB but would be drawn under this sites version of USCF rules:

This site would immediately declare a draw before white could play ng6#, which is absurd. 99% chance white will see that checkmate at that move, gets stuck with a draw, yet .000000000001% chance 2 queens would lose to 1 pawn, yet the pawn wins if flagging. It's totally backward. At least FIDE keeps it consistent, 2 queens lose to 1 pawn the same way a king loses to 2 knights or 9 queens + 2 rooks lose to 1 knight. As long as a mate exists with those pieces, it's a win/loss. The only piece combinations that are a draw are KBKB same colors, KNKQ, KBKQ, and KBKR, for the side with more material, if they flag.

A forced mate is one where you can force a mate even if the opponent plays perfect moves.

For instance Black Kh8, Ph7, Pe6, Bg8 and White Ke1 Bd2. If White plays Bc3 then Blacks only legal response is e5 and Bxe5 is a forced mate. In FIDE and USCF if Black flags instead of playing e5 then White still wins. In Chess.com if Black flags instead of playing e5 then White K+B is considered insufficient and the game is drawn.

If the Black bishop is on f7 instead of g8 then in FIDE if Black flags it is still a loss (the game could go ... e5, Ke2 Bg8, Bxe5# while in USCF there is no longer a forced mate (there are helpmates but not forced mates) and USCF will call it a draw.

playerafar
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
playerafar wrote:

You could consider that K+R versus K+R scored as a win against the flagged player who loses - is absurd even though it has helpmates.
Its essentially a drawn position.
How many types of position where flagging loses that are actually draws - are there?
Queen versus queen is usually a draw.
Many pawnless endings are a draw.

Queen plus knight versus Queen plus knight should be a draw but it could be easy for one side to blunder.
In some over the board tournaments USCF had a rule they may still have that if one player wants a draw to be adjudicated in a simplified position then the tournament director is to form an opinion as to whether a master could swindle a C player in the position and if he thinks the master might be able to do so then no draw.
Maybe FIDE has a similiar rule.

But you can't have something like that in an online chess site.
The computers just have to decide instantly.
And in some cases the players have to agree.
And absurdly - the computer won't give a draw in K+R verus K+R.

Isn't it reasonable to suppose that USCF and FIDE must both have a rule that either player can claim a draw there?
I've encountered some situations on chess.com where I pressed a draw button and the draw was instantaneous. Years ago.
Had the impression the computer did it. But wasn't sure.

That's called insufficient losing chances. Not sure if FIDE has a similar rule but unlikely as it already has the "any possibility of checkmate rule", but you can argue that if a position is really dead drawn like KRKR, then both players should have no trouble holding the position even with 1 second on the clock. In other words they shouldn't flag in the first place. Not sure where they got "Master vs Class C" judgement decision from, sounds arbitrary. Maybe something like "against someone 1000 points higher" would make more sense IDK.

EE I don't think anyone can make 50 moves in 1 second.
Nobody.
So I'm thinking you meant something else when you said 'hold the position'.
You could hold it - if there's an 'increment' - or a 'delay'.
If that's what you meant.
And I guess that's what ThrillerFan was referring to when he mentioned 'analog clock'.
If all the tournaments nowadays use an increment then analog clocks shouldn't even be allowed?
Well I guess a lot of players still have them.
An entry fee is an entry fee in other words.

EndgameEnthusiast2357

What if the mate can mostly be forced but requires that black has to blunder a king move once or twice. Where do you draw the line? All moves forced or all help-mates. Or somewhere in between. What about Grey area positions?

playerafar
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:

What if the mate can mostly be forced but requires that black has to blunder a king move once or twice. Where do you draw the line? All moves forced or all help-mates. Or somewhere in between. What about Grey area positions?

The rules seem to be comprehensive.
They tend to cover the material situation rather than the position.
Whether its FIDE or USCF or chess.com.
If they didn't it would put an awful lot of pressure on tournament directors and administrators. And players.
Players don't want a million rules.
Adds up to the reasonings for why they do it the way they do.

False27

nah

EndgameEnthusiast2357
playerafar wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:

What if the mate can mostly be forced but requires that black has to blunder a king move once or twice. Where do you draw the line? All moves forced or all help-mates. Or somewhere in between. What about Grey area positions?

The rules seem to be comprehensive.
They tend to cover the material situation rather than the position.
Whether its FIDE or USCF or chess.com.
If they didn't it would put an awful lot of pressure on tournament directors and administrators. And players.
Players don't want a million rules.
Adds up to the reasonings for why they do it the way they do.

Yes but this site implements a worse version of USCF that doesn't make exceptions for forced mated. It uses neither system.

playerafar
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
playerafar wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:

What if the mate can mostly be forced but requires that black has to blunder a king move once or twice. Where do you draw the line? All moves forced or all help-mates. Or somewhere in between. What about Grey area positions?

The rules seem to be comprehensive.
They tend to cover the material situation rather than the position.
Whether its FIDE or USCF or chess.com.
If they didn't it would put an awful lot of pressure on tournament directors and administrators. And players.
Players don't want a million rules.
Adds up to the reasonings for why they do it the way they do.

Yes but this site implements a worse version of USCF that doesn't make exceptions for forced mated. It uses neither system.

That would be because its a computerized online site.
My guess would be the other chess online sites do similiar.
But I don't know. Maybe they do like FIDE or USCF.

EndgameEnthusiast2357

But the easiest computerized system to implement would be FIDE, since only 3 or 4 piece combinations are insufficient material for only one side. Those could easily be automatically detected instead of having to input all these parameters like "KBKN if nate can be forced" vs "2 knights vs pawn unforcible mate"..etc. Even for efficiency purposes with live chess FIDE makes more sense??

playerafar

Any plan with a computerized site that refers to positional details instead of material to decide flag-down situations - is probably doomed to impractibility.
If your mating your opponent but your flag falls before you can set your piece down - it won't let you make that move.
In a live tournament if your opponent yells 'Flag!!' before you set the piece down - then the mate position on the board is supposed to decide.
I'm confident there's been many fights.
I'm confident the player yelling 'flag' has on occasion reset the piece back and its even come to blows ...

EndgameEnthusiast2357

Well that's just the nature of online chess. The move may not reach the server in time. I lost this game due to accidentally refreshing at 4 seconds left:

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/98857443101?tab=review

And I'm not complaining, as it was well deserved as I missed countless mates in 2s while still having 10+ seconds left, wasn't thinking straight that day, but if I lose this game, my opponent shouldn't be able to then get a draw out of this by simply not moving:

24Oysters

"And I'm not complaining, but if I lose this game, my opponent shouldn't be able to then get a draw out of this by simply not moving:" Now I see white moving a7. Black would have c8 to b6 #.

If it is black's turn, I see a stalemate.

jetoba
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:

But the easiest computerized system to implement would be FIDE, since only 3 or 4 piece combinations are insufficient material for only one side. Those could easily be automatically detected instead of having to input all these parameters like "KBKN if nate can be forced" vs "2 knights vs pawn unforcible mate"..etc. Even for efficiency purposes with live chess FIDE makes more sense??

But that wouldn't take into account blocked positions or positions where the only legal moves lead to a stalemate or to a checkmate against the unflagged player. Those positions would still require some processing power to correctly rule a draw under FIDE or USCF.

jetoba
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:

What if the mate can mostly be forced but requires that black has to blunder a king move once or twice. Where do you draw the line? All moves forced or all help-mates. Or somewhere in between. What about Grey area positions?

A "mostly forced" mate is NOT a forced mate. A mate is only forced if EVERY possible defense can still be mated. For instance K+Q vs K that doesn't start with a stalemate is a forced mate. White Ke4, Pe2 versus Black Ke6 is a forced mate regardless of whose move it is. White Kf6, Pe6 versus Black Kf8 is a forced mate with Black to move but not a forced mate with White to move. And getting back to an earlier example Whit Ke1, Bc1 versus Black Kh8, Ph7, Bg8 Pc4 is a forced mate only if White is on the move because Bb2+ c3 (only legal move), Bxc3 is checkmate. If it is Black to move then after Kg7 there is no forced mate against Black.

jetoba
playerafar wrote:

Any plan with a computerized site that refers to positional details instead of material to decide flag-down situations - is probably doomed to impractibility.
If your mating your opponent but your flag falls before you can set your piece down - it won't let you make that move.
In a live tournament if your opponent yells 'Flag!!' before you set the piece down - then the mate position on the board is supposed to decide.
I'm confident there's been many fights.
I'm confident the player yelling 'flag' has on occasion reset the piece back and its even come to blows ...

The rule in both FIDE and USCF is that if a flag is called before the mating move is determined then the mate did not happen during the game. In FIDE the arbiter can, and should, call the flag the moment it occurs even if a mate would occur a split second later, so an online site mimics that. In USCF the TD/arbiter does not call flags (unless both are down).

In both, the TD/arbiter should (if possible) be watching such time trouble games to see whether a mate occurred before or after a flag occurs (FIDE) or a flag is called (USCF). If possible is stated because sometimes the number of time trouble games outnumbers the number of available TDs/arbiters and not every such game will be watched.