Endgame didn't get what I posted and he's claiming that every move was forced. I sincerely hope not given that it ended 0-1.
Any other sequence of moves leads to the same mate. The black moves such as kh8 instead of g8 delay it as long as possible. That's why white had to go to h6 first and then to g6 to maintain the opposition and make it blacks move. In fact, that manuevre is the basis behind this Endgame study:
'Checkmate' is made of two words - check (king on fire) and mate (no legal moves)
In a checkmate, there is check and there is mate,
but in a stalemate, there's no check but only mate,
whereas, in a draw (by insufficient material), there's neither check nor mate, rather *both* players are theoretically unable to deliver checkmate.
My logic: Stalemate gets at least half the checkmate right (no check but mate), whereas a draw does neither. So, a stalemate should be a sort of half-win (half-draw), hence 0.75 points for the stalemater and 0.25 points for the victim.
Suppose the king could be captured in chess. Then every stalemate would be a win. But it's not, because capturing the king is *illegal*. Thus, the victim of stalemate is on move, but has no legal moves. This is rightly 3/4th the fault of the victim for being mated and 1/4th the fault of the stalemater for not checking.
If this rule is implemented, chess games would turn drastically decisive. This would help reduce the need for armageddons and other tiebreaks and improve the ranking systems in tournaments too. Less draws makes the game more fun and less boring to outsiders as well.
Thoughts?
My personal thought is that it should still be 1/2 but that in a bracket style tournament then the player who is not in stalemate should progress. Or maybe that's how it already works, and I just know nothing about chess :/
A stalemate isn't a half checkmate the same way a check isn't a half checkmate. A knight that can't move from the side of the board is a trapped knight not a captured knight or a "half captured knight". Chess is not a game of scoring points or winning "more" in some ways than others. The numbers 0 1/2 and 1 aren't really "points". They just donate game results, and there's no other result other than a loss, a draw, or a win. It's not an additive thing. What you're saying would apply more to something like Go or games involving territory points, not chess.
Hey @EndgameEnthusiast,
I found a position where insufficient material and checkmate occur at the same time.
By priority, it should be checkmate and not a draw.
I'm trying to find another position in which insufficient material occurs but it's checkmate on the next move (or next couple of moves). In that case, it's supposed to be a draw. Any help?
Yes, the endgame would drastically drop it complexity and many fantastic chess puzzles and studies would be wiped out if the stalemate rule was altered, but that's not the basis of my arguments. It's simply that it is less logically consistent for it to not be a draw. Even the puzzle in my profile Pic makes use of stalemate (and UnderPromotion and other themes as well lol).
Note 2 knights is not insufficient mating material as checkmate is possible, it just can't be forced. Not sure why they treat that the same as 1 knight in FIDE Flagging rules. If checkmate is possible in any way, no matter how absurd the moves would have to be, it should be a win or a loss if one side flags.
There are also mutual/inevitable double stalemates, such as here:
Hard to say that one side should win this dead drawn game.
Good point.
Many games involve somebody a pawn up but can it be won?
The players play it out to find out.
And the possibility or inevitability of stalemate is part of it.
And EE meant 'denote' not 'donate'
Yes - some players can't deal with a draw. That's right.
Conversely you sometimes see players spam a draw request repetitively in inappropriate positions for that - but they can be reported for that.
Or blocked. Or both.
There's also refusals to resign in positions hopeless on board and clock.
On those - I have liked to promote to up to seven knights if possible.
I think that's the most I've had.
"3/4ths of a win" 💀 what is that even mean bro??
Endgame didn't get what I posted and he's claiming that every move was forced. I sincerely hope not given that it ended 0-1.
Any other sequence of moves leads to the same mate. The black moves such as kh8 instead of g8 delay it as long as possible. That's why white had to go to h6 first and then to g6 to maintain the opposition and make it blacks move. In fact, that manuevre is the basis behind this Endgame study:
I need to spell it out for you.
On the premise that SparrowMount is wrong that awarding the win or threequarters point to the person who stalemates the other, I agree with those who are asking why a blunder (in allowing a stalemate when you're winning) should be rewarded. It's complete nonsense and also, Thriller pointed out that the same position can lead either to a draw by repetition (forced) or a draw by stalemate (forced).
Therefore you should have noticed that I've been supporting the better interpretation all along ... that if a win or 3/4 point is necessary, then it goes to the player who is stalemated.
It was black's moves that were forced in the sequence you showed and not white's. It was therefore a helpmate.
Do you understand it yet?
Simple position with White low on time: WKe1, WPe2, BKe3. White does not have a forced win but can force a stalemate. Black plays the clock with White successfully avoiding stalemate but still running out of time. Black then claims that since White could have stalemated then it should be scored as if the stalemate happened. (under FIDE if a helpmate against the flagged player can be constructed then the flagged player does not draw).
from @jetoba
(under FIDE if a helpmate against the flagged player can be constructed then the flagged player does not draw).
that's interesting.
That would mean that K + 2 knights against K wins?
It would mean bishops of opposites wins?
But if the position reduces down to those - surely either player can claim a draw?
Or is it mainly just K+P against K because the P can be promoted for mating material?
from @jetoba
(under FIDE if a helpmate against the flagged player can be constructed then the flagged player does not draw).
that's interesting.
That would mean that K + 2 knights against K wins?
It would mean bishops of opposites wins?
But if the position reduces down to those - surely either player can claim a draw?
Or is it mainly just K+P against K because the P can be promoted for mating material?
In FIDE if K+B vs K+B ends in a player flagging and the bishops travel on squares of opposite colors then the flagging player does lose, as does a flagging player when the opponent has only two knights, or even if the opponent has only K+N and the flagging player has at least a bishop or a knight or a rook or an (underpromotable) pawn, or if the opponent has only K+B and the flagging player has at least a knight or a bishop or a pawn.
@jetoba
that's neat. Regarding FIDE. Maybe USCF is different.
Regarding the FIDE rule - is that for all time controls?
So even if the flagged player has a pawn that is not an a-apawn or an h-pawn and the other player has only a knight or a bishop then that other player wins.
And of course if its an a-pawn or h-pawn then the knight or bishop still wins.
--------------------------------------------------
I'm noting that some queening squares would not underpromote to the correct bishop color of moving - but it could be a knight instead. Or a rook.
So that pawn would actually lose the game.
Because of the helpmate with white K on g6 - checkmating knight aimed at f7 - black K on h8 and white making the suicidal move of Ng8 with that black knight coming from h6 or f6 but not e7 followed by the finishing white knight doing Nf7#.
------------------------------------------------------------
So the player in severe time trouble has to advance that pawn and try to sacrifice it as soon as possible.
But I can see what might then happen.
The other side puts his King in front of the pawn and doesn't take it.
and then runs out the clock shuttling his single minor piece.
The side with the pawn could try to make 50 King moves in the few seconds he's got!
@jetoba
that's neat. Regarding FIDE. Maybe USCF is different.
Regarding the FIDE rule - is that for all time controls?
So even if the flagged player has a pawn that is not an a-apawn or an h-pawn and the other player has only a knight or a bishop then that other player wins.
And of course if its an a-pawn or h-pawn then the knight or bishop still wins.
--------------------------------------------------
I'm noting that some queening squares would not underpromote to the correct bishop color of moving - but it could be a knight instead. Or a rook.
So that pawn would actually lose the game.
Because of the helpmate with white K on g6 - checkmating knight aimed at f7 - black K on h8 and white making the suicidal move of Ng8 with that black knight coming from h6 or f6 but not e7 followed by the finishing white knight doing Nf7#.
------------------------------------------------------------
So the player in severe time trouble has to advance that pawn and try to sacrifice it as soon as possible.
But I can see what might then happen.
The other side puts his King in front of the pawn and doesn't take it.
and then runs out the clock shuttling his single minor piece.
The side with the pawn could try to make 50 King moves in the few seconds he's got!
FIDE and USCF are different. The USCF has always used their shenanigans with rules that make no sense and are always prone to interpretation issues.
The worst is note taking. FIDE is strict and specific. All you can write is header information, the moves played, the time, and draw offers, and they have a specific symbol for draw offers, (=)
Also, you CANNOT write the move first. You MUST make your move before you can write it. You can write the move your opponent made before you make your, but you cannot write your own.
USCF, you can write and then play, or play and then write, but you cannot note take. So what constitutes note taking? If you write the move, wait 5 minutes, and play it, is that note taking? If you write it, wait 5 minutes, cross it out and write another, is it note taking? Do you have to note a different move like intending X to be note taking? Personally, if you write a move and sit there 5 minutes, as long as you play THAT MOVE, I don't care. The moment you change it or play a different move, I summon the director immediately!
As far as the sufficient material rules, it is as follows:
FIDE - If one player runs out of time, and there is a LEGAL, no matter how stupid, sequence of moves to give checkmate, the person with time wins.
In the following example, if Black is in the bathroom and time runs out, it is a draw because no legal sequence of moves wins for White:
With Black to move, the only legal move checkmates the White King, so if Black's flag falls, it is a draw. But K+B vs K+B, with Bishops of opposite color, that is a win on time.
USCF it is all about mating material. If the player with time has:
1) Just a king
2) Just a king and Bishop AND NO FORCED MATE
3) Just a king and knight AND NO FORCED MATE
4) Just a King and 2 Knights and the side with no time has no pawns. If he has at least one pawn, it is a win for the knights, regardless if the pawn is in front of, on, or behind the Troitsky Line.
So the following is a win in USCF
With Black to move and he let's his flag fall. But the following is not a win
Black has promoted 3 of his pawns to knight, 1 to rook, and 1 to queen. His flag falls. By rule, this is a draw, but add 1 black pawn ANYWHERE and White wins on time.
@Thriller-Fan
I've heard of Troitsky many times.
But I hadn't heard of that 'Troitsky line' before.
"The winning chances with two knights are insignificant except against a few pawns. These positions were studied extensively by A. A. Troitsky, who discovered the Troitsky line, a line on or behind which the defending side's pawn must be securely blockaded for the attacking side to win."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Regarding a black pawn on the board against two white knights the point seems to be that if black's King is locked in a corner then if he has a pawn he can't get stalemate so therefore a knight checkmate becomes possible.
So for example white King h6 - black K h8 - white knight on e7 and white knight on e5 with white to move can mate with Nf7# or Ng6#.
But black has to have had a previous move. With his pawn -
If his pawn was on e6 or h7 that would be stalemate already but its specified white's on move so that couldn't be.
And if his pawn was on g7 that would be an illegal position.
There seem to be only four legal places on the board black's pawn could be that could mess up the mate.
c2 or h2. Or f6 or d6.
So there are 7 'funny' squares for a black pawn to be there ... plus it can't be on the three squares of the white pieces.
So that's 10.
Leaving 38 places for the pawn and position to be 'square' for the win.
Pun intended.
Now this video by Danny Rensch might put a Wrensch in things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqFykCZ4I34
@jetoba
that's neat. Regarding FIDE. Maybe USCF is different.
Regarding the FIDE rule - is that for all time controls?
So even if the flagged player has a pawn that is not an a-apawn or an h-pawn and the other player has only a knight or a bishop then that other player wins.
And of course if its an a-pawn or h-pawn then the knight or bishop still wins.
--------------------------------------------------
I'm noting that some queening squares would not underpromote to the correct bishop color of moving - but it could be a knight instead. Or a rook.
So that pawn would actually lose the game.
Because of the helpmate with white K on g6 - checkmating knight aimed at f7 - black K on h8 and white making the suicidal move of Ng8 with that black knight coming from h6 or f6 but not e7 followed by the finishing white knight doing Nf7#.
------------------------------------------------------------
So the player in severe time trouble has to advance that pawn and try to sacrifice it as soon as possible.
But I can see what might then happen.
The other side puts his King in front of the pawn and doesn't take it.
and then runs out the clock shuttling his single minor piece.
The side with the pawn could try to make 50 King moves in the few seconds he's got!
FIDE and USCF are different. The USCF has always used their shenanigans with rules that make no sense and are always prone to interpretation issues.
The worst is note taking. FIDE is strict and specific. All you can write is header information, the moves played, the time, and draw offers, and they have a specific symbol for draw offers, (=)
Also, you CANNOT write the move first. You MUST make your move before you can write it. You can write the move your opponent made before you make your, but you cannot write your own.
USCF, you can write and then play, or play and then write, but you cannot note take. So what constitutes note taking? If you write the move, wait 5 minutes, and play it, is that note taking? If you write it, wait 5 minutes, cross it out and write another, is it note taking? Do you have to note a different move like intending X to be note taking? Personally, if you write a move and sit there 5 minutes, as long as you play THAT MOVE, I don't care. The moment you change it or play a different move, I summon the director immediately!
As far as the sufficient material rules, it is as follows:
FIDE - If one player runs out of time, and there is a LEGAL, no matter how stupid, sequence of moves to give checkmate, the person with time wins.
In the following example, if Black is in the bathroom and time runs out, it is a draw because no legal sequence of moves wins for White:
With Black to move, the only legal move checkmates the White King, so if Black's flag falls, it is a draw. But K+B vs K+B, with Bishops of opposite color, that is a win on time.
USCF it is all about mating material. If the player with time has:
1) Just a king
2) Just a king and Bishop AND NO FORCED MATE
3) Just a king and knight AND NO FORCED MATE
4) Just a King and 2 Knights and the side with no time has no pawns. If he has at least one pawn, it is a win for the knights, regardless if the pawn is in front of, on, or behind the Troitsky Line.
So the following is a win in USCF
With Black to move and he let's his flag fall. But the following is not a win
Black has promoted 3 of his pawns to knight, 1 to rook, and 1 to queen. His flag falls. By rule, this is a draw, but add 1 black pawn ANYWHERE and White wins on time.
Yes I have created multiple extensive threads on this issue. The hypocrisy of using anything other then FIDE rules has endless examples:
If black refuses to move the pawn here, he gets a draw even though mate is forced.
If white in a time scramble pushes the a pawn, and realizes he's fallen into this basic mating net, he can not move and also get a draw...
BUT..
If black runs out of time here, he loses
EVEN THOUGH...
Black has a 50% chance of getting mated here he gets a draw if he loses on time...
YET...
Black will lose if he flags here despite white needing computer table bases to understand how to win here.
So essentially black loses the two positions above on time where he has a .00000000001% chance of actually losing, yet gets a draw out of the one where he actually has a 50% chance of losing. Insane.
And finally...
Even if black runs out of time here, he should get the win as white self-mated himself. This is the only type of example where one can argue that flagging isn't a loss or a draw, but a win since that's the only way the game could possibly end anyway. And you can retrograde-cascade that position by adding more queens on the h file and 7th rank.
All of these absurd hypocrisies and contradictions happen when you use USCF or this sites implementation of it. That's why the FIDE rules should be used and if checkmate is possible in any way by any sequence of moves it should be a loss to flag.
@Thriller-Fan
I've heard of Troitsky many times.
But I hadn't heard of that 'Troitsky line' before.
"The winning chances with two knights are insignificant except against a few pawns. These positions were studied extensively by A. A. Troitsky, who discovered the Troitsky line, a line on or behind which the defending side's pawn must be securely blockaded for the attacking side to win."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Regarding a black pawn on the board against two white knights the point seems to be that if black's King is locked in a corner then if he has a pawn he can't get stalemate so therefore a knight checkmate becomes possible.
So for example white King h6 - black K h8 - white knight on e7 and white knight on e5 with white to move can mate with Nf7# or Ng6#.
But black has to have had a previous move. With his pawn -
If his pawn was on e6 or h7 that would be stalemate already but its specified white's on move so that couldn't be.
And if his pawn was on g7 that would be an illegal position.
There seem to be only four legal places on the board black's pawn could be that could mess up the mate.
c2 or h2. Or f6 or d6.
So there are 7 'funny' squares for a black pawn to be there ... plus it can't be on the three squares of the white pieces.
So that's 10.
Leaving 38 places for the pawn and position to be 'square' for the win.
Pun intended.
The 2 knights vs pawn Endgame is one of the most fascinating and one of the only ones that only computers "understand". The most complex 2 knights vs 1 Pawn forced mate I understand is this one:
Other King moves may delay or speed up the mate, but the idea is first creating the same opposition with black to move, then shifting the opposition from horizontal to vertical, and then once again making it black to move. Yet tablebases have discovered that this position is a win in 96:
Endgames like Queen vs Rook and Rook + Bishop vs Rook are hard but even we can understand the subtle reasons for the specific moves when we really study them. But only computers can solve these 2 knights vs pawn tablebase forced mates.
Regarding 'unsatisfactory draws' and 'unfair looking wins' and 'vague rules'.
'mating material' has been an issue over the years.
With two knights only versus lone King mate can't be forced apparently.
There are 'helpmates'.
Is it a fact that if the lone King is on move he can always avoid mate regardless of the position?
Tried it just now - to set up a position where black is shuttling between g8 and h8 surrounded by the white king and two white knights with one of the knights controlling f8. White will need Nf7 or Ng6 to mate but there seems to be no way to force mate unless black 'helps' with Kh8 at the critical moment instead of Kf8.
You can also set up helpmates with knight versus bishop, knight versus knight,
bishops moving on opposite colors, but not bishops moving on same, and bishop versus knight doesn't work either as the knight can sacrifice itself?
-------------------------------
Edit: A nice person kindly messaged me that a helpmate with bishop versus knight is also possible - as a bishop could 'adjacent mate' the King that has a knight. For example: A bishop on f8 (or on h6) mates a King on h8 with Bg7#. The other King could be on f7 and a knight on f8 or f6 goes to h7 'helping' the mate.
So I added this edit and added a question mark at the end of 'sacrifice itself'.
---------------------------------------------------
Hey! Even knight versus rook has a helpmate!
But when you look at all these helpmates the side with the lone king always also had another move option before the helpmate position that makes that checkmate position impossible.
Now how about King and knight versus King and h-pawn? (or a-pawn) ...
there are positions where the knight mate can be forced!
But if the flag of the player with the knight drops -
does the side with the edge-pawn win?
I'm sure there's been some 'arguments' in tournaments about that.
And maybe the side with the knight should try to claim a win in advance because there's a forced mate of the edge-King?
Point: Draws need to be clearly and simply defined.
But without making the game rules more complicated.
There's quite a lot of rules as it is.