I'm really confused here. It is impossible for black to checkmate white in any circumstances. A king and bishop simply cannot deliver a mate no matter how poorly white plays. White will mate black quickly and easily here. If white ran out of time, then boo hoo for white--you lose.
Since when did this rule change?
Sort:
jeanniecandy wrote:
I'm really confused here. It is impossible for black to checkmate white in any circumstances. A king and bishop simply cannot deliver a mate no matter how poorly white plays. White will mate black quickly and easily here. If white ran out of time, then boo hoo for white--you lose.
Not impossible, just unlikely for White to play so poorly.
See post #8 by gambit-man paying attention to the helpmate reference.
"in the previous case, it was argued that the position could still be won by the player with the lesser material by means of a 'helpmate'."
Jul 16, 2011
0
#24
jeanniecandy wrote:
I'm really confused here. It is impossible for black to checkmate white in any circumstances. A king and bishop simply cannot deliver a mate no matter how poorly white plays. White will mate black quickly and easily here. If white ran out of time, then boo hoo for white--you lose.
I think you need to go back to the start of the thread. the OP demonstrated how he could possibly win, and there are many other ways too. he therefore has 'mating material'.
Jul 16, 2011
0
#25
So the rule was changed in february. it was posted on some random blog.
I believe it was a poor rule change, and executed terribly by chess.com
Jul 16, 2011
0
#26
gambit-man wrote:
So the rule was changed in february. it was posted on some random blog.
I believe it was a poor rule change, and executed terribly by chess.com
I don't understand your objection. In an OTB game, white would stop the clock, claim a draw under 10.2a, and the arbiter would uphold the claim. Under the Chess.com programming, the game is declared a draw when the flag falls. Same result either way.
Jul 17, 2011
0
#27
woton wrote:In an OTB game, white would stop the clock, claim a draw under 10.2a, and the arbiter would uphold the claim. Under the Chess.com programming, the game is declared a draw when the flag falls. Same result either way.
that's just the point, the OP has spoken to a FIDE arbiter, who would have awarded a win! because black has mating material.
I think this post has gone a little off track. Probably chess.com didn't make the rule change as clear as they ought to have, but the original poster was merely trying to establish whether this was a deliberate coding change or a bug with the system that the developers were unaware of.
I personally agree with the draw situation because it is completely absurd to think that black might get the win even if white ran out of time. The draw seems the fair result to me. So in other words, I agree more with the USCF rule on this than the FIDE rule.
woton wrote:
gambit-man wrote:
So the rule was changed in february. it was posted on some random blog.
I believe it was a poor rule change, and executed terribly by chess.com
I don't understand your objection. In an OTB game, white would stop the clock, claim a draw under 10.2a, and the arbiter would uphold the claim. Under the Chess.com programming, the game is declared a draw when the flag falls. Same result either way.
Yes but in this situation white didn't 'stop the clock' and claim a draw - his flag fell. If that happened in an OTB game and it was still winable by black (however unlikely), then in a FIDE ruled game black would be awarded the win. Whereas with a USCF ruled game it would appear that the game would be declared a draw.
I think a draw is the fairest outcome though.
Jul 17, 2011
0
#30
@ gambit-king
The OP stated that the arbiter told him that the game would be a win for black if the flag fell and a draw if white stopped the clock and claimed a draw. This is consistent with Article 6.9 and Article 10.2a. The problem is that it is impractical to implement 10.2a on Chess.com
@ TheMouse
In the Socko-Foisor game, the flag fell, 10.2a is not applicable (it's still in the rule book, and Appendix B states that it is applicable to blitz if there is adequate supervision). In the Socko-Foisor game, the arbiter declared the game a draw because there was not a forced checkmate. He was wrong and was overturned because the rule (Article 6.9) requires only that a checkmate be possible however improbable.
@Neoxvli
White did not stop the clock because on chess.com, there is no way to stop the clock and request adjudication. So they deviated from the rules in their programming. See the following link, particularly posts 23, 24 and 25.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/help-support/no-mating-material--draw?page=1
Jul 17, 2011
0
#31
@Neoxvli
I hadn't noticed before, but I think that you're correct; this game would be a draw under USCF rules: a game is drawn even when a player runs out of time if the opponent has only a king and bishop or king and knight and does not have a forced checkmate. Now, not only are there two rules in each organization to contend with, but also a significant difference between FIDE and USCF rules.
No wonder that there's confusion. Many times one person will be talking about FIDE rules while another person is talking about USCF rules. I was once told that there was no "insufficient losing chances" rule. It's USCF wording. FIDE has the same rule, just doesn't give it a name.
Estragon wrote
The OP should be very happy with the draw and quit whining.
If you properly read what the OP wrote then you would most probably realise that he was not whining about this in any way. Rather he was asking for clarification on whether chess.com was aware of the discrepancy between what happened this time and what happened (to him) before.
I find it difficult to understand how that could, in anybody's interpretation, be described as 'whining'.
Played this in bullet Chess, and had a similar scenario before (a long while ago) where I was in a similarily superior position to my opponent at the end of that game, but he was awarded a win when I ran out of time. The reason before was that there is sufficient material to win a game with only B+K if the opponent has certain other material on the board. Assuming worst play, mating the white King in the corner doesn't make this game beyond black, and as a result of my opponent running out of time I believe I should have been awarded a win.
Having spoken to a Fide Arbiter about the previous scenario, I was told that the position would be awarded as a win for black for the above reasons, and that if white wanted a draw then they would need to stop the clocks and request adjudication by an arbiter.
My question is, when did this rule change on Chess.com, and why?
...
The change was announced here. http://blog.chess.com/webmaster/live-chess-gets-some-love
"Automatic draw on time-out if opponent has insufficient mating material: KB, KN or KNN"
I do not know of an official repository of changes. You have to track webmaster (and other staff).