i totally understand your point ilmago, but the chances of that happening (a position where white can mate with just a knight, for example) are SOOOOO rare compared to the chances of someone "losing" on time when their opponent CAN'T force mate with a knight... is it worth is to inconvenience people 99% of the time for the 1% that would be more "correct"?
I think so, yes. (Granted, you weren't asking me specifically, but...)
Erik, do you really consider it to be acceptable to change the rules of chess and build a system that makes it impossible to play a normal chess game on the board in some cases? I would see a high danger in people starting to say: "On this server, it is not possible to play normal chess, because here and there, they have started implementing strange rules ...".
Because no TD has EVER implemented a strange rule here and there...
Erik, do you really consider it to be acceptable to change the rules of chess and build a system that makes it impossible to play a normal chess game on the board in some cases? I would see a high danger in people starting to say: "On this server, it is not possible to play normal chess, because here and there, they have started implementing strange rules ...".
read the second paragraph here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty-move_rule
that would seem to support my claim that YES, sometimes it is better to enforce the practical than protect the extremely theoretical.
Erik, do you really consider it to be acceptable to change the rules of chess and build a system that makes it impossible to play a normal chess game on the board in some cases? I would see a high danger in people starting to say: "On this server, it is not possible to play normal chess, because here and there, they have started implementing strange rules ...".
You have a good point, but there are some players that will just try to run your clock out (with no attempt to checkmate you) by playing out several moves in a drawish endgame. The helpmate might be there, but they are mainly going for the win on time. I'm not sure if I would consider that normal chess.
No matter how good a job Erik does, there's bound to be a situation slip through the cracks.
And player A will be facing a mate-in-1 in live chess, where the opponent does not [theoretically] have mating material.. and so they will let their clock run out and earn the draw.
No matter how good a job Erik does, there's bound to be a situation slip through the cracks.
And player A will be facing a mate-in-1 in live chess, where the opponent does not [theoretically] have mating material.. and so they will let their clock run out and earn the draw.
I agree. :)
[...] is there any server [...]
EDIT: It's extremely common to just implement "mating material is knight + bishop and better".
Thanks a lot for your remark, ozzie.
I had not been aware that in the US, there is the local rule about "draw because of insufficient mating material" (which I found as USCF rules , point 8d) which differs from FIDE rules.
And I had not been aware that ICC, being a US based site, seems to be indeed using such "insufficient mating material" rules.
With that, of course, it can be a perfect option for chess.com, being an international but US based server, to use some implementation of these "insufficient mating material" rules, too.
As to the details of how to implement these USCF rules, and therefore potentially acceptable automatized versions of these rules, I will not be able to offer any expert opinion.
(From Europe-based servers, I have been accustomed to a FIDE version of implementing the rules. I guess the decision of which kind of rules to implement will involve both trying to weigh being US based versus internationality and trying to find some working solution that can be easily automatized.)
No matter how good a job Erik does, there's bound to be a situation slip through the cracks.
And player A will be facing a mate-in-1 in live chess, where the opponent does not [theoretically] have mating material.. and so they will let their clock run out and earn the draw.
agree as well.
Well, the databases already exist -- it would just be a question of tying them into the decicion making process on timeout.
which requires more processing power than we can dedicate :(
we need SIMPLE rules. what is wrong with what i proposed?
K
K+N
K+B
K+N+N
all of it regardless of what YOU have - it only matters what the OTHER guy has when you time out. if he can't mate you reasonably, then it's a draw.
the tablebase solution would be elegant and possibly the proper way to handle this. the one proposed above would be simpler, yes, but would probably cause exactly the same types of complains, but now from the other side of the table. if the mate-in-1 situation proposed by ozzie were to happen in one of my games, it would be infuriating not only because a win was taken away from me, but also because the other side was the one who timed out.
if we want to keep things simple, maybe the benefit of the doubt should still be given to the side that did not time out - since time is such an integral aspect of the game.
Bear in mind that the tablebase solution only works for positions with up to seven peices. Above that, all of the same challenges apply, however only on the more complex set of solutions (with the exception of the blockaded pawns and forced move sequence examples).
As for concerns about the processing required, I don't know what the specific issues around this are, however I'd suggest that some pre-processing could be done to vastly simplify an existing tablebase into a fit-for-purpose database of all legal FEN positions with seven peices and less, and an indicator of whether there is a mate for the player who's turn it currently is not with worst play from the player who's turn it is.
I don't know if this actually simplifies the matter any, but I too think that despite still being incomplete, it is the most elegant and correct way to apply this rule to the letter of the law.
No matter how good a job Erik does, there's bound to be a situation slip through the cracks.
And player A will be facing a mate-in-1 in live chess, where the opponent does not [theoretically] have mating material.. and so they will let their clock run out and earn the draw.
agree as well.
Well, the databases already exist -- it would just be a question of tying them into the decicion making process on timeout.
which requires more processing power than we can dedicate :(
we need SIMPLE rules. what is wrong with what i proposed?
K
K+N
K+B
K+N+N
all of it regardless of what YOU have - it only matters what the OTHER guy has when you time out. if he can't mate you reasonably, then it's a draw.
the tablebase solution would be elegant and possibly the proper way to handle this. the one proposed above would be simpler, yes, but would probably cause exactly the same types of complains, but now from the other side of the table. if the mate-in-1 situation proposed by ozzie were to happen in one of my games, it would be infuriating not only because a win was taken away from me, but also because the other side was the one who timed out.
if we want to keep things simple, maybe the benefit of the doubt should still be given to the side that did not time out - since time is such an integral aspect of the game.
If the mate-in-one thing happens to you in a live chess game
in a non-contrived way
then I'll buy you a beer if you don't get the points you believe you have earned.
Not a good idea. There is only room for so many options in the mind of the chess player. Better to make a decision and stick with it.
Apple has built an entire company around this philosophy.
Loopholes are good.
I am afraid that changing anything will only lead to more outcry, more complaints, and more contention that could be that much more difficult to solve. Given the difficulty to come to a consensus even in this thread, perhaps we might simply keep things as they are?
It's not a very slippery slope if Erik is the one determining where the friction is.
D'accord. Some slopes are not slippery, otherwise we wouldn't have rock climbing.
I'd say straying from the rule is the slippery slope. So long as the rule is adhered to as written, there's really no room for dispute, but if this rule is compromised, which is next?
ilmago, is there any server which has implemented perfect draw-claim rules?
EDIT: It's extremely common to just implement "mating material is knight + bishop and better".