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?
I like this. If sticking to the rules as much as possible is the foremost goal, we can't go wrong.
But what if the rule as written sucks? I mean, if not for some judicious use of white-out we would still owe fealty to dudes with iron pants.
I don't know that that is the case here, but if it were it would be a question for FIDE.
Whoa -- did you just invoke the Magna Carta?
I don't know that that is the case here, but if it were it would be a question for FIDE.
Good idea, and you know they should have just asked King John real nice and I'm sure he would have hopped to liberal reform.
The comparison's a little hyperbolic and absurd, really.
I'm a little unclear though: What do you believe the problem with the rule as written is?
erik- this is the link to my game that had the kb kq:
the opponent's name was quite amuzing too: bamboozel
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=43193528
Its lame, that's the problem! The only reason we didn't fix this in 1688 is because of people like you who sold out to the man.
Maybe a list of remaining materials and results would handle almost every case? i.e.
timeout side has K+N, opponent has:
K+B/R/Q=draw unless #1 exists
K+x*pawns=won if one of the pawns is a Rook pawn, the nontimeout King is on that pawn's file, and the timeout King can reach a square with the opposition. Otherwise a draw
K+x*pawns+pieces=draw unless #1 exists
timeout side has K+B=draw unless #1 exists
timeout side has K+N+N
K+pieces=draw unless #1 exists
K+x*pawns=draw unless one of the pawns is within the Troitzky line or #1 exists or situation is similar to K+N vs K+x*pawns
K+x*pawns+pieces=draw unless #1 exists
Of course, these could be improved upon by a lot, but it seems like it should be possible to reach a reasonable conclusion for most questionable games without costing too much server time.
i think we're going to do:
K vs ANYTHING
K+N vs ANYTHING
K+B vs ANYTHING
K+N+N vs K
i think it's a good balance.
Automatically ruling your material distributions as a draw (or doing so after a timeout) would drastically imply that many chess positions that are winning would no longer be winning in chess.com games.
I acknowledge that if it would rule "many" real-life chess positions that are winning as draws, then the idea is unsound.
But realistically, how many games have we actually played in which we see an example of ths?
Do you, personally, recall many examples of this in your own games?
Can you find any such games that you played on this site?
Have you ever won a K+N vs K+P blitz game?
Following the lead of other chess sites is not something that we should automatically do.
But we should appreciate the fact that other major sites (ICS for example) do declare these games as drawn.
I've played there for decades, had hundreds of these types of games declared drawn, and have never heard wind of a complaint from anybody.
--cm
i think we're going to do:
K vs ANYTHING
K+N vs ANYTHING
K+B vs ANYTHING
K+N+N vs K
i think it's a good balance.
Thanks Erik for listening to everyone's thoughts and working so hard to improve the site.
--cm
what do you mean?
K vs K+2P is almost certainly a win
K+N vs K+3N,
etc.
I don't think you're understanding the rule:
K vs K+2P is a win for the side with K+2P, however if that side times out the rule states that you can't award the win to the side with just the K, as they don't have sufficient material to mate. In this case, the time-out results in a draw.
i think we're going to do:
K vs ANYTHING
K+N vs ANYTHING
K+B vs ANYTHING
K+N+N vs K
i think it's a good balance.
K+ 2B of same colour. (unlikely but possible)
And, on chess.com, this is a draw if black runs out of time, despite white having a forced win - no co-operation from black needed!
…bump…
I recently played a blitz game where my opponent ran out of time with the final position
I note that here in this topic my viewpoint seems to be shared amongst the stronger and in particular, titled players. I also note another user has quoted here the same quote from FIDE Laws of Chess as I did in another thread I started following my game.
For those doubters, games like this do exist, far more often than you would notice. And I’d bet my house that they also happen far more often than all those beautiful examples of exceptions to the rule.
I’m not bothered about the few rating points or the miniscule change to my W/D/L ratio, but I do need to know what set of rules I’m playing under, and if there are any other worldwide rules that are not adopted here on chess.com.
Quite lame really that an unwritten rule is buried away in a years old forum topic…
This is one of the gaps in chess.com's implementation of this rule. There are some generalizations made about when there is insufficient material since an exhaustive calculation of whether there is a sequence of moves leading to mate is not feasible to implement.
One of the compromises made becuase of the fact that human arbitration can't be implemented here. Another is that there is no Insufficient Losing Chances rule implemented here.
Quite lame really that an unwritten rule is buried away in a years old forum topic…
It's also in the Help & Support section on the site. Main reason I linked to this topic from the other one was to show the discussion and rationale.
That said, how many people actually read any of the rules the site implements before they start playing games here?
i think we're coming to some consensus...