Forums

Chess.com doesn't know what "insufficient mating material" means

Sort:
Avatar of HeyokaSmiles
HeyokaSmiles
May 31, 2022
0
#21

Look, if I wanted to discuss metaphysics with a hippy I'd have gone to a Cafe in Paris.

If they meant to say "forced mates" they should have said that. Nobody was stopping them. If they were to say that it would be a ridiculously fraught rule for the example I gave earlier (btw, thank you for making me repeat myself twice now):

"In a theoretical draw where white has a pawn blockaded by opposition White gets the win if Black flags: this is a "helpmate" as you say. As much of a "helpmate" as B vs N or any number of endgames."

I don't think that Rules are a good realm for "benefit of the doubt" to apply. As I said earlier, if this were a big-money online tournament and a Super GM decided to question whether B vs N is "insufficient mating material" and why this rule had cost him thousands of dollars it'd make Chess.com, the USCF, or any other institution go a bit blue and red in the face trying to defend it.

So maybe Chess.com wants to get ahead of this issue and deal with it now while it's just little ol' me complaining?

Avatar of Martin_Stahl
Martin_Stahl
May 31, 2022
0
#22
HeyokaSmiles wrote:

I just showed why they don't make sense and no it's not a matter of opinion.

But since you think it is I'll ask you: to what extent does the US Rule make sense? In a theoretical draw where white has a pawn blockaded by opposition White gets the win if Black flags: this is a "helpmate" as you say. As much of a "helpmate" as B vs N or any number of endgames.

BN vs R, helpmate. BN vs B, helpmate. BB vs R, helpmate. Q vs NNBB, helpmate. More than that most of these are "helpmates" for whichever side flags.

It doesn't make any sense and the rule is not delivered as described. I don't care how much anyone thinks it makes sense; they're objectively wrong. The USCF should consider adjusting their rules too, but one problem at a time.

 

The difference is mostly in that helpmates are not generally able to be forced (though there may be edge cases where a forced mate might exist with the material).

Avatar of Martin_Stahl
Martin_Stahl
May 31, 2022
0
#23
HeyokaSmiles wrote:

As I just explained the very concept of a "helpmate" is ridiculous BUT chess.com can enforce whatever stupid rules they like. As I said:

"Either state what rule you're enforcing or implement the rule you claim to be enforcing correctly."

If they want to enforce a rule it should be written and explained for all to see. ....

 

The rules are clearly given in the help articles.

https://support.chess.com/article/268-my-opponent-ran-out-of-time-why-was-it-a-draw

https://support.chess.com/article/128-what-does-insufficient-mating-material-mean

Avatar of HeyokaSmiles
HeyokaSmiles
May 31, 2022
0
#24

The problem is that in flagging wins/draws "helpmates" occur in more endgames than not. A forced win endgame is far rarer than an endgame where a "helpmate" would be required yet this assertion of the rule effectively says that they've arbitrarily decided what constitutes a forced mate, for example:

"This is because, counterintuitively, it is easier to check mate a king and another piece with two knights, than it is to checkmate a lone king with two knights." (https://support.chess.com/article/128-what-does-insufficient-mating-material-mean)

Okay so according to chess.com NN vs K is a draw but NN vs B is not a draw because it is easier to checkmate in that situation... see that word easier is a big problem because there are many pawn endgame positions where it's literally impossible to make any progress at all but if you or your opponent flags somebody gets awarded a win.

See how little sense this makes?

This must be why FIDE updated the rule; they probably started looking at which endgames had forced mates and which didn't and realised that defining a rule like this is untenable. Even if they could manage it, enforcing such a rule would be ridiculously difficult.

Avatar of Optimissed
Optimissed
May 31, 2022
0
#25
HeyokaSmiles wrote:

Look, if I wanted to discuss metaphysics with a hippy I'd have gone to a Cafe in Paris.

Why when you can do it here at no extra cost?

If they meant to say "forced mates" they should have said that. Nobody was stopping them. If they were to say that it would be a ridiculously fraught rule for the example I gave earlier (btw, thank you for making me repeat myself twice now):

I did point out that for the purpose of the rule, "mate" always meant "forced mate" and although FIDE changed its rules, mistakenly, in my opinion, the wording wasn't changed here because chess.com isn't FIDE and takes most of its rules from the USCF, which I support because it's superior. FIDE is some jumped up European outfit and, thank Heaven, I'm a Brit.

"In a theoretical draw where white has a pawn blockaded by opposition White gets the win if Black flags: this is a "helpmate" as you say. As much of a "helpmate" as B vs N or any number of endgames."

Absolutely. I think it's a hard one for the software people.

I don't think that Rules are a good realm for "benefit of the doubt" to apply. As I said earlier, if this were a big-money online tournament and a Super GM decided to question whether B vs N is "insufficient mating material" and why this rule had cost him thousands of dollars it'd make Chess.com, the USCF, or any other institution go a bit blue and red in the face trying to defend it.

Quite right. We use Chess.com rules here and we will continue to do so because that's where we are. I like Chess.com and dislike FIDE. Your opinions may be different. Our opinions are not facts except insasmuch as our opinions exist.

So maybe Chess.com wants to get ahead of this issue and deal with it now while it's just little ol' me complaining?

The complaint occasionally comes up. Most of us are fairly happy. Yes there are glitches. They could employ my son's software design company and with the contacts he has, things might improve. But he might be too expensive.

 

Avatar of Martin_Stahl
Martin_Stahl
May 31, 2022
0
#26
HeyokaSmiles wrote:

...

This must be why FIDE updated the rule; they probably started looking at which endgames had forced mates and which didn't and realised that defining a rule like this is untenable. Even if they could manage it, enforcing such a rule would be ridiculously difficult.

 

FiDE doesn't want arbiters involved in deciding game results. So their ruling just requires showing that mate is possible, which the players can show easily by setting up a mating position. 

 

The site could implement something much closer to FIDE rules, for the simpler meterial combinations, but have decided not to over many similar topics over the years. There's was a long topic a few years back where it was discussed in detail and they decided to go with essentially what they have now.

 

Regarding your comment about positions where it's impossible to make progress (e.g. something like locked pawns), that is a weakness of the system, but is pretty hard to program a check and likely impacts a very small percentage of games.

Avatar of Martin_Stahl
Martin_Stahl
Jun 2, 2022
0
#27
Jai4chess wrote:

Yeah, by this logic, this is not a forced mate either:

 

 

Forced mate, in a position where the side with time only has one or two pieces left (in the case of knights). Totally different situations.