draw with insufucient material , why??
Sort:
Hello, wanted to ask. Why there is something like draw with insuficient material? Lets say that i am losing only with king against pawn and bishop. Why, when opponent is not able to defeat me with this in time, its draw? Should be his loss. If he is not able to check-mate me in time, he had material for this.
Vyrlien wrote:
Hello, wanted to ask. Why there is something like draw with insuficient material? Lets say that i am losing only with king against pawn and bishop. Why, when opponent is not able to defeat me with this in time, its draw? Should be his loss. If he is not able to check-mate me in time, he had material for this.
Your opponent ran out of time but you can't checkmate with a lone king, so the best outcome you could ever have is a draw. Your opponent had no time and you didn't have sufficient material to mate, so neither of you could win, thus it's a draw.
https://support.chess.com/article/268-my-opponent-ran-out-of-time-why-was-it-a-draw
Uživatel Martin_Stahl napsal:
Vyrlien wrote:
Hello, wanted to ask. Why there is something like draw with insuficient material? Lets say that i am losing only with king against pawn and bishop. Why, when opponent is not able to defeat me with this in time, its draw? Should be his loss. If he is not able to check-mate me in time, he had material for this.
Your opponent ran out of time but you can't checkmate with a lone king, so the best outcome you could ever have is a draw. Your opponent had no time and you didn't have sufficient material to mate, so neither of you could win, this it's a draw.
https://support.chess.com/article/268-my-opponent-ran-out-of-time-why-was-it-a-draw
Well that is not true,
he could. only thing he had to do, was exchange pawn for queen, but he took lot of time to thing his moves and has no time for end-game. That was his decision and it backfired. That is why the time is there to limit player and push them to move. So you need to think under pressure. So there is no sense in making this rule. Which doesnt exists in normal chess games.
Vyrlien wrote:
Well that is not true,
he could. only thing he had to do, was exchange pawn for queen, but he took lot of time to thing his moves and has no time for end-game. That was his decision and it backfired. That is why the time is there to limit player and push them to move. So you need to think under pressure. So there is no sense in making this rule. Which doesnt exists in normal chess games.
Yes, your opponent had sufficient material to mate. However, they did not have any time on the clock.
You did not have sufficient material to mate. Given infinite time, you could never checkmate your opponent with the material you have, so you can't win. The best outcome possible for you, with that material, is a draw.
In this particular case, the rule here is the same as official over the board chess. If you had a bishop or knight, it would have also been a draw here, which differs from the FIDE rules; this site uses a simplified algorithm, closer to the US Chess rules for that material on timeout.
Vyrlien wrote:
Uživatel Martin_Stahl napsal:
Vyrlien wrote:
Hello, wanted to ask. Why there is something like draw with insuficient material? Lets say that i am losing only with king against pawn and bishop. Why, when opponent is not able to defeat me with this in time, its draw? Should be his loss. If he is not able to check-mate me in time, he had material for this.
Your opponent ran out of time but you can't checkmate with a lone king, so the best outcome you could ever have is a draw. Your opponent had no time and you didn't have sufficient material to mate, so neither of you could win, this it's a draw.
https://support.chess.com/article/268-my-opponent-ran-out-of-time-why-was-it-a-draw
Well that is not true,
he could. only thing he had to do, was exchange pawn for queen, but he took lot of time to thing his moves and has no time for end-game. That was his decision and it backfired. That is why the time is there to limit player and push them to move. So you need to think under pressure. So there is no sense in making this rule. Which doesnt exists in normal chess games.
Recall the following outcomes if your opponent runs out of time and your pieces are as follows.
1. King only - draw for this site, draw for FIDE
2. King and bishop only - draw for this site (even if there is a mate in one next move somehow), win for FIDE in certain circumstances
3. King and knight only - draw for this site (even if there is a mate in one next move somehow), win for FIDE in certain circumstances
4. King and pawn only - win for this site (even if the pawn has no reasonable prospects of promotion), win for FIDE>.
5. King and two knights only - I am not certain about this one for this site, but it's a win for FIDE in all circumstances.
6. King and two bishops residing on same coloured square - win for this site (I think, as of the last I recalled, unless the algorithm has been modified), draw for FIDE.
Take the case of the lone king for example. The rule is as such because the side having the lone king will never be able to win the game even if he could play on. Thus, a win is not possible for him.
Uživatel eric0022 napsal:
Vyrlien wrote:
Uživatel Martin_Stahl napsal:
Vyrlien wrote:
Hello, wanted to ask. Why there is something like draw with insuficient material? Lets say that i am losing only with king against pawn and bishop. Why, when opponent is not able to defeat me with this in time, its draw? Should be his loss. If he is not able to check-mate me in time, he had material for this.
Your opponent ran out of time but you can't checkmate with a lone king, so the best outcome you could ever have is a draw. Your opponent had no time and you didn't have sufficient material to mate, so neither of you could win, this it's a draw.
https://support.chess.com/article/268-my-opponent-ran-out-of-time-why-was-it-a-draw
Well that is not true,
he could. only thing he had to do, was exchange pawn for queen, but he took lot of time to thing his moves and has no time for end-game. That was his decision and it backfired. That is why the time is there to limit player and push them to move. So you need to think under pressure. So there is no sense in making this rule. Which doesnt exists in normal chess games.
Recall the following outcomes if your opponent runs out of time and your pieces are as follows.
1. King only - draw for this site, draw for FIDE
2. King and bishop only - draw for this site (even if there is a mate in one next move somehow), win for FIDE in certain circumstances
3. King and knight only - draw for this site (even if there is a mate in one next move somehow), win for FIDE in certain circumstances
4. King and pawn only - win for this site (even if the pawn has no reasonable prospects of promotion), win for FIDE>.
5. King and two knights only - I am not certain about this one for this site, but it's a win for FIDE in all circumstances.
6. King and two bishops residing on same coloured square - win for this site (I think, as of the last I recalled, unless the algorithm has been modified), draw for FIDE.
Take the case of the lone king for example. The rule is as such because the side having the lone king will never be able to win the game even if he could play on. Thus, a win is not possible for him.
I understand that, but there is no reason for draw, when he had material to win, (pawn bishop and king) but run out of time. This is exactly the case i described and thats what i find really weird. He had material to win, he just wasnt able to do it.
Uživatel Martin_Stahl napsal:
Vyrlien wrote:
Well that is not true,
he could. only thing he had to do, was exchange pawn for queen, but he took lot of time to thing his moves and has no time for end-game. That was his decision and it backfired. That is why the time is there to limit player and push them to move. So you need to think under pressure. So there is no sense in making this rule. Which doesnt exists in normal chess games.
Yes, your opponent had sufficient material to mate. However, they did not have any time on the clock.
You did not have sufficient material to mate. Given infinite time, you could never checkmate your opponent with the material you have, so you can't win. The best outcome possible for you, with that material, is a draw.
In this particular case, the rule here is the same as official over the board chess. If you had a bishop or knight, it would have also been a draw here, which differs from the FIDE rules; this site uses a simplified algorithm, closer to the US Chess rules for that material on timeout.
That brings more light to the problem, still i think that we shoudl be able to play on the time. He invested time into thinking about moves, and i didnt. Lets pretend that this is why i was losing figures. This should have had some impact on the game. Yes i couldnt win by mate, but during the game i considered time and watched it. He didnt.
Vyrlien wrote:
That brings more light to the problem, still i think that we shoudl be able to play on the time. He invested time into thinking about moves, and i didnt. Lets pretend that this is why i was losing figures. This should have had some impact on the game. Yes i couldnt win by mate, but during the game i considered time and watched it. He didnt.
Not sure what problem you are referring to.
The time situation (with the opponent spending far too much time in order to get an advantage on the board) DID have some impact on the game. Do you normally get a draw when you have just your bare King left against an enemy King, Bishop and Pawn? Or do you normally LOSE in that situation?
The opponent's time problem gave you half a point (a draw) that you did NOT earn by your actual chess play. And you're whining because it was ONLY half a point?
BOTH the clock and the position on the board are important. He had the advantage on the board, you had the advantage on the clock. A draw is a perfectly fair result.
Ask FIDE.
I'm assuming this is the game you're talking about:
How were you planning to win this position? You don't have sufficient material to mate him, so it makes complete sense that it's a draw. I would feel lucky in that position, actually. Not angry that I didn't win.
Uživatel exceptionalfork napsal:
I'm assuming this is the game you're talking about:
How were you planning to win this position? You don't have sufficient material to mate him, so it makes complete sense that it's a draw. I would feel lucky in that position, actually. Not angry that I didn't win.
Hello,
yea that is. I plan to win on time, which is purpose of the time. He invested its time to thinking longer, and i didnt. This causes me to lose material, but he wasnt good enought to mate me in his time. That should be my win. What is point of the time then?
Uživatel blueemu napsal:
Vyrlien wrote:
That brings more light to the problem, still i think that we shoudl be able to play on the time. He invested time into thinking about moves, and i didnt. Lets pretend that this is why i was losing figures. This should have had some impact on the game. Yes i couldnt win by mate, but during the game i considered time and watched it. He didnt.
Not sure what problem you are referring to.
The time situation (with the opponent spending far too much time in order to get an advantage on the board) DID have some impact on the game. Do you normally get a draw when you have just your bare King left against an enemy King, Bishop and Pawn? Or do you normally LOSE in that situation?
The opponent's time problem gave you half a point (a draw) that you did NOT earn by your actual chess play. And you're whining because it was ONLY half a point?
BOTH the clock and the position on the board are important. He had the advantage on the board, you had the advantage on the clock. A draw is a perfectly fair result.
Ask FIDE.
Ok, that could be. Anyway i was playing tournamets and never seen something like this, so i was suprised that there is such a rule.
Vyrlien wrote:
Anyway i was playing tournamets and never seen something like this, so i was suprised that there is such a rule.
With a lone king you can't win. That is the rule for every format of chess, organized by every federation, and it always has been. The weird examples listed by someone above are pretty much irrelevant in this case.