While we’re discussing rules that we don’t like, is there a way that we can get rule 14E3 eliminated? Yesterday I directed a (nonrated) scholastic event, and once again I saw a player stalemate with something like a queen, two rooks, and two minor pieces. Clearly players who do things like that could be mated by two knights, so why do we need to make it an automatic draw if the flag falls if it is K+N+N vs. K? Also, this is somewhat nonsensical since the previous rule says nothing about this situation being insufficient material to continue.
To take this to its logical extreme, suppose I am playing and get down to this position and I offer a draw. If my opponent declines, my safest option is to let my flag run out, since that way I run no risk of losing.
First, it should not be eliminated; second, it is not an automatic draw.
14E3. King and two knights. Opponent has only king and two knights, the player has no pawns, and opponent does not have a forced win.
If you have the black King on A8, and the white King on b8, Knights on b5 and d5; to get the checkmate it would be Ndc7 checkmate. If the chess player can point out the forced win – it is not a draw. If we eliminate the rule, you could have a forced win with mate in one. If you have mate in one, would you accept a automatic draw?
The director does have the right under 18G1, 20H and 20H1. It is unsportsmanlike to abandon the position; or, unsportsmanlike to show little interest in the position.
Essentially you are arguing that a player with two Knights versus King should be allowed to win on time because it is possible to construct a helpmate. The logical problem with this is that it requires you to let a player win on time in any position from which he can contruct a helpmate. This leads to consequences most people would consider absurd.
Yes. If a player with a pawn against a queen and two rooks, or even in a position where his opponent has forced mate in two can be allowed to win on time, I see absolutely no reason for this one particular case to be an exception.
Question anyone willing to play out a K+N+N vs K. If the game ends in a win, would question the results of the game: as it looks like a helpmate. If it looks like a helpmate, than it looks like the players are manipulation the results.
If you can say if you have a K+N+N vs K, and lose the game because your flag falls with both knights: than I reject the idea. As the only reason you could win with K+N+N vs K, as your opponent has the worst endgame skills, or your opponent was manipulating the position.
What about a position like: W: Kc7, Bh3; B: Ka8, Pa7/d6, Qe1, Ra6/b2, Bh5. If Black’s flag falls, should White be entitled to a win on time because his opponent could have played 1. … Rb8, allowing a forced mate? This is a defensible position, but I think you’ll find it a hard sell.
Geurt Gijssen has said repeatedly in An Arbiter’s Notebook that FIDE rules require that there be no legal sequence of moves that could lead to mate in order not to lose when your flag falls (sorry about the tortured syntax). This means that if all legal moves lead to stalemate, then it is a draw, but if there is a position like you describe, then it is a loss.
I think that it is hard to give a player half a point when they refused to take a draw and their flag fell. Surely with the delay clocks no player should lose on time in a trivial position.
For the record, Lugo (IM) - Ginsburg (IM), San Diego 2006, Round 4, reached this position after 54…Kxg4: White K c4, N a2, N f5, Black K g4. The game continued to move 75, where a draw was agreed with White K f7, N f6, N f4, and Black K h6.
