Hope the resident rules gurus can settle a debate between me and another veteran Local TD.
Situation: K+NN vs. K+P. The side with the knights does not have any pawns. The player with K+P flags: Does the KNN player win on time?
I say yes; my friend—who has directed far more tournaments than I have—says it’s a draw…that only the K+P side can win on time, since two knights alone is not mating material.
My argument is that KNN always has winning chances against K+P, thus clearly constitutes mating material in this case. I have deliberately not consulted the Rulebook since this debate started.
What say the gurus here? Thanks much.
P.S. Yes, to a very new/low-rated TD it might seem strange that a player loses because he has a pawn, but would draw (under USCF rules) if he had no pawn. That’s like the case under FIDE rules where K+R can lose to K+N, but bare K cannot lose to K+N. Go figure.
It’s not so much that K+2N vs K+P always has merely winning chances, but rather that in many positions there is an eventual forced win for the K+2N.
Even K+N can win on time if it has a forced win. A simple example is white Kh1, Qa2 Ng5 vs black Kh8, Pg7, Ph7, Ra8, Re8, Qd8.
Nf7+ Kg8
Nh6+ Kh8
Qg8+ … (black waits until his he is almost flagged)
… Rxg8 leaving white with just K+N, flagging, and then trying to claim a draw even though 4) Nf7 is mate.
With K+N+N vs K, there is no forced win for white. All black needs to do is stay out of the corner. With K+N+N vs K+P, often there is a forced win for white, because white can lose a tempo by stalemating the K, forcing the P to move, then administer mate. Therefore, USCF 14E grants a draw to black in the first case, but not in the second.
It’s a little dicey, because most players (including myself) wouldn’t know how to force it. Plus, there is no FIDE parallel for USCF 14E (unlike USCF 14D). Under FIDE rules, even K+N vs K+N is not ruled an immediate draw, because helpmates are possible. A player wishing to claim a draw in this case would have to invoke the 50-move rule or something.
I’m not entirely convinced this is completely accurate. US Chess rule 14E specifies condition under which a flag fall results in a draw (not a win). Article 6.9 of the FIDE Laws of Chess states:
I think it is more precise to say that the difference is that US Chess rule 14E includes cases where it is possible to find a legal series of moves by which the opponent can checkmate the player, even though that series of moves calls for extremely poor play on the player’s part (such as a helpmate).
It is true there is no article in the Laws of Chess that enumerates such positions as US Chess rule 14E does.
The above-cited FIDE rule is equivalent to USCF 14D (specifically 14D4), not 14E.
USCF 14E goes a bit further than USCF 14D (or the FIDE version), by specifying a few additional positions (such as K+N vs K+N, or K+P vs K+N, which do not fall under 14D or FIDE because there are helpmates) where the claimant can be awarded a draw even if his time expires.
Ah, I think I now understand our disagreement. I believe that US Chess rule 14D4 concerns itself with positions that are unwinnable by either player and is unconcerned with the state of the clock. Article 6.9 of the FIDE Laws of Chess is addressing positions that are unwinnable by one of the players but is winnable by the other player (the player who ran out of time). Owing to that asymmetry, I do not necessarily see the equivalence with US Chess rule 14D4.
(Under the FIDE rules, if the position were unwinnable by either player, then the game would have immediately been drawn as soon as such a position arose from a legal move, and the state of the clock would be irrelevant.)
Please note that my OP and my debate with the other stubborn TD is specific to USCF rules. Under the FIDE LOC, it is clear the KNN side can win on time.
Before we get further side-tracked, how would you all rule in the situation I described: KNN (with no pawns) vs. K+P, time runs out for the K+P side, the KNN side still has time left?
I cannot see any way to justify a ruling other than KNN wins. My friend feels otherwise, strongly, as my email inbox can attest. I told him that a ruling of “Draw” here would not survive appeal, even if he posted and announced his interpretation of this rule before the event started. Do you agree with that?
Yes, but the side issue is interesting also. May this thread continue, and thrive, along both the main track and the side track!
I just noticed, for the first time since 2003, that the word “even” was added to this rule sometime between the 4th and 5th editions.
Without the word “even”, there was a problem. Adding the word “even” has caused potentially an even bigger problem.
The absence of “even” seems to imply that, for example, a player with a lone bishop against the opponent’s lone knight must wait until his own time expires before he can claim a draw under 14E.
The presence of “even” is worse still. Assuming that “even when” is synonymous with “whether or not”, a literal reading of 14E means, among other things, that as soon as one player gets down to a lone king, the game is immediately over, and is drawn! Surely this was not the intent.
Both 14D and 14E have problems with fuzzy wording. The point is (or ought to be) that:
As soon as a dead position arises, the game is immediately over (drawn), regardless of whether anybody’s time has expired (14D), and
As soon as the opponent’s position is “almost dead”, the player may claim a draw, whether or not his own time has expired (14E).
By “the opponent’s position is almost dead” I mean the usual 14E stuff, i.e. that the opponent is down to at most K+N, or K+B, or K+N+N with no opposing pawns, and no forced win.
Another source of confusion is the reference to winning on time in the name of 14E. This red herring should be removed. The name should be changed from “insufficient material to win on time” to something like “minimal material to win.”
seems obvious, even to me, that the side with k, n+n wins on time against k, p. k, n, n can force a win in this situation. wasn’t there a recent game where one of “our” junior players accomplished this?
That was one of the arguments my friend made. I told him we can’t deny a win claim for the KNN side just because the position is theoretically drawn any more than we can deny a win claim for the stronger side of KR vs. KN, even if the defending side has his King in the center, next to the knight.
In either case, the time to claim a draw, via ILC, three-fold repetition, 50 moves, “not trying to win by normal means” or whatever…is ‘before’ time runs out. Or just prove you can hold the position OTB, especially with delay or increment in use.
Once one side flags, it’s a different story. Thus the seemingly absurd cases of K+P winning on time vs. KQR, etc.
One difference makes KNN vs. K+P tricky: K+R wins against bare King as well as KN, while KNN vs. bare King is a draw under USCF rules, but if you add a pawn to the ‘weaker’ side, it is not a draw any more.
That seems strange and it could trip up a newbie/low-rated TD. It could lead to some head-scratching all-round, the rare times it happens. But that’s just how it goes: It’s inherent in the position, inevitable once the current movements of the pieces was established, centuries ago.
It’s just how it is. It seems strange that adding a pawn turns an automatic draw into a possible loss for the “pawn-added” side. It also seems strange that KNN cannot force a win vs. bare K while KR can do so, even though in most positions you would rather have two knights than a Rook.
Mr. Mark has come very close to convincing me to submit an ADM I’ve been thinking about for several years. That is repeal of 14E3. I’m convinced that if you gave a master KNN vs. a 400 player’s bare king in no special position, the master would win at least two times out of ten.
If you actually work it out over the board, you’ll find that, in order to get checkmated, the defender would need to either (1) voluntarily move into the corner when moving away from the corner is also legal, or (2) fail to capture a hanging knight.
or (3) Resign. Really low rated players do all three of those things. I think I agree with Alex. I think the general rule ought to be that if there is a legal sequence of moves that leads to a loss, if you run out of time you lose. The current rule on KNN vs K doesn’t follow that principle.
I once saw a 1000 rated player playing a 1400 player hang on in a lost position for a long time, make progress, then resign when it got down to KBN vs K. She assumed it was an easy win. I guarantee you that particular 1400 had no clue how to win that position. She had the best drawing chances she had had all game.
I’m not sure anyone who a) Plays with an analog clock or a d0 event where 14H is not available or b) can’t make a legal move in the delay time deserves a draw. YMMV.
This is the FIDE rule. It is, in my never humble opinion, the right one. The point should be that the clock cannot impose a result that would be impossible to obtain by moving the pieces according to the rules. Note the word “impossible.” It is a very strong word, as it should be. It does not mean “extremely unlikely to happen” or “requires truly pathetic play on one side.”
