Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 09:58:06 04/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 1999 at 17:17:10, KarinsDad wrote: >On April 22, 1999 at 16:48:36, Craig Stevens wrote: > >[snip] > >>> >>>Insufficient winning material for both sides is always a draw. If one side has >>>insufficient winning material and his opponent's flag falls, then it is a draw, >>>not a win. >> >>I was told by a tournament director a couple months ago that when I had two >>pawns versus the other players knight and my flag fell that it was a loss, not a >>draw because I could somehow step into a mate because my pawns were blocking >>access to two squares! If I would have known that I would have just given up >>the pawns! But what if a player is low on time and the other player refuses to >>snatch available pawns and just plants a knight in front of a pawn and waits it >>out. I guess eventually you would get a 3 fold rep, but that might take a >>while! In the mean time I lose? Is this correct? > >Yes. This is correct. Here is the FIDE rule concerning it: > >6.9. Except where Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 apply, if a player does not complete >the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the >player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent >cannot checkmate the player by any possible series of legal moves ( i.e. by the >most unskilled counterplay). > >This means that if you played terrible and your opponent could win by >checkmating you, you still lose (even though a knight and king alone cannot >normally checkmate). If you want to force a draw quickly (i.e. you are low on >time), there is a better way than trying for a 3 fold rep. Just push the pawns. >Either he takes or you get a queen. Once it is KNK, it is automatically a draw. > But the opponent can safely block one pawn and not capture it. There is no way to force her/him to take the blocked pawn. This is what I do not like about sudden-death time controls, people trying to win by these absurd ways. >If it would have been KQKN as opposed to KPPKN, then there is no position on the >board that would result in a checkmate for the KN side, hence, it would have >been a draw. > >Sorry about the confusion due to my lack of being clear on the rule. > >KarinsDad :)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.