Author: blass uri
Date: 08:06:58 07/27/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 1998 at 10:36:07, blass uri wrote: > >On July 27, 1998 at 04:44:31, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On July 26, 1998 at 23:14:45, blass uri wrote: >> >> >>>In this match fritz5 won 12:8 but when I looked at the games I saw that >>>in 1 of the games Junior lost in time at move 156 in a draw position. >>>fritz has only king and bishop when Junior had king bishop and a pawn. >> >>This game should be judged to be a draw, not a loss. The Fritz shell uses a >>wrong interpretation of the rules. >> >>The correct rule is that when one side is out of time, it loses the game only if >>there is some possible continuation to a position where it is on move and cannot >>avoid mate-in-one. Otherwise it's drawn. >> >>This is not the same thing as the possibility of help-mate. By the rule, it is >>always a loss when the opponent has a pawn, or at least a rook. In the situation >>described of KBP out of time against KB it is always a draw. > >In this case by the rules fritz5 won because the bishops were not controling the >same squares. > >It is possible for Junior to do a rook out of its pawn and be in a position like >Junior:king a1 ,bishop b1, Rook c1 >Fritz: king a3 bishop d4 >and it is the move of Junior and it must play Rc3 and fritz mates by Bxc3 Junior do not have to do a rook in order to lose it is enough to do a queen and put a queen at h2 instead of a rook at c1 I think that if the bishops were controling the same squares then the only case Junior loses if it loses on time is if it can do a bishop controling different squares (doing a knight is not enough because in a position like Ka1 knight b1 bishop c1 the knight can go to c3 and there is no forced mate). Uri > >Uri >> >>The intent of the rule is not to award a win when it is technically impossible. >> >>Amir
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.