If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
The CFC website is having issues again so we couldn't look this up in the handbook after the game. To make a long story short, in a comedy of errors where I was banking too much on my opponents time trouble and deserved to lose quickly early in the game the tables turned somewhat and there were mutual dangers on both sides but I allowed my opponent to hoover all of my pawns and force a trade of queens. With one second left on his clock he sacrifices his knight for my last pawn leaving me with bishop and king vs three pawns. My opponent has two rook pawns (h-pawn and a-pawn still on the original square) and a d-pawn on d3 and I have a dark squared bishop. He claims a draw based on insufficient mating material one second before his time runs out. I claim that there is at least one possible mate on the board and actually there are two with his king on h8 or a1. I believe that the position is lost for me though there may be a miracle draw and those two possible mates plus the fact that he has run out of time.
What is the CFC rule on this situation? Is it a win for me because of the two possible checkmates or a draw for him because of insufficient losing chances?
I recall seeing something on Chesscafe in a similar situation it was a time loss because the losing side was winning paradoxically. A couple of moves earlier if he had just kept queens on and kept checking me I probably would have conceded a draw by perpetual check based on the FIDE rule despite the fact that he had only two seconds left though there may have been a way for me to force a trade of queens but unlikely.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Saturday, 3rd September, 2011, 05:17 PM.
This is more complicated than the incident I had last year.
By FIDE quickplay rules, what you described would be a draw (but I'd have to see the position).
The key would be the idea of NORMAL MEANS in 10.2a.
If the possible mates could only happen if you lobotomized a 6 year old, then I wouldn't consider that normal means. If the mate is possible if he isn't paying attention, but still making logical moves, then that means you could win by normal means and time would count.
Can you show the position?
Denton
Here are the FIDE rules for quickplay:
Article 10: Quickplay Finish
10.1
A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time.
10.2
If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b)
a.
If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
d.
The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to (a), (b) and (c).
This is more complicated than the incident I had last year.
By FIDE quickplay rules, what you described would be a draw (but I'd have to see the position).
The key would be the idea of NORMAL MEANS in 10.2a.
If the possible mates could only happen if you lobotomized a 6 year old, then I wouldn't consider that normal means. If the mate is possible if he isn't paying attention, but still making logical moves, then that means you could win by normal means and time would count.
Can you show the position?
Denton
Here are the FIDE rules for quickplay:
Article 10: Quickplay Finish
10.1
A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time.
10.2
If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b)
a.
If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
d.
The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to (a), (b) and (c).
Well technically according to those rules he would lose because he made his move claimed draw and his flag fell before he pressed the clock. The rule states that he has to stop the clock and make the claim before time runs out. He has to claim the draw before he makes the move which is a bit of a problem because he can't claim the draw except when he is on the move.
I have looked at a couple of those ask the arbiter sites and under uscf/FIDE rules it would be a loss according to what I can see. I seem to recall a similar discussion a few months ago on Chesscafe's ask the arbiter site where it would be a time loss as well paradoxically because the losing side was winning if I recall correctly.
I do want to be fair and even a draw should be considered an escape after being down a rook with no real compensation other than an ephemeral attack.
Well technically according to those rules he would lose because he made his move claimed draw and his flag fell before he pressed the clock. The rule states that he has to stop the clock and make the claim before time runs out. He has to claim the draw before he makes the move which is a bit of a problem because he can't claim the draw except when he is on the move.
I have looked at a couple of those ask the arbiter sites and under uscf/FIDE rules it would be a loss according to what I can see. I seem to recall a similar discussion a few months ago on Chesscafe's ask the arbiter site where it would be a time loss as well paradoxically because the losing side was winning if I recall correctly.
I do want to be fair and even a draw should be considered an escape after being down a rook with no real compensation other than an ephemeral attack.
It doesn't say he has to stop the clock. It says he may.
Also, this is a bit more complex because it's league play as opposed to a tournament where the arbiter is right there. As such, his claim would be the same to me as summoning the arbiter and stopping the clock.
If you have insufficient mating material, then that actually bolsters his claim (irrespective of the fact that a mate is possible).
I'm already heavily leaning towards draw, unless the position shown says otherwise.
Also, remember the acrimony caused when I had a similar situation. I think this is even a clearer case than mine was, because even if he were to blunder everything away, you couldn't mate him by normal means.
and some older: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt19.txt
with an excerpt: "The reader will not be surprised to know that Article 10.2 was discussed for quite a long time. It was pointed out that a player who claims a draw has to convince the arbiter that his opponent is not making real efforts on the board to win by normal means and not misusing the clock to win on time. Again I pointed out, that, as long as the player may make a blunder, the arbiter must not intervene by accepting any claim for a draw."
IMHO: the players should not forget to offer draws to have a better ground for claims.
Answer Three and Four I answered these questions in my second answer.
Second Game
[FEN "8/8/2b5/8/8/5k1p/7P/6K1 w - - 0 1"]
This position, with White to move, is obviously drawn. The white king cannot
be driven off the squares f1 and g1. White had claimed a draw some moves
before. The game was continued under the arbiter's observation. In this period
White's king moved along the squares f1, g1, and h1, but in the last four or
five moves he only oscillated between g1 and h1! Black's last move was to
bring his bishop to the long diagonal.
Now White overstepped the time limit and the arbiter declared the game a
draw. Black objected and the arbiter asked him, "How do you want to win?"
Black's immediate answer was, "If he goes back to h1, then it is mate in one
with Kf3-f2." He demonstrated these moves on the board. We can only
suspect whether White and the arbiter had seen this danger before. Of course
now White answered "OK – I go to f1." The arbiter accepted this statement
and confirmed the draw. Having seen the progress of the game, I think it was
very likely that White could have stumbled into the mating trap.
Question One Would you have declared the game drawn?
Question Two Would your decision be influenced by White's last moves?
Would it be a significant difference for you if White plays Kg1-h1-g1-h1 or
Kg1-f1-g1-f1? Thomas Binder (Germany)
Answer If a player claims a draw based on Article 10.2 and I had followed
the game, there are two questions I have to answer.
1) Did Black make some efforts to win the game?
2) Is the position such that it can be won by normal means?
I understand that Black made some bishop moves without repetition and that
he really tried to win in this way. The fact that White repeated moves is
irrelevant.
And, as matter of fact, I have to answer to both questions with yes. Therefore I would not declare the game drawn. But, just as in the first case, I don't blame the arbiter who declared the game drawn.
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt157.pdf
Question I would like to know when one can claim a theoretical draw if it is
obvious there is no winning progress but I am out of time. I once claimed a
draw as I had rook and f-pawn, my opponent had bishop and g- and h-pawn.
Obviously he can't win and neither can I. Is this correct to claim in this
position? It was a rapid game with a fifteen minute time control. Farirai
Gumbe (Zimbabwe)
Answer What is the definition of a "theoretical draw"? In my opinion it is a position that neither player can checkmate the opponent's king by any series of legal moves. I give some examples: K + B vs. K + B with bishops moving
on the same color squares or K + B vs. K or K + N vs. K or K vs. K. I think
that these are the only theoretical draws. And with these positions on the
board the games are drawn pursuant to Article 9.6. All other positions may in
principle be continued, although there are obvious positions in which it is
quite unfair to continue the game. I give one example: White: king a3, pawn
a4 Black: king a6, pawn a5.
Not sure how to do that here but I think my description is sufficient to reconstruct it. White king on h1, White Pawns on a2, d3, h2 black bishop on e5. Black Ke7. By the Chess Cafe ask the arbiter and also
From an ethical point of view you should have accepted the draw request. The rules are almost secondary here to fair play.
I don't believe that the rules are secondary they are primary when you are claiming a draw based on a technical rule. The old CFC rule and the rule that seems to exist here is that if there is a theoretical possibility for mate then the game should continue. Both players were playing for a win up to two seconds before the final position so there can be no question of only trying to run out the time. I had 40 minutes on my clock which shows poor time management on my part.
Actually I was wrong. The white king is on h3 and the black king is on d7. That doesn't really change the gist of the argument though. I am pretty sure that I have seen articles beyond the ones already quoted from Chess Cafe's Ask the Arbiter feature which support my belief that the time forfeit should stand.
Also the position can probably be drawn by black because the king in front of the pawn means that black is just in time to win one of the pawns and blockade the other.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Saturday, 3rd September, 2011, 07:55 PM.
I don't believe that the rules are secondary they are primary when you are claiming a draw based on a technical rule. The old CFC rule and the rule that seems to exist here is that if there is a theoretical possibility for mate then the game should continue. Both players were playing for a win up to two seconds before the final position so there can be no question of only trying to run out the time. I had 40 minutes on my clock which shows poor time management on my part.
The FIDE rules don't say anything about a theoretical possibility for a mate.
White can force the draw in the position given. All he has to do is push his pawns. When you block them all, he simply moves his king to g2-h1-g2. There is no way for you to win by normal means.
Even in the articles posted, the position was that the arbiter could call it either way, and either decision would be justified. This means 2 arbiters could call it differently and neither would be 'wrong'.
Tweet
Comment