<Comment deleted by user>
White: Ka1 Rb1
Black: Ka3 Nc2
Black: Ka3 Nc2
There was a similar forum post made about this before - Basically if there is ANY possible way to checkmate the opponent, then you will win on time. Likely there was some smothered mate possible in the game :)
People saying why they won by the dubious rule is rare!
How often does smothered mate occur compared to how many times it would be a draw with natural play. We probably just have to stick to fide's solution to the problem for the time being. It has been discussed more than a handful of times in the past and some solution to an deliberate self-mate is not easy.
How often does one lose K in the corner / K and h-pawn versus a draw?
Arguing with probabilities is futile.
Arguing with probabilities is futile.
It just clarifies that they could have found a better way to solve the issue, instead of adding a policy that invalidates the vast majority of cases where it does not happen. They may have some kind of clause for such obvious cases.
Helpmate occurs in endgame compositions, not in proper two-person play.
Helpmate occurs in endgame compositions, not in proper two-person play.
@Nordlandia said in #8:
> It just clarifies that they could have found a better way to solve the issue, instead of adding a policy that invalidates the vast majority of cases where it does not happen. They may have some kind of clause for such obvious cases.
>
> Helpmate occurs in endgame compositions, not in proper two-person play.
Yeah, time out = lost. Independent of the board position. Is it that what you want?
> It just clarifies that they could have found a better way to solve the issue, instead of adding a policy that invalidates the vast majority of cases where it does not happen. They may have some kind of clause for such obvious cases.
>
> Helpmate occurs in endgame compositions, not in proper two-person play.
Yeah, time out = lost. Independent of the board position. Is it that what you want?
@Nordlandia said in #8:
> It just clarifies that they could have found a better way to solve the issue, instead of adding a policy that invalidates the vast majority of cases where it does not happen. They may have some kind of clause for such obvious cases.
>
> Helpmate occurs in endgame compositions, not in proper two-person play.
Article 10.2 covers the situation for OTB play. If a player is running out of time (no increment) and they think that their opponent is making no attempt to win the game by normal means, or cannot win the game normally, they can summon the arbiter for a judgment.
But how do you handle the situation with automatised online play, or in OTB games where no arbiter is present?
No-one thinks the current method is great. But no-one has come up with a better way. (One or two contributors here seem to think they have, but when pressed they fail to provide the details.)
Can you think of a way to improve the rule?
> It just clarifies that they could have found a better way to solve the issue, instead of adding a policy that invalidates the vast majority of cases where it does not happen. They may have some kind of clause for such obvious cases.
>
> Helpmate occurs in endgame compositions, not in proper two-person play.
Article 10.2 covers the situation for OTB play. If a player is running out of time (no increment) and they think that their opponent is making no attempt to win the game by normal means, or cannot win the game normally, they can summon the arbiter for a judgment.
But how do you handle the situation with automatised online play, or in OTB games where no arbiter is present?
No-one thinks the current method is great. But no-one has come up with a better way. (One or two contributors here seem to think they have, but when pressed they fail to provide the details.)
Can you think of a way to improve the rule?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.