15 ( +1 | -1 )
Question about draws and time
In OTB games,if there is a KP vs K and the player with the lone King runs out of time,is it a draw or win for the KP? What if the pawn could be captured next move?
10 ( +1 | -1 )
When ever a players time run out... He has lost the game reguardless of the current position of the board...
61 ( +1 | -1 )
It's a win for the player holding the pawn if his opponent runs out of time with only a lone king.
A draw can only be claimed after running out of time if the player with time left on his clock has insufficient material to mate. Since a pawn can promote, it always qualifies as sufficient mating material. It doesn't matter whether the pawn can be captured or not; he has to make the capture before he runs out of time.
The only thing I've never been clear on is whether or not you're allowed to claim a draw by insufficient mating material if you're defending KNN vs. K. Can I claim right away, or do I have to defend for 50 moves?
27 ( +1 | -1 )
what the precise rules on this are; my guess is that since KNN vs. K can deliver mate, by the FIDE rules, if you run out of time with the K then you lose the game. In most cases an arbiter will adjudicate the game as a draw by claim of insufficient winning chances.
45 ( +1 | -1 )
you would have to defend for 50 moves or create a triple occurance of position or stalemate...technically 2 knights can give mate, but you would have to actually TRY and help your opponent to do it, so I think most players with the 2 knights would just offer a draw, unless it it was OTB and you were down to your last few seconds.
I personally could draw this position with the 50 move rule in less than 90 seconds.
3 ( +1 | -1 )
I need a confirmation.
I thought K+N+N vs. K is not a FORCED win. Am I wrong?
62 ( +1 | -1 )
That's correct; the superior side cannot force a win without poor play on the part of the defender. However, in over-the-board play, special rules pertain to situations where players are low on (or run out of) time on their clocks. In such situations, various drawing claims can be made, and there are different criteria for assessing those claims. Although KNN vs. K is a theoretical draw, some claims are judged based on "average play" (would a player of average skill be able to draw the position), and still others are judged based on worst play (is there any possible way at all for the defender to lose).
36 ( +1 | -1 )
not a forced win...
KNN v. K is not a forced win! If you have the king, you can claim a draw right away. If you're opponent refuses to accept the draw offer, call the arbiter and he will rule its a book draw. The thread in this topic seems to imply that KNN v. K can win. If anyone can show me what technique is to win with only these pieces on board , I would gladly appreciate it.
122 ( +1 | -1 )
KNN vs. K is not a forced win, but it is possible to win if the side with the lone king defends poorly. For instance, take the position with White knights on d3 and d5, White king on c7, Black king on a6; White to play.
1. Nb4+. Now any Black move draws.
2. Nc6+. Now 2... Ka6 draws.
Again, there is no forced win, but it is possible to win if Black defends poorly. Now say, from the starting position, Black runs out of time on his clock and tries to claim a draw. The rules say that he can only do so if the superior side does not have sufficient material to deliver mate. White clearly does; he has enough material; he just has no forced line to mate. So on this basis, I think atrifix is correct; White wins on time in this situation. I don't believe you're permitted to claim a draw by insufficient chances (which is what KNN vs. K is) when you run out of time on your clock, although I may be wrong.
By the way, just because a position is a book draw doesn't mean you can claim a draw (unless you're running out of time, in which case you could claim a draw by insufficient chances). I once wound up defending KR vs. KB, a book draw, but I had plenty of time left on my clock, so I was forced to defend for 50 moves because my opponent wouldn't accept my draw offer.
2 ( +1 | -1 )
That should be 3. Nb6#
21 ( +1 | -1 )
KNN *can* win...
but *will* they win? Nope. Now KN vs K can *never* be won,so that would be a draw no matter how bad it is played by lone King. I think that's the debate,should there be a dstinction between practical and theoretical draws?
15 ( +1 | -1 )
well,to complicate things further
what do you think KQ vs KR would be? Since either side has enough material to mate,is it a simple case of whoever runs out of time,loses?
26 ( +1 | -1 )
KQ vs. KR is a theoretical win for the side holding the queen (barring exceptions where the side with the rook can skewer his opponent's king and queen, of course). In practice, this endgame is a bit tricky to win and if I were defending, I would try to hold out for 50 moves to claim a draw.
92 ( +1 | -1 )
sorry to not clarify my post.
But KNN can win, but it is not forced, that was my point about most players would take a draw, since they are not going to checkmate unless the guy with tlone king actually purposely helps by making the worst possible moves with his lone king, hence I thin it is a draw, becasue if you move your king very fast and hit the clock, even the 90 seconds I allowed ion my first post is exaggerated, you could just move your king quickly to a legal square and simply never allow your opponet to corner your king at the wrong moment, but if you are down to less than a minute and your opponet with the 2 knights is very mean, he/she might try to make you run out of time, but this is lame. I think most arbiters would call it a draw, because even the lowest rated players probably would not have a chance to be checkmated.
112 ( +1 | -1 )
SIMPLE book draw...
I do agree with you caldazar that you cannot claim a draw in a KNN v. K situation when you already ran out of time. However, when you do have time, and this is the only pieces on board, then you can claim for a draw. Its a simple book draw. All the lone king has to do is to avoid the corner of the board just like in your example. If I'm the lone king, I'll just try to be in the center of the board as much as possible.
Its just like a K+ rook pawn v. K position wherein the lone king just have to stay in vicinity of the promotion square. Its a simple book draw. I don't think the arbiter would let you play and hope that your king goes wandering off to the center of the board and make that bad blunder. He will rule for a draw once you get to that simple book draw position.
I think the STRICTEST arbiter would just let you play a little bit more to determine if you really know the simple book draw. Once, he sees that you know it, then he will rule for a draw.
But the general rule is if its a SIMPLE book draw, then you can claim for a draw.
74 ( +1 | -1 )
The question at hand is... If the person with the lone King runs out of time, is it a draw or a win for the other person with a King / Pawn?... Even if the person with the lone King can capture the pawn the next move...
It is a win for the person with the King / Pawn due to the fact that the opponents clock has expired...
But you are right that an Arbiter, while time is still on both clocks can be called to rule a game a draw reguardless of the time remaining on the clocks... Chess is a game of strategic positional skill, not a game of time factors... Though time can be a factor of the game also known as "time pressure"...
But time should never be the deciding factor of a drawn position... That would not be right...
69 ( +1 | -1 )
to complicate the matter even more. A position with K+N+N vs K+P, can be an exception, since this in some cases are a forced win for K+N+N !!!!
Funny enough, you wouldn't think that, since your opponent has a pawn more, but this due to the fact that the side with the two Knights, will in these cases could win a tempo, excactly what he need for a forced win and that explain at the same time why K+N+N vs K is not a forced win, due to the lack of ability of the Knight to win a tempo. Like others have stated, K+N+N vs K can only be won by the help of the player with the lone King.
Chess is really fascinating, isn't it :-))
78 ( +1 | -1 )
Time is a considerable factor in chess and anyone who told you otherwise is wrong. Even if the pawn can be taken on the next move, and the "flag falls", then it is a win for the KP side. To clarify, if the side with KP runs out of time, then it is a draw since the K side doesn't have enough mating material.
also to caldazar if you think you can hold out for 50 moves on the KR side of a KQ v.s KR endgame, then you obviosly never examined it. It wouldn't take more than 15, maybe 20 moves to capture the rook depending on the starting locations of the king.
interestingly enough K and Q draw to 2 bishops/bishop and knight/2 knights.
also, theoretically, it takes a queen 47 moves to catch a knight AND K+B+B win against K+N in 48 moves theoritically.
22 ( +1 | -1 )
time was introduced to chess to make sure games finished within a reasonable time frame, not to allow players to win drawn positions. I would never try to win by time a game that is clearly a draw.
29 ( +1 | -1 )
I don't know about theory...
...but practically,I think KR stand a much better chance against KQ than does KN or KB. This is of course assuming the KQ side doesn't have best play.
I also remember reading that KQ *loses* against KBBNN. Has anyone ever seen this in practice?
29 ( +1 | -1 )
people keep asking over and over again the same question
if you run out of time or get checkmated you lose
the only instance where you can claim a draw is if the other side has not sufficient material to mate.. not to FORCE mate. just to helpmate/forcemate whatever
28 ( +1 | -1 )
If players like Walter Browne can have trouble winning KQ vs KR (took him two tries and several days of study after he failed the first time against Ken Thompson's tablebase), I'd be willing to defend KR for a bit. Of course, I wouldn't seriously expect to be able to draw, but I'd certainly try.
21 ( +1 | -1 )
3 repetitive moves rule?
Can anybody clarify a rule (if there is one) about 3 repetitive moves, somebody metioned it to me today, but couldn't clarify either way as to how the rule worked or what the outcome was. Could anybody please enlighten?