PDA

View Full Version : 2 knights plus king v king



Garvinator
31-08-2006, 11:39 PM
Hello all,

I was curious and been thinking about the thread title, is it an automatic draw, ie a dead position according to:


Article 5: The completion of the game

5.1 a. The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was a legal move.

b. The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game.

5.2 The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in `stalemate`. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was legal.
a. The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a `dead position`. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was legal.
b. The game is drawn upon agreement between the two players during the game. This immediately ends the game. (See Article 9.1)
c. The game may be drawn if any identical position is about to appear or has appeared on the chessboard at least three times. (See Article 9.2)
d. The game may be drawn if each player has made at least the last 50 consecutive moves without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. (See Article 9.3)

Does the verdict change between classical/rapid/blitz, increment play v guillotine etc.

Arbiters thoughts, anything official.

Bill Gletsos
31-08-2006, 11:46 PM
Hello all,

I was curious and been thinking about the thread title, is it an automatic draw, ie a dead position according to:Incorrect it is not a dead position as a mating position is possible with a series of legal moves.

As such if the long Kings flag falls he loses on time.

Garvinator
31-08-2006, 11:55 PM
Incorrect it is not a dead position as a mating position is possible with a series of legal moves.

As such if the long Kings flag falls he loses on time.
that is what I thought but wasnt sure so I thought I was asked. If a 10.2 was claimed by the king only player, would you award it?

Rincewind
01-09-2006, 12:24 AM
that is what I thought but wasnt sure so I thought I was asked. If a 10.2 was claimed by the king only player, would you award it?

I think that would depend on the level of the players involved. Very weak players might not know the checkmate easily avoidable and could move into a helpmate so in that case the draw shouldn't be automatic awarded. But I'm sure most competitions players and certainly most people who have heard of 10.2 would probably know that K+2N v K cannot force mate and know how to avoid it.

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2006, 01:31 AM
that is what I thought but wasnt sure so I thought I was asked. If a 10.2 was claimed by the king only player, would you award it?

If in doubt call play on and then award the draw when a flag falls. No-one deserves to lose on time with K vs K+2N except in a blitz game. With players with four-figure ratings I would award the draw when claimed.

I have seen the view expressed that if it's K+2N vs K in a top-level game and it's been dragging on a bit the arbiter should step in and warn the player with K+2N that if they keep playing for a win they will be bringing the game into disrepute!

Important to remember: while K+2N vs K is an elementary draw with best play, K+2N vs K+P is a win in some positions and a more difficult draw for the defender in others.

Garvinator
01-09-2006, 01:34 AM
Important to remember: while K+2N vs K is an elementary draw with best play, K+2N vs K+P is a win in some positions and a more difficult draw for the defender in others.
I am aware of that;)

Lucena
03-09-2006, 12:23 PM
I have seen the view expressed that if it's K+2N vs K in a top-level game and it's been dragging on a bit the arbiter should step in and warn the player with K+2N that if they keep playing for a win they will be bringing the game into disrepute!


I seem to remember reading somewhere that Sasikiran actually played on with K+2 Ns vs K before the "disrepute" rule was introduced?

Kevin Bonham
03-09-2006, 07:27 PM
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Sasikiran actually played on with K+2 Ns vs K before the "disrepute" rule was introduced?

I remember Gijssen commenting that a top player had played on with K+2N vs K for a while and saying that he would have used the disrepute rule in such a case had he been the arbiter. I believe this was after the rule was introduced - it was just the case that the arbiter in question did not use it. Don't recall if the player was Sasikiran or not but could well have been.