Chess Rules

How can one win without mating material?

Your opponent running out of time saves you from a loss (you draw), but doesn't give you a win that would otherwise be impossible.

 

 

 

Now that's funny. Hey Red. When we play and I have only my King against your Queen, Rook and two knights and YOU run out of time, will you give me the win? I'd appreciate it. Thx.

 http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101

FIDE Laws of Chess

6.10 Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay.

so thats the rule anyhow

ChessDweeb wrote: Now that's funny. Hey Red. When we play and I have only my King against your Queen, Rook and two knights and YOU run out of time, will you give me the win? I'd appreciate it. Thx.

---

HI mate, if thats how it came to be then I would expect to lose, and rightly so. If I'm using all my time to take your pieces and my time runs out I expect to lose, regardless of your lack of material. So what if the guy hasn't got enough material, thats irrelevant, the time he takes to make moves is relevant. Makes using time controls obsolete.

Red

"someone running out of time and getting a draw because of it dose not sound logical to me"

But running out of pieces and getting a win sounds perfectly fine to you? 

 

"So what if the guy hasn't got enough material, thats irrelevant, the time he takes to make moves is relevant."

I'm all for the clock being part of the game. But the pieces on the board are part of the game too, aren't they? It can't be completely irrelevant what's on the board. Otherwise, we'd just play a game called "clocks" (yes, I've actually seen this played -- set the cock to about 30 seconds and both players just keep hitting their side as fast as they can and see who runs out!) 

Loomis wrote: "someone running out of time and getting a draw because of it dose not sound logical to me"

But running out of pieces and getting a win sounds perfectly fine to you? 

---

Yes it does, lol, at the start of the game the time controls are equal and you have to make so many moves in a given time. At the end of the last time control both players have made the same amount of moves (given black made the last move). If one player is short on time thats not the other players fault and should not be held accountable for his opponent playing slowly.

Look we are never going to resolve this. Thats the rule that FIDE has allowed so it stands, regardless of what anyone thinks! Good discussion.

Red

I realize you won't be convinced. But I do want to point out that you responded to this statement running out of pieces and getting a win sounds perfectly fine to you?

by only talking about the time. I think it's absurd that you think the pieces on the board play no role in whether the game should be a win/draw/loss. In the end, the discussion is pointless 1) because as you say there is already a rule and 2) you're the only person on the planet that understand your point of view.

"So what if the guy hasn't got enough material, thats irrelevant, the time he takes to make moves is relevant. Makes using time controls obsolete."

 

This is a game of Chess. It existed long before time controls were devised.  The time controls were put into place around the middle to late 19th century for a purpose. That purpose was not to make people lose on time, but rather to keep the game moving at reasonable and equitable pace as well as to eliminate the tactic of stalling. The implementation of time controls didn't change anything about the nature of the game of chess except to limit the time and how players must deal with it, primarily for the reasons above. The basic rule that one cannot win with insufficient material wasn't supplanted by the implementation of time controls. It's as simple as that. However, one can lose with insufficient mating material. Since time IS a factor and IS relevant, one can only lose with insufficient mating material if one is beaten and beaten within the time controls.

One cannot logically win without the means to win, but one can logically be prevented from losing for many reasons other than what material is on the board, with time being one of them. That's the relevancy of time.

redserpent2000 just read the uscf rules of chess.....ok, chess began with no clock or time control, so the only win was a mate, if you had a king and other guy had king and more.....he could mate you...draws cam when no mates were possible....you had a king and he king and knight...then came clocks to allow people to have a life so if you have just a king, and your opponent has mating material, the best you can do with no time control is a draw, so with time control the same applies via the uscf  and fide rules. now if your opponent does not have mating material, it is a draw...no matter what. imagine a black king and a white king on the board with no other pieces or pawns you have 1min. your opponent 59 secs. if you care that much....any computer would stop the game for a draw, any web site would do the same, and TD(tournament director) OTB again the same, but you and your brother at home with a clock....have fun and win the  world championship of 2 minutes of extreme boredom.(p.s. i am not trying to give you a hard time, but as a TD i have come into many OTB players having the same questions during games. it is definately a learning process....by the way I have seen several kids games where there are not even any kings on the board and they are still playing!!! lol

As a USCF player who happens to be looking at a copy of the Official Rules of Chess (and who is prone to "bending" them from time to time) I'd like to clear up all the GARBAGE that I've been reading here. You, too, can access this rule book on the web for free, so I'll not quote the lingo but rather give you an example. Let's say a game is taking place between Fischer and Kasparov. Let's say that Fischer has been taking a long time contemplating his moves but has his king, two rooks, and a bishop remaining. He also has 3 seconds left on the clock. Kasparov only has his king and a knight but has 3 minutes on the clock. The game is technically won for Mr. Fischer because he has mate in 6 moves.  However, because slowpoke Bobby can't get the mate in 3 seconds, his time runs out. When your time runs out in this instance, YOU LOSE. No ifs ands or buts. For anyone to say that this would be a draw needs to go back to beginner chess school. Heck, it's so common sense that one shouldnt even question it. But then again I've been playing this great game for over 30 years. Now, If the game was a draw based on material, then the time doesn't come into question--IT'S A DRAW no matter if you're about to run out of time or not. The debate is now OVER!

cheater_1, that makes no sense. It's a win for Kasparov if Fischer has two rooks and a bishop, but a draw if Fischer has only his king? Somehow the result is better for Fischer if had no pieces? No wonder you don't quote the exact rule, you're just making it up.

Well indeed if your oppenent runs out of time, then it is a draw if:

-You ran out of time before him 

-You don't have enough to checkmate him or her.

In some cases  the referee may allow the game to run for some additional time to prove that it's a draw even if one has a pawn left 

(you've got a  pawn on a black square on the 7th row,  if your opponent has a white bishop holding the promotion square on the 8th, then BEFORE he runs out he might ask the referee to consider the game as a draw). 

It seems that what is described falls under a rule of the USCF, "draw by insufficient losing chances." Information can be found towards the center of this page:
http://www.uschess.org/tds/clockrules.php

If a player has nothing but his K left he cannot win if his opponent runs out of time. It does depend on whats left on the board.

Loomis, either you are trolling for an argument or a chess buffoon. I think a bit of both. If you can't make sense of the Rules, then you don't belong here. GET OUT! I'll try to explain in monosyllables and hold your hand through this difficult explanation. Then I'll quote the exact rules just for you. 1) There is a thing called a clock. This clock DEMANDS that you make the proper number of moves in the proper amount of time. That's why it's there in the first place.

RULE 6.9: "...if the player does not make the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is LOST by the player. However, the game is DRAWN, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player by any possible series of legal moves." I'll cite the exceptions in a second. Refer to my post #33. Fischer CAN INDEED mate Kasparov by a legal series of moves (mate in 6). Therefore, the game CANNOT BE A DRAW. Kasparov wins on time. Basic chess 101 principles here, people. Come on.

Exceptions 5.1, 5.2, 5.3: The game is won with a checkmate or resignation. The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and the king is not in check: Stalemate. The game is drawn based on agreement between the two players. The game is drawn with the identical moves repeated 3 times. The game is drawn if the last 50 moves results in no pawn movement and no captures.

There you go, I even added rules 5.4, 5.5, 5.6 just so you know what is and is not a draw. Now I'll summarize. LISTEN UP! Reread my post #33.  There is NO checkmate, There is NO resignation. There is NO stalemate. There is NO agreement. There is NO 3 move repetition. There is NO 50 move rule in effect. THERE IS SUFFICIENT MATING MATERIAL (mate in 6) but Fischer fails to make the moves in the allotted time. HE LOSES. Time runs out. RULE 6.9. End of game. That's why there is a clock. It's called a chess clock. It means you have to make moves within a time frame. It's there so you don't go home, take a nap, consult fritz, come back, and make a move.

Now, if like I said in post #33, Fishcer and Kasparov both have insufficient mating material, IT'S A DRAW. I'll make it simple for you all. King vs. King and the game is OVER. TIme clock is of NO MATTER. HELLO! You don't race your kings around the board until you move 50 times. GAME OVER. DRAW.

Now, if there is ANY question in anyone's minds, if there is even the slightest doubts as to what I've said, and you have been playing chess for over 2 weeks, then I'd like to knock some sense into you. Honestly, if anyone can't comprehend this BASIC RULE, you need to take up checkers. It just reinforces my low opinion of the posts on this site and the people who post them. Now I know that I've come across as a jerk, but you people are making me mad. And I rarely get mad. But incompetence makes me made. Don't be incompetent. Learn the game. Go buy a chess program. Think before you type. Do some basic research, people. There are things called Google and the Library. Please. Work with me. Don't be stupid. I know it's hard sometimes, but with a little effort, you can do it. Yes you can!

Cheater...in your example Fischer could lose on time because Kasparov has a knight and a king.......and Fischer could help him to checkmate Fischer.....very unlikely but possible yes.....so in your given example Fischer would lose on time if he ran out of time, however, if all Kasparov had was his king OR if all Fischer had was his king to Kaspy's king and knight the game is drawn if either player runs out of time....dont believe me? ask a certified TD or Arbiter.....oh and I have been a certified TD myself .

I agree 100% Reb. I never disagreed. That's why I said Kasparov had a king and a knight. That's why I set up that example the way I did with the added knight. Maybe the other people will listen to you, seeing they won't accept what I was saying. In my example, Fischer's king, two rooks and a bishop vs. Kasparov's king and a knight results in Fischer LOSING when he runs out of time.

In terms of a draw by insufficient losing chances, the clocks are paused and the director is called over before either side runs out of time.

TraglorfBob wrote: In terms of a draw by insufficient losing chances, the clocks are paused and the director is called over before either side runs out of time.

---

This would only apply if the people playing the game knew what to do. As we have seen there are many people, including me, would just play on and claim the win when the opponents flag dropped.

Hi Loomis. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that the pieces don't matter, of course they do. We can agree on what is lack of mating material, ie, king and bishop would apply here, yes? OK,

It's white to move but his time has run out just as he was about to make a move. Now according to you this positon is now a draw! The fact that white is a bad player, underpromoted to a bishop and that this is a contrived position is irrelevant. All that matters is that it is legal, which it is.

Drawing because of lack of time should only apply if both sides have a lack of mating material. Winning by time defalut is a valid way to win a game

Red

 

Red, you are wrong , sorry, just give it up. The key is that for the one who flagged to not lose his opponent must NOT have any possibility of mate, this also includes help mates. The rules covering this are on the net, both uscf and fide rules. In your contrived position a mate is possible so if a flag falls here the player loses, yes.