PDA

View Full Version : Lego Chess rules OK?


Poto
01-14-2000, 06:48 PM
I haven't played chess for years.My son plays a Lego chess computer game. We had the opponent cornered on his own back row. The king was not in check, and had our bishop right in front of it. Our bishop was covered and there was our pawn behind it. The opponent's king had no legal move.The game announced it a draw.Is this right?

The game is good at teaching to attack, which I never learned, always being the weaker player against my dad.

capybara
01-14-2000, 06:52 PM
Yes, if the king has no move (and I think there are no other pieces) it is a draw-- I can't remember the name for the situation. It's something to be careful about when you're strategizing your win. Always leave the other person's lonely king a move unless you have him in checkmate.

capybara
01-14-2000, 06:55 PM
Or... perhaps it is simply if the other player has no possible move, regardless of what pieces he has left. Now I'm gonna have to go find this-- I'm obsessing about it.

capybara
01-14-2000, 06:59 PM
Ok, duh. This is what stalemate is (I thought there was a fancy French name for it). The only possible move for the other player is to put their King in check-- it is a tie.

Poto
01-14-2000, 07:14 PM
I'll take your word.It never happened before.I didn't win many games, I always played good players.

Arnold Winkelried
01-14-2000, 07:20 PM
Actually there are several ways for a draw to occur in a chess game (I am reciting from memory here)

as mentioned above, when one of the players has no legal move (i.e. any of the moves for player X would put player X in check, and it's player X's turn)
when a player proposes a draw, and the other player accepts
when the same position occurs for the third time in a game. i.e. if all the pieces are in the same spot, with the same possibilities for castling and "en passant" captures, three times (not necessarily in consecutive moves) in the same game. (This is to prevent a player from making the same move over and over.)
if 50 moves have been made without any capture or any movement by a pawn.

Also if you have an endgame with either of the following situations
king against king
king against king with bishop
king against king with knight
king and bishop against king and bishop and both bishops are on the same colour square
then no one can possibly win, so it's a draw.

Cooper
01-14-2000, 08:36 PM
And the most obvious:

one player offers a draw, and the other accepts.

Cooper
01-14-2000, 08:37 PM
Woops, you said that :P

Man from Mars
01-15-2000, 02:30 AM
>>king against king with bishop

king and bishop against king and bishop and both bishops are on the same colour square<<

Isn't this redundant? Wouldn't it also be a draw if king and bishop are against king and bishop, where the bishops are on different color squares?

Omniscient
01-15-2000, 05:49 AM
No, because if both players have bishops on different colors, it's theoretically possible that that player X may be forced into a situation where its bishop blocks the only square its king may move to to avoid a check.

Arnold Winkelried
01-16-2000, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by Tony:

king and bishop against king and bishop and both bishops are on the same colour square

Isn't this redundant? Wouldn't it also be a draw if king and bishop are against king and bishop, where the bishops are on different color squares?


No, it's not redundant. It's not possible to force a mate, but if one of the players makes bad moves, a mate is possible.
e.g.
Black:
King a6, Bishop c6
White:
King a8, Bishop b8

White is mate.

If both players play well, and neither makes a mistake, you would eventually get a draw from the rule "it's a draw after 50 moves without a capture or a pawn move."

Arnold Winkelried
01-16-2000, 12:10 AM
My sentence should have been

No, it's not redundant. With king and bishop against king and bishop, and bishops on different colours, it's not possible to force a mate, but if one of the players makes bad moves, a mate is possible.

Spiny Norman
01-16-2000, 09:20 AM
I can't play chess worth a damn (although I know the rules), but I think the word you're looking for is "pat" - that is, if you catch your opponent's king as described in the OP.
If players offer a draw yand it's accepted, I believe it's called "remis".

Norman



------------------

Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
01-16-2000, 07:21 PM
The correct term is not "draw" , but "stalemate".

Get it right, you hose monkeys! :rolleyes:

------------------
"Show me a sane man, and I will cure him for you."----Jung

John W. Kennedy
01-17-2000, 10:28 AM
The player-to-move-has-no-moves situation is a stalemate, which is one of several kinds of draw, as described in other posts.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

stolichnaya
01-17-2000, 11:08 AM
I have only a passing interest in chess. Maybe I'm missing something here. If a king cannot make a move because every possible move places him in check, isn't that checkmate? If not, what is checkmate? Have I had the victory conditions wrong all my life? Is the distinction that the piece is not currently in check, but would be forced to move into check with any possible move? Is this just so a crafty player can save a stalemate when overmatched late in the game? I just don't understand this rule, it seems to unjustly favor the losing player.

Monty
01-17-2000, 11:13 AM
Stoli:

"Checkmate" is when the king is actually under attack ("check") and can not remedy that situation by movement to an unattacked square, by interposing a piece, nor by capturing the checking piece.

There are, however, versions of Chess (the Chinese Xiangqi for instance) which do count a stalemate as a loss for the stalemated player; however, the rules of FIDE list a stalemate as a draw. This is usually given as 1/2 point for both players in the scoring; a win is a full point, and a loss is 0 points.

Monty
01-17-2000, 11:21 AM
Regarding statelmate as unjustly favouring the losing player:

In my mind I see two reasons as to why this is incorrect.

(1) A player at a decided disadvantage in materiel (the chessmen & pieces (pawns aren't chessmen, they're pieces, go figure)) who can manage to avoid capture for 50 moves (one of the draw conditions listed above) or who can avoid checkmate at all has performed a feat deserving of reward. But it's not a feat deserving of a full point as a win would be. The old game of Fox & Geese comes to mind in which one player's force is vastly outnumbered by the other player's.

(2) A player who is at a decided advantage in materiel who can't manage to checkmate the other certainly doesn't deserve the full point of a win.

But that's just the way I see it.

stolichnaya
01-17-2000, 11:41 AM
Monty:

Re: Why a stalemate doesn't "favor" a losing player; that makes a good deal of sense. This whole thread has got me itching to play. I'll be digging out my pieces when I get home.

John W. Kennedy
01-18-2000, 11:24 AM
pawns aren't chessmen, they're pieces, go figure

No, no, no! Pauns are chessmen, but not pieces. (I know that sounds terribly anal, but you'll misunderstand the official rules if you get it mixed up.)

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

Monty
01-18-2000, 08:48 PM
Thanks, J! As anal as I am, I can't believe I got the terms switched.

{Sheesh on myself!}