Aside from the extremely improbable case where a pawn was promoted to bishop when there was already one on that colour, the description could work if G8 is a bishop and H7 is a pawn. Any other arrangement allows the defending player to interpose a piece and even if it is immediately captured by the attacking bishop, the king has an escape square.
I can imagine a situation where a player with inadequate mating strength sees a surprise smothered mate and is waiting anxiously for his turn (and hoping his opponent won’t mess it up by moving the king or a smothering piece or something) but the opponent hems and haws, planning his attack (and figuring he has a sure win, since his opponent has been reduced to less than mating strength) when the clock runs out. Annoying, to be sure, but probably pretty darn rare.
Tricky. If white has only a bishop and black has only two pawns, black cannot be mated as long as he doesn’t promote both of them (or just one if he leaves the other on A2/A7 or H2/H7, allowing the possibility of that pawn being part of a corner trap).
I’d love to see this being argued in actual tournament play.
Yep, but under the FIDE rule it doesn’t matter how weird the mate setup is, it just has to be possible. (also it’s enough for black to just promote one pawn to a knight or an opposite colour bishop, the second pawn isn’t necessary).
The rule has other strange consequences too. For example, say I have a king on b1 and queen on a1, and you have a king on b3 and queen on a3. You play QxQ and my time runs out before I can take back. You still have a queen, but it’s a draw because there is no series of legal moves that would allow you to checkmate me.
Another possibility occurred to me on the drive home. Imagine after a final piece exchange, black is left with a single bishop on the black squares and white is left with a single bishop on the white squares. Through bad play, it is still possible to be checkmated:
Black King: A8
Black Bishop: A7
White King: C8
White Bishop: B3
White plays Bd5, mate
Both players realize this, and by a strict reading of FIDE rules, the player whose clock runs out first (assuming neither bishop is captured) loses. The players begin playing as rapidly as possible and neither will agree to a draw after three consecutive identical positions or fifty nonprogressive moves. They will probably end up moving their kings back and forth on the side of the board nearest the clock for maximum speed. If each player had 20 or so minutes left, the game could easily run into the hundreds, possibly thousands of moves before one clock finally runs out.
Consider also two computers playing each other. That game could have millions or even billions of moves before one side is finally stopped by the clock.
Not necessarily. Whichever player has more time left at the moment of this realization has a strong advantage. He’s not going to want to settle for a draw. But the player with less time left will know he’s unlikely to win, and therefore would want a draw. He might not take the time to figure out whether there’s been a threefold repetition, but he could count to 50 easily enough.
Not according to FIDE rules, articles 9.2 and 9.3. The game MAY be drawn, but is not automatically so, as with stalemate. A player must make “a correct claim”. If neither player will do so, the game continues.
I’m anticipating an ego-based game of chicken between two players with similar time on their clocks and confidence in their rapid handwork.
Fair enough, but I don’t think they exactly made it clear :).
In Bryan Ekers’ hypothetical, I would expect 99.99% of chess players to agree to a draw, just as 99.99% of chess players resign having lost their queen, because it is not considered sporting to “play for heart failure”. If an independent person with the necessary authority were observing such a game (e.g. an arbiter), I would expect them to rule it a draw and end the farce.
So in a regular FIDE tournament game, if the position arises where I have a king and bishop, and my opponent has a king and two pawns and he runs out of time, I can claim a draw?
According to FIDE rule 6.10 (previously posted): Yes.
In your OP scenario, with unskilled play, your opponent could certainly be mated as indicated above. But you drew, so obviously FIDE rules were not being used/followed.
emphasis added
