I never would have suspected anyone thought this strange. Why do people think it strange?
To me, “help-mate” means a kind of chess problem, not something that happens in an actual game. Can you explain what you mean by “help-mate” here and why its possibility could lead to a win on time?
Well, “strange or annoying”.
It happens quite commonly among evenly matched grandmasters, to play relatively few moves, and with lots of material and possibilities still on the board, to agree to a draw.
In some situations (e.g. in a tournament where neither of the players can afford to lose) this obviously irks other players.
The FIDE rules on this I think might vary by tournament and have changed over time.
But basically in some competitions, if the time on your clock runs out, and your opponent has insufficient material to force mate, it’s a draw. Fine. But “sufficient material to force mate”, includes help-mates, so if a checkmate is possible if you were to help her by making one or more blunders, then you lose.
It’s controversial, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the rules have changed since I last checked.
To elaborate on this a little more, king and 2 knights against lone king cannot force a win. But if the lone king makes a wrong move, mate is possible. So if the player of the lone king runs out of time, the other player may claim a win. Of course, some would see it as unethical to continue to play rather than offering a draw (I certainly would), hence “strange or annoying”. I believe the FIDE rule says something like “mate is not impossible, even with the most unskilled counterplay”, and I believe it is still current, though I haven’t checked recently either.
I think it is clearer what is going with the FIDE wording. The FIDE laws say that (the existence of) any possible legal series of moves that leads to mate results in a win for the player who has not run out of time. This phrasing of “sufficient material” is from, the USCF, and internet chess servers. The FIDE laws don’t vary by tournament on this point, and I’d be interested to see any time when they were different on this point.
Just to note, it is possible to claim a draw in such a situation (but only before ones flag fell, and it is discretionary whether it will be awarded).
That phrase was dropped, but I’m not sure why. (The past phrasing was sourced from an article by Geurt Gijssen, the current from FIDE’s website.)
[QUOTE=FIDE Handbook 6.9 (past)]
…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 by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=FIDE Handbook 6.9 (current)]
…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.
[/QUOTE]
I tried to word it out more fully because often relatively new players are unaware that a draw is even a possibility in this situation i.e. they assume that when the time runs out on your clock, you lose.
The history of FIDE rules seems to be difficult to google, so probably you’re right and the rules on this haven’t changed. I may have been confusing FIDE with USCF which did/do require mating material to claim a win.
To clear up some possible confusion, I’m not some guy who’s just learning the game. I’ve been playing chess for decades.
I just registered to this forum to say that the OP is 100% correct. The stalemate rule is a) stupid and b) hurts chess. I won’t discuss on the internet because it is leading nowhere but I felt like I had to say this. And yes I play the game, too.
Yes sorry that was the move I meant, and I didn’t see that that bishop move checked the king I thought rook could capture the d6 pawn then the queened pawn on the next move. Thanks.
I don’t really play chess anymore, but stalemates do add some tactical depth, at the cost of the rules being a bit more complicated. That said, I’d be perfectly happy to play “capture the king” chess, and it being a simpler game in terms of the size of the rules, I might even prefer it; but, having never actually played it, it is hard to say. Simplifying rules doesn’t always lead to simpler games, just different games with different possibilities. (Or sometimes remarkably similar games with different rare situations that are entirely perverse.)
Kinda makes it a complete waste of time to sign up just to make one post that you can’t or won’t back up, no?
Okay bye.
I consider everyone who can look at the stalemate rule and not come to the conclusion that the rule is retarded in a few seconds either an idiot or excessively biased. No need to discuss, it is very simple topic.
You should have stayed lurking. As it is you’re accomplishing literally nothing other than to let others know you’re the type who will casually insult strangers to their (cyber)faces.
Look, do you want to argue or don’t you? Make up your mind.
Also, when you say you “play the game”, are you actually any good at it? 