Remis Remiss Sept 1, 2014 21:54:53 GMT -5
Post by petejwatts on Sept 1, 2014 21:54:53 GMT -5
Do you know what a Remis is? It's a Draw by insufficient force. Normally a Pawn, a Rook, 2 Bishops, or Bishop and Knight, or 3 Knights at least, are needed to force mate, so if you're left with less against a bare King then you've got a Remis. Until the late 90s, if you're playing a Blitz game, you'd usually also get a draw if you're opponents' flag fell even if his King wasnt bare, on the grounds you cant force mate. (In many situations however, Two Knights could force mate and this would not be a draw). Yesterday in the Park Charles' flag fell when Jure had only a Knight left, and they agreed a draw. In fact this has not been the FIDE rules for over a decade. Now Jure can claim the win, because although Jure cannot force mate, Charles could have helpmated himself. I have discussed the "new" rules personally with FIDE committee member Stuart Reuben, who explained the change. Prior to the change, the rule was the position was drawn after a flag fall if it were impossible for the other player to create a position where his opponent cannot prevent mate in one. Hence Rook against Rook or Queen against Queen was Drawn, as although it is possible to helpmate in these situations, it is impossible to create a position where a player cannot avoid Mate in One. Now, since the rule change, a player can still win on time in these situations, and both in the park and online I have seen a player do this, which imo is both silly and unsporting, though I have written about that previously and wont enlarge on that here. The reason for the change was that is possible to create weird situations where whether it is possible to create a Mate in One situation cannot be easily determined. He illustrated this by demonstrating a position where a payer had Queen and Rooks and hence plenty of mating material, but in practice if the game had continued would have been unable to win, as the position obliged him to stalemate his opponent after three moves. Is he allowed to claim the win in the situation? He also said lots of other weird positions were come up with too, and hence they decided to drop the "No Mate in One" rule. So now folks you can claim the win if you have a Single Knight or Bishop against everything from a single Pawn to your opponents' entire set, with one exception. You cant claim Bishop against same colour Bishop, as the other guy cant Helpmate himself with that. If you think this another demonstration of the folly of Fools Internationale des Eschecs (FIDE) I am inclined to agree with you, and it is another rule that most players arent even aware of let alone agree with. In fairness to FIDE however we need to come up with a counter to the argument which made FIDE change the rules - all those weird positions, such as the forced Stalemate . My counter is this: while one can cone up with theoretical positions that produce anomalies like that one, they are almost certain to never come up in practice. Chess would be by no means the only sport where an unanticipated situation might arise. For example, in snooker one is obliged to attempt a legal shot no matter how severely snookered one is, and one is not allowed to play a jump shot. Now what if you come to the table with the final Red left and hence must be played, but it is sitting in the middle of the table surrounded by all the 6 colours in a hexagon, so that no space is large enough for the cue ball to pass between them? One isnt allowed to play a jump shot,so playing a legal shot is impossible. (Note that this is not the same as the last red hanging over a pocket shielded by the colours, as it is in fact legal to actually play a ball along the *top* of the cushion to roll back onto the table at the end or even bounce it off a wall back onto the table, so it would in fact be possible to make the cue ball hit the red without it passing over another ball, the definition of a jump shot). Now, does anyone know of this scenario actually happening in a snooker game, or anybody worrying about it happening? No, because it is extremely unlikely. In every case that ever actually happens,there is always at least one gap large enough to get the cue ball through, albeit often with extreme difficulty, without even having to resort to the exotic techniques referred to in brackets. In the same way I doubt the contrived positions that persuaded FIDE to drop the "No Mate in One" rule are ever going to occur in practice, and it should have been retained. Another FIDE fail and also one that probably most players dont even know about. Again as I have written previously, this is yet another issue that can be almost entirely ameliorated by playing Fischer mode, when far fewer games are decided by flag falls, and players with any sense ought to agree draws in genuinely drawn positions. Alas common sense is uncommon, and I can remember a player who shall be nameless in Fischer mode refusing to agree the draw and trying to to win with his Rook against my Knight for what felt like forever before finally conceding to the inevitable.