| ▲ | Sesse__ 9 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Is that a new rule? I was under the impression that it had been the case for a very long time that if you went out on time but there was no possible sequence of moves leading to checkmating you, it was a draw instead. (Meaning, of course, that having more pieces could be a disadvantage in such situations, which feels a bit unfair. E.g., KvKB is a draw, but KPvKB can lead to a mate if both sides cooperate, and thus would be a time loss for white even if black would never win in practical play.) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | qsort 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
That's not new, but how it formally works has changed. There used to be a number of explicitly enumerated cases (i.e. bare king and king with a minor piece,) now the rule instead just says that there must exist a sequence of moves to mate. Some positions, even with pawns (imagine a completely closed position with only pawns and kings) wouldn't have been automatically drawn under the previous system but now would be. I think USCF rules, unlike FIDE, still have the enumerated cases? The difference is extremely minor and has almost no strategic implications, it's just an interesting corner case. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jmount 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
I just updated the article. I did use Python's insufficient material detection, in addition to the ability to call for a draw (3-fold repetition, and 50 move rule). I think the "75 move rule" that doesn't require a player to call is one of the more recent rule changes. | |||||||||||||||||||||||