Page 1 of 1
Debatable blitz rule
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:54 am
by Jack Lad
Should the rules be revised or perhaps the use of time increments of say 12 secs be used to ensure that people cannot win on time simply by moving their pieces around quickly?
https://chess24.com/en/read/news/what-h ... s-firouzja
I once had a drawn R+B v R endgame which was simply lost on time. I agree that time is part of the game but aiming to simply win on time is against the ethos of chess.
Re: Debatable blitz rule
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:42 am
by Nordlandia
I agree that the superior side shouldn't necessarily be penalized for having more material. There are opinions in both directions but renewal of this rule is something i hope FIDE may look upon. In my view i think FIDE should draw the line at k + minor piece. Simply add clause if possible mate is reachable with normal play.
* Sole minor piece can't mate on it's own. Claiming that the opposing army turn into "zombies" if time run out is literally nonsense.
* Time is crucial part of blitz. Again it's ethically wrong step to punish the side with more material because if helpmate sequence than never happend in real play.
Re: Debatable blitz rule
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:34 am
by Jack Lad
Nordlandia wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:42 amI agree that the superior side shouldn't necessarily be penalized for having more material. There are opinions in both directions but renewal of this rule is something i hope FIDE may look upon. In my view i think FIDE should draw the line at k + minor piece. Simply add clause if possible mate is reachable with normal play.
* Sole minor piece can't mate on it's own. Claiming that the opposing army turn into "zombies" if time run out is literally nonsense.
* Time is crucial part of blitz. Again it's ethically wrong step to punish the side with more material because if helpmate sequence than never happend in real play.
[d] qqq3bk/1q6/7K/8/8/4B3/qqq5/1q3q2 b
Here black can win immediately with Qg6++ but he is in time trouble and plays Qb2-c3? instead and then his flag falls.
[d] qqq3bk/1q6/7K/8/8/1q2B3/q1q5/1q3q2 w
White in this position now has a mate in 4 starting with Bd4+. So the arbiter could claim that this is a win for white since "mate is reachable with normal play."
Re: Debatable blitz rule
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:42 pm
by Nordlandia
In the past you can simply wait and run out of time. But not anymore. USCF added clause for cases like this.
I think FIDE should add "clause"
[d]8/8/8/8/8/7p/5K2/5N1k b - - 0 1