Freestyle Chess is Coming Home

[Ozymandias]

As far as the ZÜ (Timed out) is concerned: Strictly speaking, Black should be able to claim a material win, because the final position reached counts

What is "Timed out"? Black should be able to claim a material win? A stalemate yes, nothing more. That phrase does little sense to me.

I don't like the new freestyle rules anymore.

Not to worry, people on top will be there because of extravagant openings of an empty seat, all this discussion is rather metaphysical.

[Eduard]

My english is bad, and the translator too. In the board position, Black doesn't have to move. He lets simply his clock run out. Then black claims a material win. This is real possible in many games!

We don't have clear rules. It's just called stalemate win, material win. What happens when the clock runs out? There is nothing where I can look up what to do then and whether I will win or lose? I don't need your advice here in the forum. I want to be able to read clear rules for all possible stalemate and material win positions in the future. End.

[Eduard]

Here is the original answer by Arno (ZÜ = Zeitüberschreitung) to me:

"Was die ZÜ betrifft: müsste Schwarz, streng genommen, einen Materalsieg beansprochen können, denn es zählt ja die erreichte Endstellung."

Is this now the rule in this case, or only a opinion of the TD?

As you can see, not everything is clear as it seems. That is why we need clearly defined rules that are clear to everyone when they read it.

Every game has rules that you can read. Normal chess has rules that also apply to freestyle. Freestyle chess has a few more rules, but these are nowhere to be read. I think it's a joke that a bare king can win, and I also think it's a joke that someone deliberately lets his time pass and then wins a losing game. But if the written rule says so, then I know and it's OK. If I don't like these rules, then I don't have to play along.

[Eduard]

How do the new freestyle rules "material win" and "stalemate win" prove themselves? After round 7 and after 68 games so far (two were won by non-appearance), there were two material wins and one stalemate win. These types of victories are counted as bonus points in the event of a tie in the first place. In two of these victories, the opponent was literally just tricked.

Diagram 1 shows the final position of the stalemate.

Black to move
[fen]8/8/8/8/8/8/7p/5K1k b - - 0 1[/fen]


Black voluntarily took a knight on h1 and was then stalemated. The peculiarity lies in the type: White only has one bare king, but is still awarded a victory.

However, if Black had another pawn on the h-line in the final position, e.g. on h7 (Diagram 2),

Black to move
[fen]8/7p/8/8/8/8/7p/5K1k b - - 0 1[/fen]


things would be really complicated. Black is then also in a tight spot, and it seems that White wins with stalemate again. Think! While White is looking forward to his stalemate win, Black conjures up a trick: He doesn't move, but lets his clock run down! There is no stalemate and now White is even the stupid! Black even claims material victory. At my request, the tournament director said the following: As for the ZÜ: Strictly speaking, Black should be able to claim a material victory, because the final position that counts is what counts.

Such positions can certainly occur in chess. As I write this, I don't know how to behave when such positions threaten.

White to move
[fen]8/7p/2B5/8/8/4K3/7p/6k1 w - - 0 1 [/fen]


Diagram 3 shows another possible position. Black threatens to convert the h-pawn to a queen. What should White play now? Should he bet a stalemate win by moving his bishop to h1, or wouldn't it be better to sacrifice the bishop and eliminate the two black pawns?

My original german articles, you can read here:
https://solista-chess.jimdosite.com/freestyle-chess/

[Uri Blass]

I think that chess players should not play this game because the rules are unfair.

If a KN vs K is not a material win because there is no way to prevent capturing the knight in one of the examples
then it is not logical to consider material win when the side with the material advantage cannot prevent the opponent to force a stalemate.

I do not understand why not making the rules simple.

I suggest the following:
1)In case of a draw by the normal chess rules(repetition or stalemate or 50 move rule or insufficient material) it is a win for the side with more material.
2)If the position is stalemate and material is equal then it is a win for the side that forced the stalemate.
3)Otherwise it is a draw.

By my idea KN vs K is a material win even if it is impossible to prevent losing the knight that is more logical if the target is to reduce draws
and I think that it is easy to understand the rules.

[Eduard]

Yes. I don't like the new rules anymore for another reason too. Nobody plays risky variants with attacks or openings, that could end up with one pawn less. I don't feel like getting 1.d4 d5 for a whole year, because with the new rules I don't take any risks and of course I move 1...d5! Always only 1.e4 e5 and Queen's Gambit, no thanks! I suggested to the TD to forego the new rules, and to play forgiven short variants with color swap instead. The variants should be drawn shortly before the start of the round. With openings like Pirc, Benoni, Caro Kann, Kings Indian, and sharp Gambits on the board, it shows, who the better player is.

[Ozymandias]

If a KN vs K is not a material win because there is no way to prevent capturing the knight in one of the examples
then it is not logical to consider material win when the side with the material advantage cannot prevent the opponent to force a stalemate.

The side with the material advantage in this case would be the one with a KN, how can the opponent with a bare King "force a stalemate"?

[Uri Blass]

If a KN vs K is not a material win because there is no way to prevent capturing the knight in one of the examples
then it is not logical to consider material win when the side with the material advantage cannot prevent the opponent to force a stalemate.

The side with the material advantage in this case would be the one with a KN, how can the opponent with a bare King "force a stalemate"?

If the side with the material advantage has pawns then it is possible that he cannot prevent the opponent to force stalemate.

My point is that if you decide that the following is a draw and not a win by material because of something that did not happen but is going to happen.
[fen]8/8/8/4K3/8/5k2/8/7N w - - 0 1 [/fen]

Then you should decide that the following is a win for white even if black lost on time because of something that is going to happen in the future if the game is going to continue.

[fen]8/7p/8/8/8/8/5K1p/7k w - - 0 1 [/fen]


I do not like the idea that forcing a stalemate is a win even if the side that forced it has only a king but if you go by that rule then at least you should be consistent and decide that losing on time cannot help you relative to what you can achieve by not losing on time.

[carldaman]

Yes. I don't like the new rules anymore for another reason too. Nobody plays risky variants with attacks or openings, that could end up with one pawn less. I don't feel like getting 1.d4 d5 for a whole year, because with the new rules I don't take any risks and of course I move 1...d5! Always only 1.e4 e5 and Queen's Gambit, no thanks! I suggested to the TD to forego the new rules, and to play forgiven short variants with color swap instead. The variants should be drawn shortly before the start of the round. With openings like Pirc, Benoni, Caro Kann, Kings Indian, and sharp Gambits on the board, it shows, who the better player is.

Well, it's something I warned about years ago, when people first started talking about making stalemate a win.
The unintended consequence of such a rule change is that no one will want to take any chances for fear of being down a pawn, which can automatically lose a K+P endgame. It will thus result in even more draw death, where all chances of winning dry up.
You've just made chess a lot more materialistic, and thus killed the game!

[Eduard]

I agree with you. There have been two wins so far where the loser purposely played badly (same player in both games). It only got a single forced material victory. And if the players learn this way of playing even better, then there will only be 100% draws and no more fun because everyone will play safely and without risk. I will not take part.