Answers.Body: <blockquote>
  <p>What happens in a game where one side has a minor piece and the other side has a rook or a pawn and is flagged on time?</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>It very much depends on the material. You are correct regarding K+N vs K+R but would be wrong regarding K+B vs K+R because the rook can block the bishop and prevent the mate. Both K+N vs K+P and K+B vs K+P are always wins (provided the position on the board when the flag falls isn't stalemate because stalemate, like checkmate, immediately ends the game) because the pawn can always &quot;stupidly&quot; be promoted to the right minor piece to allow the checkmate.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-10-15T00:37:40.777Z
Answers.Text: What about N vs N and B vs B of opposite colour. Technical mates are possible there too. Also it will be complete to see a relevant FIDE quote
Answers.UserDisplayName: iammilind
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-10-15T05:11:10.063Z
Answers.Text: I now wonder what notation would be used if the player with the rook sacrificed the rook because of realizing that he only had a few seconds left which was not enough for a win, but wanted a draw. Would it be marked with a "!" or "!!" because it prevented losing the game? But without noting the time trouble, the move would have been a blunder and marked with "??".
Answers.UserDisplayName: vsz
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-10-17T07:14:55.770Z
Answers.Text: Those are the rules, they may look stupid and unfair but, like democracy (Churchill quote) every alternative would be even more stupid and unfair. Note that an arbiter can decide with a glance if a helpmate is possible (it would be a nice challenge to compose a position taking me longer than a minute). which is the main advantage. (I assure you I now play more than 50 years and had blitz tournaments with alternative rules in effect. Oh, the horror.)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-10-14T22:02:41.997Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-10-14T22:02:41.997Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Answers.Body: <p>In the Fide Handbook <a href="https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012023" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012023</a>, Section 6.9, regarding a flag-fall (flagging): &quot;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.&quot;</p>
  <p>So you must prove that there is a series of legal moves that leads to a checkmate in order to claim the full point. This is subtly different than being able to set up a position where king is checkmated using the material that is left on the board.</p>
  <p>EDIT: The answer to the title question is: The side that flagged loses the game.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-10-15T01:55:00.233Z
Answers.Text: Series of legal moves are always possible to bring the king in the mating position as showed in the question. Just that it's not force-able. But then that's true even if a King has only a pawn against a King with Queen & a pawn, but 0 on time.
Answers.UserDisplayName: iammilind
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-10-15T20:46:29.820Z
Answers.Text: @iammilind: Consider a situation where White has a king on a1 and queen on g1; Black has a king on on h8.  If White were to play Qg7+ and Black were to run out of time, there would be no sequence of moves via which White could checkmate Black despite being up by a queen when the clock expired.
Answers.UserDisplayName: supercat
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-10-14T18:07:02.667Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-10-16T15:52:11.600Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2024-10-16T15:52:11.600Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Awalrod
Body: <p>Suppose, white has a knight and black has a rook (or a pawn). Now black is flagged on the clock after certain moves. In the websites like chess.com, the game is considered drawn because of insufficient material for white.</p>
  <p><strong>However, as per FIDE rule is the result considered a win for white?</strong><br />
  Because after stupid but legal moves, a checkmate is <em>possible</em>.</p>
  <pre><code>[Title &quot;Possible checkmate with a minor piece&quot;]
  [FEN &quot;k1K5/r7/1N6/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1&quot;]
  </code></pre>
  <p>A similar situation happened between <a href="https://youtu.be/YPysTEW0YZU?t=85" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Magnus vs Alireza, 2019 Blitz</a>, where the former had only a bishop and the latter had a bishop and 3 pawns, but got flagged. The arbiters declared Magnus as winner.</p>
  <p>Even in a knight vs knight a similar checkmate is possible (king 1 box near). Good to get the clarification on that too.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-10-15T15:45:35.217Z
Comments.Text: If the rules required the mate to be forced, they would be very difficult to enforce satisfactorily. If black lets their flag fall before making their first move, can they claim a draw because white cannot force a win from game start? Do the rules change every time someone demonstrates a forced mate from a new position?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Dan Staley
Tags: <rules><endgame><fide><checkmate><time-control>
Title: What happens when one side is flagged on time while the other side has a minor piece which can cause an impractical but a theoretical checkmate?
ThreadText: # What happens when one side is flagged on time while the other side has a minor piece which can cause an impractical but a theoretical checkmate?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2024-10-14)
  
  Suppose, white has a knight and black has a rook (or a pawn). Now black is flagged on the clock after certain moves. In the websites like chess.com, the game is considered drawn because of insufficient material for white.
  However, as per FIDE rule is the result considered a win for white?
  Because after stupid but legal moves, a checkmate is possible.
  [Title "Possible checkmate with a minor piece"]
  [FEN "k1K5/r7/1N6/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
  
  A similar situation happened between Magnus vs Alireza, 2019 Blitz, where the former had only a bishop and the latter had a bishop and 3 pawns, but got flagged. The arbiters declared Magnus as winner.
  Even in a knight vs knight a similar checkmate is possible (king 1 box near). Good to get the clarification on that too.
  
  **Tags:** rules, endgame, fide, checkmate, time-control
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: If the rules required the mate to be forced, they would be very difficult to enforce satisfactorily. If black lets their flag fall before making their first move, can they claim a draw because white cannot force a win from game start? Do the rules change every time someone demonstrates a forced mate from a new position?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2024-10-14. Score: 3
  
  > What happens in a game where one side has a minor piece and the other side has a rook or a pawn and is flagged on time?
  
  It very much depends on the material. You are correct regarding K+N vs K+R but would be wrong regarding K+B vs K+R because the rook can block the bishop and prevent the mate. Both K+N vs K+P and K+B vs K+P are always wins (provided the position on the board when the flag falls isn't stalemate because stalemate, like checkmate, immediately ends the game) because the pawn can always "stupidly" be promoted to the right minor piece to allow the checkmate.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: What about N vs N and B vs B of opposite colour. Technical mates are possible there too. Also it will be complete to see a relevant FIDE quote  
  > **username_3**: I now wonder what notation would be used if the player with the rook sacrificed the rook because of realizing that he only had a few seconds left which was not enough for a win, but wanted a draw. Would it be marked with a "!" or "!!" because it prevented losing the game? But without noting the time trouble, the move would have been a blunder and marked with "??".  
  > **username_4**: Those are the rules, they may look stupid and unfair but, like democracy (Churchill quote) every alternative would be even more stupid and unfair. Note that an arbiter can decide with a glance if a helpmate is possible (it would be a nice challenge to compose a position taking me longer than a minute). which is the main advantage. (I assure you I now play more than 50 years and had blitz tournaments with alternative rules in effect. Oh, the horror.)  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2024-10-14. Score: 2
  
  In the Fide Handbook <https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012023>, Section 6.9, regarding a flag-fall (flagging): "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."
  
  So you must prove that there is a series of legal moves that leads to a checkmate in order to claim the full point. This is subtly different than being able to set up a position where king is checkmated using the material that is left on the board.
  
  EDIT: The answer to the title question is: The side that flagged loses the game.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Series of legal moves are always possible to bring the king in the mating position as showed in the question. Just that it's not force-able. But then that's true even if a King has only a pawn against a King with Queen & a pawn, but 0 on time.  
  > **username_6**: @username_0: Consider a situation where White has a king on a1 and queen on g1; Black has a king on on h8.  If White were to play Qg7+ and Black were to run out of time, there would be no sequence of moves via which White could checkmate Black despite being up by a queen when the clock expired.  
  
  ---
  
  