I don't see much difference between what I wrote in the article and what you say here. Except perhaps that I did not specify the exact moment the player would have to announce his count relative to the moves. Because I consider that more a matter of 'game etiquette' than as a rule (at the same level as with which hand you have to press the clock, or that you are obliged to move a piece that you touched). When a player starts counting he basically counts pairs of moves, consisting of his own move and the immediately following one of the opponent. So when the ultimate count is reached on his own move, the opponent would still have his next move to checkmate, as that has the same count.
I tried to indicate that counting is optional, by saying in the first paragraph ofthe "Other rules" section that " a player that is in danger of losing can start counting". Meaning that he does not have to. Perhaps I should express that more explicitly.
I figured the phrase "in danger of losing" would indicate only one player can count at the time, as they cannot both be losing. But I now realize that a player who was losing, and started counting, could become the winning player if his opponent blunders. He could then give himself more moves to force a checkmate by keeping counting until the count reaches 63, and then stop counting. Just to prevent the now weaker player can start counting immediately after the blunder. Is this a correct interpreatation of the rules?
I suppose the same abuse of the rule could occur when a winning player would start counting, and that the rule therefore says that only the losing player can start counting. I agree that "losing player" is a rather vague description, but it seems there are no officially defined rules for this. In most practical cases it will be clear, like in R vs N the player with the Knight can count.
That only the player with the bare King can count seems implied: only the bare King can be "in danger of losing". The bare King certainly cannot win anymore.
If the counting player can still win by checkmate on the same move as he stops counting, I don't see the sense of this rule. It must really be a very poor player to forget to stop counting if he sees the opponent exposes himself to a mate-in-1, or not realize at all that the move he decides to play does deliver checkmate.
I don't see much difference between what I wrote in the article and what you say here. Except perhaps that I did not specify the exact moment the player would have to announce his count relative to the moves. Because I consider that more a matter of 'game etiquette' than as a rule (at the same level as with which hand you have to press the clock, or that you are obliged to move a piece that you touched). When a player starts counting he basically counts pairs of moves, consisting of his own move and the immediately following one of the opponent. So when the ultimate count is reached on his own move, the opponent would still have his next move to checkmate, as that has the same count.
I tried to indicate that counting is optional, by saying in the first paragraph ofthe "Other rules" section that " a player that is in danger of losing can start counting". Meaning that he does not have to. Perhaps I should express that more explicitly.
I figured the phrase "in danger of losing" would indicate only one player can count at the time, as they cannot both be losing. But I now realize that a player who was losing, and started counting, could become the winning player if his opponent blunders. He could then give himself more moves to force a checkmate by keeping counting until the count reaches 63, and then stop counting. Just to prevent the now weaker player can start counting immediately after the blunder. Is this a correct interpreatation of the rules?
I suppose the same abuse of the rule could occur when a winning player would start counting, and that the rule therefore says that only the losing player can start counting. I agree that "losing player" is a rather vague description, but it seems there are no officially defined rules for this. In most practical cases it will be clear, like in R vs N the player with the Knight can count.
That only the player with the bare King can count seems implied: only the bare King can be "in danger of losing". The bare King certainly cannot win anymore.
If the counting player can still win by checkmate on the same move as he stops counting, I don't see the sense of this rule. It must really be a very poor player to forget to stop counting if he sees the opponent exposes himself to a mate-in-1, or not realize at all that the move he decides to play does deliver checkmate.