Quick answer
Resignation and Draw Offers is a rules question: a bare-king insufficient-material position. Work from the first evidence position for Resignation and Draw Offers, and begin by testing Kb2.
Begin from Kb2 in 8/8/8/K7/8/8/8/k7 b - - 5 3. Read the side to move, legal conditions, history fields and procedural distinction before relying on a shortcut. The evidence answer is: Resignation and Draw Offers: separate an automatic dead position from a draw claim that depends on history or procedure. Candidate line: Kb2.
In the Resignation and Draw Offers example, notice: side Black; pieces White king a5, Black king a1; legal first moves Ka2, Kb2, Kb1. Anchor your reading to the FEN above; the inventory is illustrative, not a portable law of chess.
The exact condition
The first evidence board tests a bare-king insufficient-material position; the second board tests a bare-king insufficient-material position. A is seeded by the moves direct FEN setup. B is seeded by direct FEN setup. Definitions for adjacent ideas are on the Chess Wiki and the Rules hub. Then compare Piece Movement with Increment Versus Delay, Arbiter Draw Claims, Fivefold Repetition around resignation versus a draw offer.
The two inventories make the distinction concrete. A contains side Black; pieces White king a5, Black king a1; legal first moves Ka2, Kb2, Kb1; B contains side Black; pieces White king d3, Black king a2; legal first moves Ka3, Kb3, Kb2, Kb1, Ka1. Compare the side to move before comparing the labels in the context of a claim versus an automatic draw.
Topic dossier for this page and board pair r1:8 | r2:8 | r3:8 | r4:K7 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:k7 / r1:8 | r2:8 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:3K4 | r7:k7 | r8:8: start with resignation versus a draw offer; then test a claim versus an automatic draw; keep the arbiter's role in a claim separate from the en-passant window; use the legal castling test as the transfer check; and reserve the dead-position exception for the exception.
Procedure and counterexample
On the first board, calculate Kb2 after Kb2 and write down the opponent's best reply around resignation versus a draw offer. On the second board, calculate Kb2 after Kb2 and check a claim versus an automatic draw. Separate what the board proves from what only the move record, clock or arbiter can establish. In this case the useful condition is the dead-position exception.
Key claim: Resignation and Draw Offers is illustrated here by a bare-king insufficient-material position; the first concrete test is Kb2. The board anchor is 8/8/8/K7/8/8/8/k7; the example is intentionally narrower than the topic label and should not be generalised without checking the surrounding position..
Practical boundary: To answer “When is resignation and draw offers legal, what exceptions matter, and how can a player verify the rule at the board?”, compare the recorded setup with Kb2 and the opponent's reply. The decision is useful only when the stated condition survives that concrete test on board 8/8/8/8/8/3K4/k7/8. The evidence records The position tests the stated rule or record field; verify the relevant source when a procedural decision matters and the second board signature r1:8 | r2:8 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:3K4 | r7:k7 | r8:8. The false-positive test is whether the arbiter's role in a claim appears without the en-passant window, so the conclusion is useful only when the stated condition survives that concrete test.
Evidence positions
example-1: a bare-king insufficient-material position
Show answer
Resignation and Draw Offers: separate an automatic dead position from a draw claim that depends on history or procedure. Candidate line: Kb2.
Why this position is here: Resignation and Draw Offers is represented by a bare-king insufficient-material position. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 8/8/8/K7/8/8/8/k7; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 8/8/8/K7/8/8/8/k7 b - - 5 3
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this resignation and draw offers position?
Answer cue: Resignation and Draw Offers: separate an automatic dead position from a draw claim that depends on history or procedure. Candidate line: Kb2. The first candidate to test is Kb2. Replay Kb2 on board anchor 8/8/8/K7/8/8/8/k7 and write down what changes after it.
Evidence boundary: The position tests the stated rule or record field; verify the relevant source when a procedural decision matters.
example-2: a bare-king insufficient-material position
Show answer
Resignation and Draw Offers: separate an automatic dead position from a draw claim that depends on history or procedure. Candidate line: Kb2.
Why this position is here: Resignation and Draw Offers is represented by a bare-king insufficient-material position. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 8/8/8/8/8/3K4/k7/8; no opening history is inferred from the diagram.
FEN: 8/8/8/8/8/3K4/k7/8 b - - 5 3
Question: What is the first concrete decision in this resignation and draw offers position?
Answer cue: Resignation and Draw Offers: separate an automatic dead position from a draw claim that depends on history or procedure. Candidate line: Kb2. The first candidate to test is Kb2. Replay Kb2 on board anchor 8/8/8/8/8/3K4/k7/8 and write down what changes after it.
Evidence boundary: The position tests the stated rule or record field; verify the relevant source when a procedural decision matters.
Reading the record
Read the first example (id example-1) as a complete record: continuation Kb2, source fide-laws. This is a direct FEN setup with board anchor 8/8/8/K7/8/8/8/k7; no opening history is inferred from the diagram. If A does not expose a bare-king insufficient-material position, correct the evidence before relying on the prose.
Read the second example (id example-2) separately: continuation Kb2, source fide-laws. Its feature is a bare-king insufficient-material position; inventory side Black; pieces White king d3, Black king a2; legal first moves Ka3, Kb3, Kb2, Kb1, Ka1. Compare what changes between Kb2 and Kb2.
Common confusions
The main mistake to avoid with Resignation and Draw Offers is remembering a simplified slogan while overlooking a history field, exception or procedural condition. In A, the missing condition must be located in r1:8 | r2:8 | r3:8 | r4:K7 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:k7 after Kb2; in B, test it against r1:8 | r2:8 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:3K4 | r7:k7 | r8:8 after Kb2.
For Resignation and Draw Offers, the first board's evidence boundary (after Kb2) is The position tests the stated rule or record field; verify the relevant source when a procedural decision matters. The second board's evidence boundary for Resignation and Draw Offers is The position tests the stated rule or record field; verify the relevant source when a procedural decision matters. If a trusted source or careful calculation changes the conclusion around the legal castling test, update both the evidence record and this article.
Practice with a position
rebuild the position from the initial board, change one condition, and explain exactly which rule changes the result. Start with A's side to move and r1:8 | r2:8 | r3:8 | r4:K7 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:k7; record two candidates, the reply to Kb2 and the correction. Repeat with B's side to move and r1:8 | r2:8 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:3K4 | r7:k7 | r8:8; the changed board tests transfer rather than diagram memory.
After the drill, compare your notes with Increment Versus Delay, Arbiter Draw Claims, Fivefold Repetition through the en-passant window. Keep A's rejected alternative beside B's chosen line Kb2; this shows whether the conclusion survived a new board signature.
Sources and scope
Sources for Resignation and Draw Offers: FIDE Laws of Chess, 1chess.online editorial scope. Source ids are fide-laws, original-analysis. Primary evidence hook: fide-laws. Comparisons and practice notes are editorial. Evidence revision: 2026-08-remediation-r2.
Scope note for board pair r1:8 | r2:8 | r3:8 | r4:K7 | r5:8 | r6:8 | r7:8 | r8:k7 / r1:8 | r2:8 | r3:8 | r4:8 | r5:8 | r6:3K4 | r7:k7 | r8:8: this page does not claim that Kb2 is an engine principal variation, that an exact endgame result is verified when the evidence says it is not, or that a tool output replaces human calculation. The conclusion is limited to the recorded boundary and the exception the arbiter's role in a claim.