Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromfics The site has written me back. Black lost because he didn't "claim the draw". I think he shouldn't have to. They would probably have to change all the software to make this work. Any thoughts?
Surely black lost because he did not manage his time as well as white.
At RHP you have to claim the draw FAQ under one of three conditions, none of which applied in the game in question.
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromfics Sorry. I still think you shouldn't have to claim it. I've seen lower rated players make illegal moves too. You can't do that here. Why should you be able to win illegally?
I agree in principle. In practice, it is not feasible for RHP software to recognize every possible "dead" position ["dead" position = no helpmate possible for either side], but for the three most obvious cases [K+B versus K, K+N versus K, and K versus K - all with no other pieces on the board, of course] RHP software should immediately set the result to a draw.
Edit2: I also agree that someone with only a bare King should not be able to win by timeout, but only draw.
I played a guy who got me down to bare K, but he only had K+N+N. I offered a draw, he refused. I played for another 10 moves, offered a draw, he refused. I think it was over 20 moves before he offered a draw. 😕
Bare king can not win!!! Plain and simple. It is a draw with or without a claim. This wasn't one of my games that I'm talking about. I haven't even used timebank in over 350 games. I don't get in any time trouble myself. I have nothing to gain from this. Believe me, it is a draw!!!!!
Originally posted by MrHand I played a guy who got me down to bare K, but he only had K+N+N. I offered a draw, he refused. I played for another 10 moves, offered a draw, he refused. I think it was over 20 moves before he offered a draw. 😕
Granted, I think he was below 1300.
You can win with K & 2Ns vs K if your opponent wants to help you out.
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromfics Hi I was looking at this game 5275684. Nallapuh vs Chizza. White won on time with just a bare king. I was under the impression a bare king vs no time is a draw because white can't force mate. Even a king and bishop vs no time is a draw. If you can't force mate, it's a draw. I think this is a rule. I know this is in practice at FICS (free int ...[text shortened]... h. That was the argument I got from the administrators there. How is this a loss here???
I lost in similar fashion (against a bare king) losing on timeout. I complained (using send feedback) to Chris and even linked to rules of chess, but the site apparently really care about that.
Originally posted by Dragon Fire You can win with K & 2Ns vs K if your opponent wants to help you out.
yeah, it is possible, but I was the bare King...and I was not willing to be complicit in my own demise. Though, in retrospect, after the his second declining of my draw offer, perhaps I should have been a sport and let him mate me.
Originally posted by MrHand yeah, it is possible, but I was the bare King...and I was not willing to be complicit in my own demise. Though, in retrospect, after the his second declining of my draw offer, perhaps I should have been a sport and let him mate me.
You could have got him all excited by heading towards a corner then avoiding going there at the last possible moment, doing the same with the next corner, then after taunting him with all 4 corners just going and sitting in the centre.
Originally posted by Dragon Fire You could have got him all excited by heading towards a corner then avoiding going there at the last possible moment, doing the same with the next corner, then after taunting him with all 4 corners just going and sitting in the centre.
Originally posted by Dragon Fire You could have got him all excited by heading towards a corner then avoiding going there at the last possible moment, doing the same with the next corner, then after taunting him with all 4 corners just going and sitting in the centre.
Ah.....now that would have been clever. Sigh. Next time! 🙂
Originally posted by gezza Just for the record guys, last time I looked at the correspondence rules, you can win with a timeout, even without sufficient material.
Are you sure? From the link you provided, the ICCF rules begin with:
1 Play and Control
1. Games shall be played in accordance with the FIDE Laws of Chess, except as otherwise defined in these rules or other ICCF rules.
(emphasis added)
This indicates that the FIDE standards for drawn positions apply.
Originally posted by SwissGambit Are you sure? From the link you provided, the ICCF rules begin with:
1 Play and Control
1. Games shall be played [b]in accordance with the FIDE Laws of Chess
, except as otherwise defined in these rules or other ICCF rules.
(emphasis added)
This indicates that the FIDE standards for drawn positions apply.[/b]The important part of the rules quote is not "accordance with the FIDE Laws of Chess", but the little word "except" and the sentence following it. ;-)
On the game in question - the result is valid. If you can't manage to win in the time you have, it's your own fault. On the other hand, the winning side is a very bad sport, but unfortunately those players exist, even in FIDE tournaments - just look at the recent Armageddon controversies during the Womens Championships for the US and then later for the World title.
I'd have to say though that there is a lot more on the line there than on this site...
Originally posted by AudioRapture The important part of the rules quote is not "accordance with the FIDE Laws of Chess", but the little word "except" and the sentence following it. ;-)
On the game in question - the result is valid. If you can't manage to win in the time you have, it's your own fault. On the other hand, the winning side is a very bad sport, but unfortunately those pla ...[text shortened]... .
I'd have to say though that there is a lot more on the line there than on this site...
The important part of the rules quote is not "accordance with the FIDE Laws of Chess", but the little word "except" and the sentence following it. ;-)
However, I am not sure that there is an actual exception in the ICCF rules. [Edit 2 - After a fair bit of research, I cannot find any example of this situation in ICCF play. I would still wager that, despite rule 6e), ICCF would not grant a win on time to a player with only a King on the board.]
On the game in question - some of us would prefer that time not give any player a result that (s)he could never get, even with infinite time and full cooperation of the opponent, on the board.
Finally, it makes no sense to refuse to change a rule while calling players 'bad sports' for taking full advantage of the rule. You might as well say that Player A is a bad sport because he abused the castling rule to avoid getting mated.
Originally posted by SwissGambit Finally, it makes no sense to refuse to change a rule while calling players 'bad sports' for taking full advantage of the rule. You might as well say that Player A is a bad sport because he abused the castling rule to avoid getting mated.
I am not refusing a rule change.
The result is possible under present rules here; if you don't like it petition to the site operator(s) to have the rules changed.
Simple as that.
At the 2 blitz sites I have played at, there are numerous bad sports who try to make you lose on time when they are down to a bare king.
Ask the site operators there and the response is typically "if you can't win the game in the time you have it's your problem". Only recourse is to avoid playing those types in the future.
I know blitz != CC, it was just an illustrative example.
15 Sep '08 21:19
How did this result occur?
Back to Top