Originally posted by Ponderable I came over a game where a guy claimed a time-out win with only his King standing.
I suggest that you can't win with just a King standing. At least this should automatically be awarded a draw.
RHP could easily add code to automatically set the result to 'draw' for the three most common cases of insufficient mating material: King and Bishop vs. King, King and Knight vs. King, and King vs. King.
Not too keen on knowing a computer can jump in on players games,
stop them and declare the game is drawn.
(Have we not got enough computer interferance on here already.)
Also it takes away a players choice.
The player with the extra material may at some time want to resign the game.
If the game is automatically declared a draw you have taken this option away.
Originally posted by greenpawn34 Not too keen on knowing a computer can jump in on players games,
stop them and declare the game is drawn.
(Have we not got enough computer interferance on here already.)
Also it takes away a players choice.
The player with the extra material may at some time want to resign the game.
If the game is automatically declared a draw you have taken this option away.
In the beehive of activity that is the beta-testing private forum, Russ has heard the complaints of the traditionalists and is making things less automated and more like 'real chess'. Yes, you guys are winning and I'm losing.
Here is a sample exchange that shows how the new interface will require people to make their own decisions rather than having a computer do it for them.
Originally posted by greenpawn34 Not too keen on knowing a computer can jump in on players games,
stop them and declare the game is drawn.
(Have we not got enough computer interferance on here already.)
Also it takes away a players choice.
The player with the extra material may at some time want to resign the game.
If the game is automatically declared a draw you have taken this option away.
Actually my suggestion was on timed out games. If a timeout is taken, the system should check if the player claiming/getting the timeout is able to win the game at all.
I was referring to King-only, SG added K+B and K-N against lone King. I support that too.
So if we want to draw the OTB comparison, the system is acting as arbiter IN A NON-CONTROVERSIAL POSITION only. So if you would run out of time otb against an opponent with a lone King, you would ask the arbiter to declare a draw instead of a win for your opponent, the same would be true here also.
Originally posted by SwissGambit In the beehive of activity that is the beta-testing private forum, Russ has heard the complaints of the traditionalists and is making things less automated and more like 'real chess'. Yes, you guys are winning and I'm losing.
Here is a sample exchange that shows how the new interface will require people to make their own decisions rather than having a computer do it for them.
http://tinypic.com/r/2ajypzs/6
good one!
In fact I won't complain if two people will make a 1000 move game pushing around lone Kings for the heck of it. But claiming a win with a lone King is brazen.
Yup think turning a time out into a draw if the player winning on time
is down to a lone King is fair enough.
It would have to carefully written though, I can see a smashing potential bug
where players who are lost then try to lose all their men to get down to a lone
King and then time out to get awarded a draw.
Originally posted by greenpawn34 Yup think turning a time out into a draw if the player winning on time
is down to a lone King is fair enough.
It would have to carefully written though, I can see a smashing potential bug
where players who are lost then try to lose all their men to get down to a lone
King and then time out to get awarded a draw.
How about this.
After a skull is crushed:
1) Check the claimant's material. If he has a Q or R or P or 2 minor pieces, give him a win.
2) If he has only one minor piece, check the opponent's material. If the opp has a minor piece (except a B of same color as claimant's lone B) or a pawn, give claimant a win.
3) Otherwise, claimant only gets a draw.
That should cover the most common cases. There are still exceptions. For those, the draw must be claimed before the time forfeit.
Originally posted by greenpawn34 Yup think turning a time out into a draw if the player winning on time
is down to a lone King is fair enough.
It would have to carefully written though, I can see a smashing potential bug
where players who are lost then try to lose all their men to get down to a lone
King and then time out to get awarded a draw.
That wouldn't work, their opponent would have to have a lone king.
Originally posted by Ponderable I came over a game where a guy claimed a time-out win with only his King standing.
I suggest that you can't win with just a King standing. At least this should automatically be awarded a draw.
I disagree. The player who won the game won by the rules of the game. The player who lost the game lost by the rules of the game. Simple as that. Time controls are a important part of correspondence chess and are part of the rules.
Next it will be "if a person is losing a game but wins on time he shouldn't really win because he was going to lose anyway" etc etc.
The person who lost on time blew it and the game, simple as that.
12 Oct '12 19:30
force draw if not enough material to checkmate
Back to Top