12 Oct 12
Originally posted by PonderableI agree, a drawn position such as insufficient material should be an automatic draw, currently you have to claim it.
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.
13 Oct 12
Originally posted by PonderableRHP 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.
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.
15 Oct 12
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.
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34In 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.
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.
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
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34Actually 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.
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.
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.
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitgood one!
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
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.
15 Oct 12
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.
15 Oct 12
2 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34How about this.
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.
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.
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34That wouldn't work, their opponent would have to have a lone king.
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.
16 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by PonderableI 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.
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.
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.
Can we have a look at the game in question??