Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Site Ideas Forum

Site Ideas Forum

  1. Subscriber Ponderable
    chemist
    12 Oct '12 14:50
    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.
  2. 12 Oct '12 18:15
    Tome controls are time controls... one move away from a win but you timeout, should you be given the win instead of the loss?
  3. Subscriber Marinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    12 Oct '12 19:30
    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 agree, a drawn position such as insufficient material should be an automatic draw, currently you have to claim it.
  4. Subscriber Kewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    12 Oct '12 23:52 / 1 edit
    If one player has enough material to checkmate a lone king, should the latter player have the ability to claim a draw?
  5. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    13 Oct '12 05:43
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    If one player has enough material to checkmate a lone king, should the latter player have the ability to claim a draw?
    Only in the case of the 50-move rule or triple repetition of position.
  6. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    13 Oct '12 05:47
    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.
  7. 15 Oct '12 00:02
    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.
  8. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    15 Oct '12 02:34
    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.

    http://tinypic.com/r/2ajypzs/6
  9. Subscriber Ponderable
    chemist
    15 Oct '12 11:37
    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.
  10. Subscriber Ponderable
    chemist
    15 Oct '12 11:39
    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.
  11. 15 Oct '12 14:56
    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.
  12. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    15 Oct '12 15:09 / 2 edits
    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.
  13. Subscriber Marinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    15 Oct '12 16:18
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    If one player has enough material to checkmate a lone king, should the latter player have the ability to claim a draw?
    Yes. If the winning player runs out of time it should be a draw, not a win for the losing player.
  14. Subscriber Marinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    15 Oct '12 16:20
    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.
  15. Subscriber KingDavid403
    King David
    16 Oct '12 12:21 / 1 edit
    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.

    Can we have a look at the game in question??