Originally posted by KingDavid403The 'rules of the game' are usually that you can't claim a win on time if there is no possible checkmate for you on the board, even with the most unskilled play by your opponent (FIDE).
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 ...[text shortened]... on time blew it and the game, simple as that.
Can we have a look at the game in question??
RHP's rules should match FIDE's. A player with only a King should not get a win on time - only a draw.
2 edits
HI KD.
I too can see your side and have no problem at all if the rule stays unchanged.
However in the real world you can never win with a lone King
even if your opponents flag falls. It part of the rules of the game.
You cannot win if you have a lone King.
Exceptions: (there always exceptions.)
If you adjourn with the lone King and your opponent seals an illegal move.
(maybe even then there may be a case for the loser claiming a draw.)
But such a case cannot happen on here.
Or your opponent resigns against your lone King.
Which can and has happened on here - see below.
I have found 63! (one more and I will have a full chessboard) games
where the lone King player has won.
Two examples with a lone White King winning on time.
Game 7975954 and Game 4479718
Two examples with a lone Black King winning on time.
Game 7805471 and Game 5440108
Most of course are time out wins (approx 95% ) but you do get the odd one...
ol53 - Flying Dwarf RHP 2010. White resigned here.
The irony being under the new rule. If White had stopped moving
and been skulled he would has got ½ a point.
(not sure who side of the agument that situation favours.)
And not forgetting The War of Attrition
sasop5 - Larryiii RHP 2007. Game 2932236
Both lone Kings danced about about with each other for 16 moves
till Black could take it no more and stopped moving. White won by timeout.
Final Position. 1-0
2 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34I also can see your and the others sides view. And I understand. But my point is this, This is not FIDE chess. This is correspondence chess and the rules are much different than FIDE rules. Such as Analyze board, databases during play. Books during play, touch piece, time controls,etc, etc.
HI KD.
I too can see your side and have no problem at all if the rule stays unchanged.
However in the real world you can never win with a lone King
even if your opponents flag falls. It part of the rules of the game.
You cannot win if you have a lone King.
Exceptions: (there always exceptions.)
If you adjourn with the lone King and your oppon ...[text shortened]... moving. White won by timeout.
Final Position. 1-0
[fen]8/8/8/2k1K3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]
Some games I like playing for the stalemate just for practice. But if my opponent drags out the game and their moves, or has 1000s of games going at once and then loses on time. I feel I still should be able to win if they timeout. I just feel if I catch the skull before they move for any reason or however the game stands they should lose. That's the way the rules have been on this site for over 10 years now and I think they should remain.
If they change the rule to what has been purposed in this thread I most certainly could live with it. But my view is it should remain as is.
I do like the automatic draw for insufficent material idea that's been purposed. But I guess that's up to Russ and Chris and how much work that requires.
Originally posted by KingDavid403If you are playing on with only a King, a draw is ½ a point more than you deserve, so you still get something from the timeout.
I also can see your and the others sides view. And I understand. But my point is this, This is not FIDE chess. This is correspondence chess and the rules are much different than FIDE rules. Such as Analyze board, databases during play. Books during play, touch piece, time controls,etc, etc.
Some games I like playing for the stalemate just for pr ...[text shortened]... at's been purposed. But I guess that's up to Russ and Chris and how much work that requires.
I personally don't think a side should be given a win that they could never get on the board, even if they were allowed to move the opposing pieces as well as their own. However, ICCF (international corr. chess federation) seems to agree with you.
Originally posted by MarinkatombA player who loses should never get the win, true, but I would remind you that in a time-out, the losing player is the one who runs out of time.
Yes. If the winning player runs out of time it should be a draw, not a win for the losing player.
What you said would result in the player who happens to be winning at the time (via material or whatever reason) getting an automatic 1/2 point. One does not win (or become the "winning player" ) until he has won. Timing out is not "winning". No player should ever get even a draw for timing out, because by definition, the player who times out loses.
Originally posted by SwissGambitSo you would give a draw to a player who loses on time??
The 'rules of the game' are usually that you can't claim a win on time if there is no possible checkmate for you on the board, even with the most unskilled play by your opponent (FIDE).
RHP's rules should match FIDE's. A player with only a King should not get a win on time - only a draw.
That's ridiculous.
Originally posted by SuzianneNo, I would give a draw to a player who runs out of time when their opponent has no mating material.
So you would give a draw to a player who loses on time??
That's ridiculous.
Time is part of the game, but the position on the board is more important.
FIDE, USCF, etc. etc. all do this. Basically, the entire OTB chess world does it. Just not RHP.
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
Originally posted by SwissGambitICCF does not:
FIDE, USCF, etc. etc. all do this. Basically, the entire OTB chess world does it. Just not RHP.
http://www.iccf.com/Message.aspx?message=447
And given that RHP is a correspondence site, then that is the *right thing*,
even if I don't like it.