I lost because of timeout but he had no pieces

Originally posted by MilkyJoe
Well, not the first one. That would have been stalemate (I think).

He could have played f4 and then g1+Q and then Qg3++

I don't think it matters that this guy was messing around in his game. He found a rule that rhp does not apply.

From wikipedia:

If player A calls attention to the fact that player B is out of time while player A is not out of time and some sequence of legal moves leads to B being checkmated then player A wins automatically. If player A does not have the possibility of checkmating B then the game is a draw (Schiller 2003:28).[6

and

^ The USCF rule is different. If the player whose time runs out has "insufficient losing chances" the game is drawn. That is defined as a position in which a class C (1400-1599 rating) player would have a less than 10% chance of losing the position to a master (2400 and up rating), if both have sufficient time (Just & Burg 2003:49–52).

The rules apply to OTB but I can't see why they should not apply at rhp.

Originally posted by Simon McMahon
I don't think it matters that this guy was messing around in his game. He found a rule that rhp does not apply.

From wikipedia:

If player A calls attention to the fact that player B is out of time while player A is not out of time and some sequence of legal moves leads to B being checkmated then player A wins automatically. If player A does not h ...[text shortened]... rg 2003:49–52).

The rules apply to OTB but I can't see why they should not apply at rhp.

You're correct.

My point was that it was hard to have sympathy under the circumstances.

Originally posted by Mctayto
OTB you would be correct but online chess gives a time out win to the skull collector regardless of sufficient material

of course, you would be in difficulty to design a program to evaluate the position.

on ficgs however(correspondence chess) a referee can be called in certain situations to the table. i am sure this system can be implemented on RHP with high rated players as volunteers.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
of course, you would be in difficulty to design a program to evaluate the position.

There's no need to code all possible cases - just the most common 3 cases.

You should not win on time if:
1. You have only a King
2. You have only a King and Bishop, and your opp has no N, B or P.
3. You have only a King and Knight, and your opp has no R, N, B or P.

These would be easy enough to program.

Originally posted by Simon McMahon
I don't think it matters that this guy was messing around in his game. He found a rule that rhp does not apply.

From wikipedia:

If player A calls attention to the fact that player B is out of time while player A is not out of time and some sequence of legal moves leads to B being checkmated then player A wins automatically. If player A does not h rg 2003:49–52).

The rules apply to OTB but I can't see why they should not apply at rhp.

Wiki is wrong as regards the USCF. Rule 13C requires that to win a time forfeit a player must have mating material. Rule 14E1 expressly states that a lone King is insufficient material to win on time.

"Insufficient losing chances" is a different rule having to do with draw claims in sudden death. Rule 14H. It cannot be invoked after your flag falls.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Wiki is wrong as regards the USCF. Rule 13C requires that to win a time forfeit a player must have mating material. Rule 14E1 expressly states that a lone King is insufficient material to win on time.

"Insufficient losing chances" is a different rule having to do with draw claims in sudden death. Rule 14H. It cannot be invoked after your flag falls.

Perhaps that Wiki isn't such a reliable source to go to after all huh?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
There's no need to code [b]all possible cases - just the most common 3 cases.

You should not win on time if:
1. You have only a King
2. You have only a King and Bishop, and your opp has no N, B or P.
3. You have only a King and Knight, and your opp has no R, N, B or P.

These would be easy enough to program.[/b]

the game in question is more complex. and nobody but the lamest bastards continue to play in a king - king situation hoping the other will timeout.

the problem is when for example your opponent has a king, a bishop(night) and a pawn, you have a king and a bishop and more timebank. so you keep moving your pieces being careful not to repeat the position 3 times and hope for the other to lose on timeout when it is obvious that it is a draw 99% of the time.

i still think the idea of a referee, one with high rating and reputation would be the easiest solution.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i still think the idea of a referee, one with high rating and reputation would be the easiest solution.

I agree.
A referee can have the same role as in OTB-games. Where the built-in rules isn't enough, then just call for a referee and get the problems solved.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the game in question is more complex. and nobody but the lamest bastards continue to play in a king - king situation hoping the other will timeout.

the problem is when for example your opponent has a king, a bishop(night) and a pawn, you have a king and a bishop and more timebank. so you keep moving your pieces being careful not to repeat the position 3 ...[text shortened]... think the idea of a referee, one with high rating and reputation would be the easiest solution.

the game in question is more complex.

No, it isn't. This is covered under case 1) from my earlier post. [Result should be a draw once White claims the timeout.]

the problem is when for example your opponent has a king, a bishop(night) and a pawn, you have a king and a bishop and more timebank. so you keep moving your pieces being careful not to repeat the position 3 times and hope for the other to lose on timeout when it is obvious that it is a draw 99% of the time.

I'm still leery of having a ref declare a draw in this situation - what if he makes a mistake in his analysis? What if it is one of those study-like positions where there is some miracle win available?

i still think the idea of a referee, one with high rating and reputation would be the easiest solution.

There's tons of games played on the site. Any volunteer for that job would get burdened by tons of claims, many of which would be false. Of the ones that are correct, many could be awarded automatically if simple code changes were adopted.

Originally posted by Red Night
I'd feel a lot worse for you if you hadn't promoted your pawns for knights.

You were messing with your opponent and you lost on time, it's not tragic it's hilarious.

😵 😉

Originally posted by KingDavid403
😵 😉

Wow, it was actually 3 pawns promoted to knights.

LOLO!

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Wow, it was actually 3 pawns promoted to knights.

LOLO!

In my opinion this person had every right to play on hoping for the draw or stalemate. A draw is always better than a loss and it's part of chess. And a timeout is also part of chess.
As long as the opponent kept promoting their pawns to knights they kept giving their opponent the possibility and hope of a draw or stalemate.
Our private clan forum has a thread in it titled stalemates. It has dozens of stalemates I and my clan mates have gotten over time. Such as this beautiful stalemate my clan mate just got Game 5345785 this stalemate helped us win this clan challenge Clan challenge 147187. 😀
And what if this timeout win was a clan game that decided a clan match?? Snooze you lose. End of story in my opinion.
If iggy4 would have promoted their pawns to a rook or queen like any normal person and played the end game right, and moved on time, we wouldn't even have this thread to discuss.😴

Originally posted by KingDavid403
If iggy4 would have promoted their pawns to a rook or queen like any normal person and played the end game right, and moved on time, we wouldn't even have this thread to discuss.😴

But on the other hand, we have to thank iggy4 to (involontary) play the big role here in this thread.

"Snooze, you lose", nice wording! And I agree. Time is as important on RHP, and CC in general, as it is OTB.

Stalemate is a part of the rules, and should be exploited, if possible, to salvage the game from a loss to a draw.
Same goes for eternal check, and threefold repetition of position, as well as 50 move rule.

When not promoting to the best piece, according to the position, must be concidered a bad move. If it is used to brag ( "Look what I do!" ) it's beyond good sportmanship.

Whining is not a part of the game, taking the consequences of bad decisions is.

Originally posted by KingDavid403
In my opinion this person had every right to play on hoping for the draw or stalemate. A draw is always better than a loss and it's part of chess. And a timeout is also part of chess.
As long as the opponent kept promoting their pawns to knights they kept giving their opponent the possibility and hope of a draw or stalemate.
Our private clan f ...[text shortened]... played the end game right, and moved on time, we wouldn't even have this thread to discuss.😴

The object of chess is checkmate. If you lack material sufficient to checkmate, you shouldn't be able to win.