I lost because of timeout but he had no pieces

Originally posted by no1marauder
The object of chess is checkmate. If you lack material sufficient to checkmate, you shouldn't be able to win.

War is war, LOOOOOOZER!~

P-

Just when I feeling jacked off cos Hibs got beat I see this thread.

I would loved to have seen the grin on Mr.Hue's face when he clicked that skull.

I noticed that he never resigns in hopless positions.
Sometimes he allows himself to skulled. But resign...Not Mr Hue.

Nobody yet has won by resigning.

SG is correct an adjudicator would get smothered with games claiming
wins/draws. But I'm against software checking if there is enough
material to win.

Your job if winning is to keep enough material on the board and
not faff about.

Also it would be the end of hilarious threads like this from appearing.

Fancy losing against a bare King...thank you 😀

Originally posted by no1marauder
The object of chess is checkmate. If you lack material sufficient to checkmate, you shouldn't be able to win.

The object of chess is checkmate.
That is the ultimate and best object. But not the only object. If I'm matched up against a 2000+ rated player in a tournament, I'm just hoping to at least pull a draw out of my hat with them. If I beat them all the better. As a clan member I've had many games turn into, "I'm just hoping to get a possible draw for our team". And it has happened on occasion.

If you lack material sufficient to checkmate, you shouldn't be able to win.
I see your point. But I disagree. The first thing you agree to before starting any game or tournament is the time issue. You agree to move within a certain amount of time in the game or games or you lose. That agreement doesn't change after the game is started or if you're winning the game. iggys4 opponent could only hope for a draw or stalemate as long as iggy4 moved in time. He didn't and he lost. End of story.
That's my opinion, and it will not change. I have no sympathy for anyone who gets their skull clicked. Especially in a game like this that they clearly had won if they would have finished the game right.
It's hilarious! not tragic or unjust. as Red Night already stated.

Originally posted by KingDavid403
[b]The object of chess is checkmate.
That is the ultimate and best object. But not the only object. If I'm matched up against a 2000+ rated player in a tournament, I'm just hoping to at least pull a draw out of my hat with them. If I beat them all the better. As a clan member I've had many games turn into, "I'm just hoping to get a possible d ...[text shortened]... he game right.
It's hilarious! not tragic or unjust. as Red Night already stated.[/b]

I have no particular sympathy for the player here who was being an idiot. But I fail to see why the rules at RHP should deviate from OTB ones in this regard. It isn't just my opinion that checkmate is the object of the game, it's the rules. See USCF Rule 4A and FIDE Article 1.2. If you cannot checkmate, you can't win in OTB; why should such a fundamental rule be different here? Might as well say the Bishop can make Knight moves, too.

Originally posted by KingDavid403
You agree to move within a certain amount of time in the game or games or you lose. That agreement doesn't change after the game is started or if you're winning the game. iggys4 opponent could only hope for a draw or stalemate as long as iggy4 moved in time. He didn't and he lost. End of story.

FIDE and USCF both do not allow a player to claim a WIN on time when he lacks sufficient mating material. The rationale is obvious; the clock should not grant a player a WIN that they could never get on the board even with infinite time and the most incompetent opponent.

The story need not end with blind adherence to bad rules. Bad rules can be changed.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
SG is correct an adjudicator would get smothered with games claiming
wins/draws. But I'm against software checking if there is enough
material to win.

Well, I'm sure there are also some who are against software checking for legal moves, too. They'd probably rather go through usual claim process: stopping the game, informing an arbiter, and assessing a time penalty.

Thankfully, online sites tend to embrace technology and save us the unnecessary hassle of doing such things.

Edit: I also note that servers like ICC and [I believe] Playchess have software automatically determine insufficient mating material, and they still have tons of GMs playing on their servers.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I have no particular sympathy for the player here who was being an idiot. But I fail to see why the rules at RHP should deviate from OTB ones in this regard. It isn't just my opinion that checkmate is the object of the game, it's the rules. See USCF Rule 4A and FIDE Article 1.2. If you cannot checkmate, you can't win in OTB; why should such a fundamental rule be different here? Might as well say the Bishop can make Knight moves, too.

Well you guys have your arguments for a site idea, and they have merit. I personally don't care either way. This thread was started more as a whine than a site idea. I guess I was responding more to the whine of the way it is now, than as a site idea.
The way it is now is you lose on time if you don't move in time no matter what a game holds, I prefer it the way it is but I don't care if it's changed either.
You also must remember this is a correspondence chess site and there's several rules that are different here than in over the board, databases,chess books,weeks between moves,analyze board tool etc etc.... Good luck.

Originally posted by iggy4
In tournament play, if you run out of time and your opponent has no pieces, then it is draw, but on here you lose if you timeout regardless of whether or not your opponent can win.

Game 5471493


To be honest, it's your own fault you lost to him. You could have won quickly and easily but instead you wanted to toy with him. And maybe make him suffer for not resigning by dragging it out even longer. Making him wait for that possible stalemate. I say this because of how you started playing on move 45.



1. on move 45 you do pawn g5, giving him the chance to win a pawn. What other reason is there for a move like that?

2. on move 46 You give up your rook for no reason. This is probably your way of telling your opponent that you don't need it to kick his ass.

3. on move 60 you promote to a knight instead of a queen if you were afraid of the stalemate on move 60, you could have easily just moved
pawn f4 instead, forcing his king to move back to h2. Then when his king moves to h2 you move pawn g1/queen + Check, (white king moves) g3 checkmate. but you promote to a knight instead.

4. Then when you have another chance to promote to a queen again on move 66, you promote to another knight.

5. You're timed-out.

You had more than enough time to defeat your opponent but instead you did whatever you were doing. People look down on those you drag out a game when they are losing but it is also not very respectable to drag out a win either. Taking forever to checkmate when it can be done quickly and easily. Just take your win and enjoy it. Pointless trying to get revenge by making him wait longer for a possible stalemate. With 1 rook and two queens on the board it would take only a moment to checkmate your opponent. 2 knights and a pawn is much more difficult though. Your opponent has the right to fight for a draw or stalemate but what purpose does what you were doing have? Giving away pieces for no reason.

This game makes the perfect case for allowing the lone king to win on time.

Originally posted by coquette
This game makes the perfect case for allowing the lone king to win on time.

More stupidity; not surprising considering the source.

Just because the player with the more material acted like a clown is no reason to maintain a site glitch that makes no sense and is contrary to the most basic rules of chess.

Originally posted by no1marauder
More stupidity; not surprising considering the source.

Just because the player with the more material acted like a clown is no reason to maintain a site glitch that makes no sense and is contrary to the most basic rules of chess.

Who's rules of chess?

How do you enforce mating material rules on a web site? CAN YOU TELL ME? CAN YOU?

DID YOU HEAR ME?

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Who's rules of chess?

How do you enforce mating material rules on a web site? CAN YOU TELL ME? CAN YOU?

DID YOU HEAR ME?

Swiss Gambit already stated it clearly: FIDE and USCF both do not allow a player to claim a WIN on time when he lacks sufficient mating material. The rationale is obvious; the clock should not grant a player a WIN that they could never get on the board even with infinite time and the most incompetent opponent.

In addition, both FIDE and the USCF state that checkmate is the object of chess. If it is impossible for you to achieve the object of the game, you shouldn't get a win.

If you're asking me a programming question, I don't have an answer. Other sites seem to have software that avoids this problem though.

Can you play on on RHP with just the two players having kings? And the winner is the one who's time doesn't run out first? If so, that's some game, but it ain't chess.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Swiss Gambit already stated it clearly: FIDE and USCF both do not allow a player to claim a WIN on time when he lacks sufficient mating material. The rationale is obvious; the clock should not grant a player a WIN that they could never get on the board even with infinite time and the most incompetent opponent.

In addition, both FIDE an ...[text shortened]... is the one who's time doesn't run out first? If so, that's some game, but it ain't chess.

Out of interest, if you were playing OTB, what would FIDE and USCF rule if during his move a player walked away from the table and never came back?

Originally posted by Phlabibit
How do you enforce mating material rules on a web site? CAN YOU TELL ME? CAN YOU?

Going on assumption of how RHP works - each piece must have an assigned variable to represent it so it can be given the correct image and be assigned the right move limitations. In theory it should be very easy to check which pieces/variables are still active on the board at any given time.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Who's rules of chess?

How do you enforce mating material rules on a web site? CAN YOU TELL ME? CAN YOU?

DID YOU HEAR ME?

I already covered this.

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.