I recently watched a game of a friend which was in a totally won King+Rook against King endgame. My friend went into vacation and when he came back he had lost because of timeout.
In a normal tournament game this would have led to a draw, because the naked King is no winning material.
I think this rule should also be included on this site.
Originally posted by koanomTimed Out = Lose
I recently watched a game of a friend which was in a totally won King+Rook against King endgame. My friend went into vacation and when he came back he had lost because of timeout.
In a normal tournament game this would have led to a draw, because the naked King is no winning material.
I think this rule should also be included on this site.
What's the problem?
Tell your friends they should learn to manage their time better.
Originally posted by koanomI agree. I don't understand why it's not implemented this way. Any official set of organized chess rules doesn't allow a player with a lone King to win on time.
I recently watched a game of a friend which was in a totally won King+Rook against King endgame. My friend went into vacation and when he came back he had lost because of timeout.
In a normal tournament game this would have led to a draw, because the naked King is no winning material.
I think this rule should also be included on this site.
It´s true that someone should try to make his moves in time. (I also take timeout-wins) In the game I mentioned I just shook my head when I saw, what strange moves my friend made, instead of mating within 3. I just think generally if someone has no material for a win, the game shoud end in a draw, and I think that´s enough punishment for the one who stops playing instead of winning, while the one with the lone King doesn´t get a completely undeserved because then impossible win.
Originally posted by koanomWhat would happen OTB?
It´s true that someone should try to make his moves in time. (I also take timeout-wins) In the game I mentioned I just shook my head when I saw, what strange moves my friend made, instead of mating within 3. I just think generally if someone has no material for a win, the game shoud end in a draw, and I think that´s enough punishment for the one who stops pla ...[text shortened]... hile the one with the lone King doesn´t get a completely undeserved because then impossible win.
The rules are laid out before the game starts, if you can't finish the game, don't start it.
Originally posted by koanomagreed, i do not mind taking a time out, it is all part of the game but you are right about those being the official rules and they should be followed.
I recently watched a game of a friend which was in a totally won King+Rook against King endgame. My friend went into vacation and when he came back he had lost because of timeout.
In a normal tournament game this would have led to a draw, because the naked King is no winning material.
I think this rule should also be included on this site.
2 edits
Originally posted by koanomNo, I disagree with this idea.
I recently watched a game of a friend which was in a totally won King+Rook against King endgame. My friend went into vacation and when he came back he had lost because of timeout.
In a normal tournament game this would have led to a draw, because the naked King is no winning material.
I think this rule should also be included on this site.
There is a difference between forcing a draw and getting one just because you can't be bothered to move when you're in a worse position than your opponent; or even claiming a draw for being in a better position than your opponent (regardless of how hopeless or impossible it would be for him to win in his situation)...
I understand that a king alone can't win in a game of chess, and neither can a king and a bishop, or a king and a knight. But just because you get into a situation where you can't win shouldn't mean that you have to accept a draw or a loss if your opponent walks away from the board.
If I understand rightly, your friend was winning in the game, then left it to go and enjoy himself in another part of the world. Right? Then got himself skulled. Right? Serves him right. He should have won the game when he had the chance.
EDIT: (Yada, yada, yada. Internet cafes are everywhere. No excuse for not moving.)
Originally posted by c99uxI agree.
No, I disagree with this idea.
There is a difference between forcing a draw and getting one just because you can't be bothered to move when you're in a worse position than your opponent; or even claiming a draw for being in a better position than your opponent (regardless of how hopeless or impossible it would be for him to win in his situation)...
I un ...[text shortened]... nce.
EDIT: (Yada, yada, yada. Internet cafes are everywhere. No excuse for not moving.)
A Time out is a Time out.
Originally posted by c99uxThis is correspondence chess. Not moving for long periods of time is normal. Walking away from the board (several times!) before moving is normal.
But just because you get into a situation where you can't win shouldn't mean that you have to accept a draw or a loss if your opponent walks away from the board.
And if you can't win, you should be happy to get a draw.
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemyou don't seem to be playing any games at all, and you also seem to play the clock quite a lot.
Should the clock grant a player a 'win' that he could never get over the board, even with all the time in the world? Are we playing a game of chess, or a game of clock?
Whats your point?