Time out - DRAW !!!

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 koanom
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.

Timed Out = Lose

What's the problem?
Tell your friends they should learn to manage their time better.

Originally posted by koanom
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.

I 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.

for the non tournament games i'd like timeout game and claim draw instead of win... that way if you don't feel like you are ahead you don't have to feel bad about timing out....

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 koanom
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.

What would happen OTB?

The rules are laid out before the game starts, if you can't finish the game, don't start it.

Originally posted by koanom
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.

agreed, 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.

Originally posted by koanom
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.

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 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 c99ux
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.)

I agree.

A Time out is a Time out.

Originally posted by c99ux
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.

This is correspondence chess. Not moving for long periods of time is normal. Walking away from the board (several times!) before moving is normal.

And if you can't win, you should be happy to get a draw.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
I agree.

A Time out is a Time out.

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?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
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?

you don't seem to be playing any games at all, and you also seem to play the clock quite a lot.




Whats your point?

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
you don't seem to be playing any games at all, and you also seem to play the clock quite a lot.




Whats your point?

How can I 'play the clock quite a lot' if I'm not playing any games at all?? 🙄🙄🙄

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
How can I 'play the clock quite a lot' if I'm not playing any games at all?? 🙄🙄🙄

Ask your english teacher to teach you about present tense 😏

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
Ask your english teacher to teach you about present tense 😏

I will, on the condition that you take the whole class over.