Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Site Ideas Forum

Site Ideas Forum

  1. 31 Oct '09 13:39
    I think when your opponent has only a king and claims a time-out, it should be a draw
  2. Subscriber coquette
    Already mated
    31 Oct '09 15:22
    Originally posted by Chandradi
    I think when your opponent has only a king and claims a time-out, it should be a draw
    maybe so, but there has to be some incentive to move games along, mainly for tournaments and clans and leagues . . . It's irritating to watch hopeless games lag a tournament and clan matches.
  3. 31 Oct '09 16:41
    I agree
  4. 31 Oct '09 17:46
    I think you should time out less often, even when your opponent only has a King left
  5. Standard member Mctayto
    Highlander
    31 Oct '09 18:51
    If you were fool enough not to move in the alloted time then you deserve to lose on timeout
  6. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    31 Oct '09 23:06 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Chandradi
    I think when your opponent has only a king and claims a time-out, it should be a draw
    Yes, the rest of the chess world has the rules this way. RHP Blitz server has the insufficient material rule [I played a game just last night, and the game was automatically ruled drawn by the server immediately after we got to K+N vs. K].

    It's time for RHP corr server to follow suit.
  7. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    31 Oct '09 23:09 / 1 edit
    At the least, the most common three cases should be programmed.

    King versus King
    King and Knight versus King
    King and Bishop versus King

    All such positions should be immediately declared drawn.
  8. Standard member Mctayto
    Highlander
    01 Nov '09 01:06
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    At the least, the most common three cases should be programmed.

    King versus King
    King and Knight versus King
    King and Bishop versus King

    All such positions should be immediately declared drawn.
    I agree but this wimp had sufficient material so possible mate or stalemate so his own stupidity
  9. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    01 Nov '09 01:15
    Originally posted by Mctayto
    I agree but this wimp had sufficient material so possible mate or stalemate so his own stupidity
    I'm a big fan of enforcing time controls, but I don't think a player ought to be given a win by clock in a position that they could never win over-the-board, even with the most helpful/inept opponent.
  10. 01 Nov '09 20:22
    yes
  11. Standard member Mctayto
    Highlander
    01 Nov '09 23:53
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    I'm a big fan of enforcing time controls, but I don't think a player ought to be given a win by clock in a position that they could never win over-the-board, even with the most helpful/inept opponent.
    If your opponent can't be bothered to move then I totally disagree, simply because he thought he had it won he sat on his hands - deserved the skulling
  12. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    02 Nov '09 16:51
    Originally posted by Mctayto
    If your opponent can't be bothered to move then I totally disagree, simply because he thought he had it won he sat on his hands - deserved the skulling
    I have no issue with the skulling. By all means, allow the skull to be claimed. Just make the result a draw.

    The guy with the won game still loses something - he only gets a draw, not a win.
  13. 02 Nov '09 18:26
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    I have no issue with the skulling. By all means, allow the skull to be claimed. Just make the result a draw.

    The guy with the won game still loses something - he only gets a draw, not a win.
    "To be skulled is to be lost" - anonymous

    ...and I agree. Time management is a part of the game.
  14. 09 Nov '09 17:26
    Not if a king only.
  15. Standard member Mctayto
    Highlander
    09 Nov '09 18:09
    Originally posted by Chandradi
    Not if a king only.
    The forces of public opinion are against you