28 Dec 06
I lost a game on a timeout whilst on vacation over christmas. I have no problem with people claiming timeout wins, time is part of the game agreed at the start. However on vacation is another issue. But not the one I want to discuss here.
I feel if my opponent is justified in claiming a timeout, he must have at least mating material on the board to claim a win. I had two connected passed pawns and a bishop against my opponents lone king. a completely won game and no matter how much I blunder cannot be lost only drawn.
Therefore I would like to see timeouts awarded a draw if the claimant has no mating material.
28 Dec 06
Originally posted by crusoeThe game we are talking about is Game 2548886 where crusoe (black) has two pawns and a bishop and his opponent (white) only has his king left. White has no chance at all to win. He has however a slim chance to have a draw. Therefor i totally agree with crusoe that he whould have a draw on the time-out instead of a loss.
... Therefore I would like to see timeouts awarded a draw if the claimant has no mating material.
However the rules must change first and then be applied to all games from then on. The current rules doesn't imply a draw for this time-out.
So let's change the rules: If the opponent don't have winning material a time-out should only render a draw, not more.
- Joined
- 23 Mar 04
- Moves
- 255827
28 Dec 06
Originally posted by crusoeBut not after a system has been implemented that prevents persons like you entering banded tournaments hundreds of points below your own band, Mr. Sportmanship Crusoe.....
Therefore I would like to see timeouts awarded a draw if the claimant has no mating material.
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
28 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasAgreed. This will be a pain to implement, I think, but it ought to be done.
So let's change the rules: If the opponent don't have winning material a time-out should only render a draw, not more.
Gezza
ps. Aiko has a point ...
pps. edit was to add ps.
28 Dec 06
Originally posted by Ian68This discussin tends to be one of the "immunity during vacation" kind of discussions.
Given that none of us can predict the future, that means that no one will ever start another game.
I say, as always, that one shouldn't be time-outed during the vacation. I've proposed the solution for this. A lot of problems seems to emanate from the todays system. It can easily be solved with a little immunity.
28 Dec 06
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou don't need to worry too much, cuz some users will abuse this system as well. They'll throw the vacation flag up just to upset another user... some will even go as far as to take all the time at the end of the year, and take the rest of the time at the start to drag a game out 3 months.
This discussin tends to be one of the "immunity during vacation" kind of discussions.
I say, as always, that one shouldn't be time-outed during the vacation. I've proposed the solution for this. A lot of problems seems to emanate from the todays system. It can easily be solved with a little immunity.
Regardless of how it is done, there will always be users complaining about something... We'll just have new threads like "User --- went on vacation with one move to mate!"
P-
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
29 Dec 06
Originally posted by PhlabibitMaybe you are right, but crusoe wanted to suggest something else:
[snip]
Regardless of how it is done, there will always be users complaining about something... We'll just have new threads like "User --- went on vacation with one move to mate!"
P-
Have the site behave the same as over the board chess when the clock runs out. If the player who has "won" on time does not have mating material, then the game should be drawn.
There are a number of times when it is significant. I have watched a player with 4.0 points in a tournament play the highest rated second placed player in the last round, who only had 3.5. In that game, the leader sacrificed a rook for his opponent's last pawn, guaranteeing him at least a draw, and a tournament win, even though he was in time trouble.
You are just talking about vacation, which is another issue entirely. I'd be irritated if the site did not support claiming a draw after 3 repititions, or if it allowed my opponent to leave his king in check. This is just another rule of chess, which it appears that the site does not implement. Why do you think it is a bad idea to implement it?
Cheers,
Gezza
29 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by gezzaThat isn't how a chess clock works... is it? Your flag drops, game is lost.
Maybe you are right, but crusoe wanted to suggest something else:
Have the site behave the same as over the board chess when the clock runs out. If the player who has "won" on time does not have mating material, then the game should be drawn.
There are a number of times when it is significant. I have watched a player with 4.0 points in a tournament pla te does not implement. Why do you think it is a bad idea to implement it?
Cheers,
Gezza
P-
Just found this...
http://www.uschess.org/tds/clockrules.php
Seems there is need for a person to decide one way or the other on the outcome. Hmmm.
I still don't care for it. How old is this rule?
29 Dec 06
Originally posted by PhlabibitBDP makes a good point in this thread...Thread 56428
That isn't how a chess clock works... is it? Your flag drops, game is lost.
P-
Just found this...
http://www.uschess.org/tds/clockrules.php
Seems there is need for a person to decide one way or the other on the outcome. Hmmm.
I still don't care for it. How old is this rule?
D
29 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PhlabibitAgreed, and just where and how did 14 days of timebank get squandered?? Hmmmm.
That isn't how a chess clock works... is it? Your flag drops, game is lost.
P-
Just found this...
http://www.uschess.org/tds/clockrules.php
Seems there is need for a person to decide one way or the other on the outcome. Hmmm.
I still don't care for it. How old is this rule?
You blew it crusoe, so just build a new bridge and get over it.
skeeter
29 Dec 06
1 edit
Article 6.10 of the FIDE Laws of Chess states:
Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay.
(emphasis added)
29 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Ian68What an absolute flouncer. This is a corresspondence chess site and FIDE rules and regs don't rate or apply here. Jesus wept.
Article 6.10 of the FIDE Laws of Chess states:
Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. [b]However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay.
(emphasis added)[/b]
skeeter