Fair. You couldn't have mated him with your current material and because of that; you should've lost - or rather you drew. Which the text should've told you.
And anyways; I think it proves a point since it is, quiet lame to actually wait out your opponent in such fashion.
2. Doesn't reward that lamish behaviour of yours, which is good.
Well...seems your lucky you didn't lose more rating points... Good sportsmanship would dictate you resigning... but, as it is, you managed to draw someone who had you beat to thunder.
The result was correct and rather simple to understand. You cannot win because you don't have any means of winning (i.e. you cannot give checkmate) and your opponent cannot win because he ran out of time. The result is therefore a draw. You had the higher rating, and thereby suffer a reduction after a draw against "weaker" opposition. All above board and just the way it should be. 
chess is chess and if an opponent cant beat you in the time provided well thats his problem! Time control is one aspect of chess just as tactics is!
Fair. You couldn't have mated him with your current material and because of that; you should've lost - or rather you drew. Which the text should've told you.
And anyways; I think it proves a point since it is, quiet lame to actually wait out your opponent in such fashion.
2. Doesn't reward that lamish behaviour of yours, which is good.
What's wrong with you?
There's nothing "lame" about making your opponent use more time in mating you..
You make no sense.
Wow, well if I would have anticipated such heated responses with regard to "chess etiquette" and the "way the chess world works" I would not have bothered to post. I simply had a question due to a situation I had never encountered before, excuse me for being curious.
Wow, well if I would have anticipated such heated responses with regard to "chess etiquette" and the "way the chess world works" I would not have bothered to post. I simply had a question due to a situation I had never encountered before, excuse me for being curious.
I'm sure the responses were not meant to be mean. Some of us are just very passionate about the game.
Next time pose the question ad a hypothetical..........
Thanks Skakmati,
Passion is not something I lack. What I may lack, in this case, is the knowledge of the rules with regard to a specific 'hypothetical' occurence.
It doesn't matter what game is being played, those who understand it are supposed to be ambassadors to those do not, lest their passion become feigned.
Agreed.
I think there may be a confusion about the type of chess here. I don't get the sense that LQRein was playing correspondence chess and drawing out a game one a three-days-per-move limit...indeed, such a game as he describes would not take very long to lose. If we're dealing with blitz, then of course the clock is very much a factor, and it's up to the player with the advantage to convert it into a win in the time left.
This puts me in mind of an old story, which I'll paraphrase since I can't find the original:
Two men had just left their chess club after a furious night of five-minute blitz. In the final game of the night, the men had been paired against one another. Fred was walking with his head held high, having just scored a victory against his Sal, who was trudging and shaking his head. Clearly, his loss to Fred was eating him up.
"I had you, you know," Sal blurted out. "When my flag fell, I was on the verge of promoting, and after that..." he trailed off.
Fred had heard this speech time and time again, and he was tired of it. "Sal," he began, "anyone can be a genius in six minutes."
Hey everyone. I was playing a rated game and, unfortunately, was down on points. At the endgame, I had a lone king and my opponent had Queen and three pawns. I was able to draw out the time so my opponents clock went to zero. The message that came up was "Draw; insufficient material." I lost points because of this (my rating was higher than my opponents.
Whats the deal?
(as Ray_Brooks explained in an earlier post.)
lol caissa
Good sportsmanship would dictate you resigning... but, as it is, you managed to draw someone who had you beat to thunder.
Looks like you didn't play OTB games at all. There is nothing wrong with drawing on time, beating means checkmate, no checkmate - no beating. Maybe because LQRein's opponent played slower, he got all his advantage, then he paid for that. Clock is part of the game. If his opponent couldn't win with queen and 3 pawns against bare king, too bad for him. Magnus Carlsen beat his opponents by complicating the game (not without risk), making them think hard and getting them into time trouble, where they blundered. What about his sportsmanship? Playing friendly games with your neighbor and competitive chess - two different things.
Wow, more than 10 years later I arrive at this topic :-) I find it quite ridiculous that if you win on time, you don't win. When playing live games with a time limit, running out of time should mean that you lose the game imo. That's the whole point behind having a time limit. https://www.chess.com/live/game/4226860090 - I played bad, but managed to keep pressure and slow the opponent down. Not sure how that warrants a draw
I find it quite ridiculous that if you win (???) on time, you don't win.
Your logic is faulty. If your opponent’s flag fell it doesn’t automatically mean you win on time. What it means is defined by the rules.
Wow, more than 10 years later I arrive at this topic :-) I find it quite ridiculous that if you win on time, you don't win. When playing live games with a time limit, running out of time should mean that you lose the game imo. That's the whole point behind having a time limit. https://www.chess.com/live/game/4226860090 - I played bad, but managed to keep pressure and slow the opponent down. Not sure how that warrants a draw
It looks like it was already explained pretty well why it warrants a draw. A win by time only applies if you could win anyway, without the clock. If you cant win because you only have a king, then time wont grant you a win. No amount of time would ever grant you a win. You could add on another 100 million years, you still cant win. Since neither side can possibly win (one side ran out of time, the other side ran out of pieces) a draw is the only fair result.
I also lost a rating point to the insufficient material rule last year (oh the pain!)
Seems odd when you first see it and are not expecting it but only fair when you think about it.
I wonder what is the maximum amount of material that will still trigger the chess.com 'insufficient material - draw' result?
Like for example if you have a king and a knight or a king and a bishop (can't remember if the bishop is insufficient or not) is that also 'insufficient material - draw' ?
I also lost a rating point to the insufficient material rule last year (oh the pain!)
Seems odd when you first see it and are not expecting it but only fair when you think about it.
I wonder what is the maximum amount of material that will still trigger the chess.com 'insufficient material - draw' result?
Like for example if you have a king and a knight or a king and a bishop (can't remember if the bishop is insufficient or not) is that also 'insufficient material - draw' ?
I think it depends on which pieces and also which pieces the other side has. Also, I think the rules are different for different chess organizations. For example a king and bishop against a king and bishop is a draw, but a king and bishop against a king and opposite colored bishop could be a win.
I also lost a rating point to the insufficient material rule last year (oh the pain!)
Seems odd when you first see it and are not expecting it but only fair when you think about it.
I wonder what is the maximum amount of material that will still trigger the chess.com 'insufficient material - draw' result?
Like for example if you have a king and a knight or a king and a bishop (can't remember if the bishop is insufficient or not) is that also 'insufficient material - draw' ?
I think it depends on which pieces and also which pieces the other side has. Also, I think the rules are different for different chess organizations. For example a king and bishop against a king and bishop is a draw, but a king and bishop against a king and opposite colored bishop could be a win.
Here, the material the side with time has is not counted.
https://support.chess.com/article/128-what-does-insufficient-mating-material-mean
Hey everyone. I was playing a rated game and, unfortunately, was down on points. At the endgame, I had a lone king and my opponent had Queen and three pawns. I was able to draw out the time so my opponents clock went to zero. The message that came up was "Draw; insufficient material." I lost points because of this (my rating was higher than my opponents.
Whats the deal?