Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Draws


  • 24 months ago · Quote · #61

    Elubas

    So you're saying that if there isn't a forced win, the game has to be declared drawn? But what if someone wants to see if his opponent hangs his rook? If one side in the king and rook situation hung their rook, then they would be losing.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #62

    piphilologist

    ChessisGood wrote:

    If a player rated 200 points higher offered you a draw on the first move, would you accept it? If not, why? No, why waste an opportunity to play a strong player?

    You have even material against a player rated 200 points lower than you. Looking at the board, you see that he has a mate in 5. You are not sure if he sees it, but he offers you a draw. Do you accept it? Yes, however if the mate is very difficult to see and I think he will not see it I might continue.

    You are beating your opponent in a R+B vs. R endgame. You have about five seconds left, plus the five second delay. Your opponent has 20 minutes. He offers you a draw. Do you accept it? If I was in a favourable position (possibly won) I would play on but if it was an obviously drawn position I would accept.

    You are a whole point ahead of everyone in the last round of the tournament, except for your opponent, who has 1/2 point less. A draw will get you first place. Your opponent knows this, but a draw will get him clear 2nd as well. There is a lot of money involved, and your opponent asks you if you want a draw before the round actually starts. What do you say? A draw can only be agreed during the game, not beforehand, but I would probably accept.

    You are allowed one game with analysis against the GM of your choice. On the twelfth move, you see a way to get a quick repetition. Do you take it? No of course not why waste an opportunity to play a GM

    You are playing a blitz game against an equal opponent. You each have only a queen, but he has 10 seconds and no delay. You have plenty of time, but he offers a draw. Do you accept? No, if it's blitz 10.2 doesn't apply as the clock is an integral part of the game and I would play on looking for cheapos or a win on time.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #63

    Irontiger

    Elubas wrote:

    So you're saying that if there isn't a forced win, the game has to be declared drawn? But what if someone wants to see if his opponent hangs his rook? If one side in the king and rook situation hung their rook, then they would be losing.

    Just be serious. Ok, when playing K+R vs. K+N the opponent can blunder, but vs. K+R ?

    Do you think that in a rated tournament, at a 1600+ level, a player would hang a rook in that situation ?

    Imagine someone trying this at the World Championship. It should be enough to convince you that this "just to see" stuff is just a poor excuse for playing the clock.

    Besides, FIDE rules specify that if a player does not try to win "by normal means", the opponent, if under 2 min. time, can ask the arbiter for a draw. In K+R vs K+R I can't imagine he would hesitate. So yes, you can be a jerk and see if the opponent will dare calling the arbiter, or you can play chess.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #64

    Elubas

    I don't think it's likely, but if you are tested to hold king and rook vs king and rook, you should prove it. It's a simple position, but even simple positions have strategy to them, as narrow as the strategy may be.

    How is "normal means" defined?

    And again, playing the clock is legitimate. If it took you most of the time off of your clock to reach a drawn position, it's your responsibility to keep yourself from flagging. Don't like that? Move faster next time, and there will be absolutely no problem. Good players are able to get good positions and not flag. You have to do both; not just one.

    This comes from somebody who has lost countless games due to time pressure; I don't use that as an excuse. I'm timed out in 0 increment blitz games all the time; but you know what? No matter how good my position was, it was my fault for using too much time to get it.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #65

    AnthonyCG

    Elubas wrote:

    I don't think it's likely, but if you are tested to hold king and rook vs king and rook, you should prove it. It's a simple position, but even simple positions have strategy to them, as narrow as the strategy may be.

    How is "normal means" defined?

    And again, playing the clock is legitimate. If it took you most of the time off of your clock to reach a drawn position, it's your responsibility to keep yourself from flagging. Don't like that? Move faster next time, and there will be absolutely no problem. Good players are able to get good positions and not flag. You have to do both; not just one.

    This comes from somebody who has lost countless games due to time pressure; I don't use that as an excuse. I'm timed out in 0 increment blitz games all the time; but you know what? No matter how good my position was, it was my fault for using too much time to get it.

    There's no such thing as holding a K+R v K+R because it can't be won...

    What you are suggesting is for wins to be had because one player is faster and not because they played better chess. The rules are set to prevent that very scenario as much as possible. The clock was never introduced to be a primary means of getting a win. The clock just keeps us from sitting there all day. That's it...

    It is not and has never been as important as the other means of gaining a decision. It's there only to make the players speed up. But the rules do not allow play to continue if neither side can force checkmate. This rule overrides the clock.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #66

    Elubas

    K+R vs K+R can be won if one side blunders a rook.

    I totally understand why you want to bend the rules. It's just that, bending rules means assuming things. When you bend a rule, you have to make a judgment call ("Well I think this position is obviously drawn") that's subject to personal opinion. Then you can use your own opinion to justify anything.

    Isn't that a decent concern? Isn't it reasonable to want to leave personal opinion out of this?

    In any case, I think that time is just as important as good moves. It's my opinion, and I apologize if people think that makes me a jerk; it's what I believe in, so I'm not going to change it for the sake of everyone else. (You see the problem here? Both of us have different opinions about time; that's precisely why it's ideal for both sides to adapt to an objective rule that isn't subject to personal disposition, and that applies to flagging too)

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #67

    ivandh

    That's not just being a jerk, that's being a sociopath. Saying "that's what I believe in" does not allow you to put yourself over common courtesy.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #68

    Elubas

    [For some reason when I posted a new comment it edited this one. Ivandh isn't crazy guys; I'm just too lazy to re-type what he was responding to!]

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #69

    ivandh

    I don't "believe in" anything, except that people who think their beliefs take precedence over other human beings are dangerous to humanity.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #70

    Elubas

    I apply it to myself too. Today I was in a blitz game, made a clear mouse slip, my opponent out of kindness offered me a draw, but I resigned instead. At least I'm not a hypocrite -- I may want others to take responsibility for mouse slips, but I also take responsibility.

    My morals aren't bad, just messed up Laughing What's funny is that I usually either have moral ideas that people either think are extremely (almost cloyingly) moral -- like being against jokes because they come at someone else's expense, or not stealing even if it's to save my family (sometimes people think this is very immoral as well!) -- or they think I'm really immoral when it comes to things like these. Strange isn't it? Laughing

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #71

    Silfir

    Elubas wrote:

    K+R vs K+R can be won if one side blunders a rook.

    I totally understand why you want to bend the rules. It's just that, bending rules means assuming things. When you bend a rule, you have to make a judgment call ("Well I think this position is obviously drawn") that's subject to personal opinion. Then you can use your own opinion to justify anything.

    Isn't that a decent concern? Isn't it reasonable to want to leave personal opinion out of this?

    In any case, I think that time is just as important as good moves. It's my opinion, and I apologize if people think that makes me a jerk; it's what I believe in, so I'm not going to change it for the sake of everyone else. (You see the problem here? Both of us have different opinions about time; that's precisely why it's ideal for both sides to adapt to an objective rule that isn't subject to personal disposition, and that applies to flagging too)

    That's fine, except he's not bending the rules, you are. (Or you're not bothering to read them, which isn't much better.) The FIDE rules and USCF rules talk at length about the ability to claim a draw if the opponent isn't trying to achieve a win through normal means. That speaks volumes about what the rules of chess have to say on the topic of the clock. The rules of chess are not subject to opinion.

    There are exceptions to that rule in the context of blitz, and in that case, playing for the clock seems to be legal and moral to me.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #72

    Elubas

    Well, although it's true that the rules of chess aren't subject to opinion, the terminology used in the stating of the rule, "normal means," involves a subjective judgment of the position, doesn't it? What's the definition of "normal means?" I know I'm being fastidious here, but I just think it's simpler to do without adjudication entirely. I don't like adjudication, because it will always be based on someone's own opinion.

    "There are exceptions to that rule in the context of blitz, and in that case, playing for the clock seems to be legal and moral to me."

    Even in that K+R vs K+R position?

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #73

    Silfir

    Elubas wrote:

    Well, although it's true that the rules of chess aren't subject to opinion, the terminology used in the stating of the rule, "normal means," involves a subjective judgment of the position, doesn't it? What's the definition of "normal means?" I know I'm being fastidious here, but I just think it's simpler to do without adjudication entirely. I don't like adjudication, because it will always be based on someone's own opinion.

    "There are exceptions to that rule in the context of blitz, and in that case, playing for the clock seems to be legal and moral to me."

    Even in that K+R vs K+R position?

    There is little doubt as to what "normal means" refers to in this context, I'm afraid.

    I agree that it's simpler to do without adjudication, but AnthonyCG has been spot on about the history and purpose of the clock. It was never meant to decide games on its own, or to change the truth of a position. That's why the rules are the way they are. True, the result of the adjudication will be dependant on the arbiter, but arbiters at the highest levels generally know just as well what they're doing as soccer referees, baseball umpires and so on. Whether the rules should be like this or not is a different question. I don't think long-form chess is about the clock, so I like the rules as they are.

     

    As for when the rule isn't in effect? Now that there's no mechanism present designed to stop you from doing it, I'd say it's perfectly fair game to play for the clock. That includes a K+R vs K+R position.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #74

    ChessisGood

    The most recent USCF rules requires you to play out the position of K+R v. K+R unless both players agree to a draw.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #75

    Silfir

    Well, could you provide me with the relevant text? Because I find that very hard to believe.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #76

    Elubas

    Silfir wrote:
    Elubas wrote:

    Well, although it's true that the rules of chess aren't subject to opinion, the terminology used in the stating of the rule, "normal means," involves a subjective judgment of the position, doesn't it? What's the definition of "normal means?" I know I'm being fastidious here, but I just think it's simpler to do without adjudication entirely. I don't like adjudication, because it will always be based on someone's own opinion.

    "There are exceptions to that rule in the context of blitz, and in that case, playing for the clock seems to be legal and moral to me."

    Even in that K+R vs K+R position?

    There is little doubt as to what "normal means" refers to in this context, I'm afraid.

    As for when the rule isn't in effect? Now that there's no mechanism present designed to stop you from doing it, I'd say it's perfectly fair game to play for the clock. That includes a K+R vs K+R position.

    It's hard to pinpoint "normal means" though. Does the player need to be making a set number of moves in a certain amount of time to be considered "playing too fast to not be playing for the clock?" Does the player have to be using a specific strategy, e.g., moving the rook back and forth? If he instead plays different moves each time but still quickly, does it become normal means? Does the player have to be looking at the clock a set number of times to indicate that he cares about the clock? My point is that the determination of normal means isn't as incontrovertible as, say, checkmate.

    "As for when the rule isn't in effect? Now that there's no mechanism present designed to stop you from doing it, I'd say it's perfectly fair game to play for the clock. That includes a K+R vs K+R position."

    Ok Smile Because I'm not sure on the specifics of the OTB rules. But you're saying that if it's within the rules, there is no moral problem with it. lol, you're probably the only one who agrees with me.

    For the record, I think there are strategies one can use to try to win K+R vs K+R. Sure, they probably won't work, but just like in any position, anything is possible. I would probably prepare lateral checks with my rook, and I'd be looking out for this one trick: If my king is attacking his rook, and his king is protecting his rook, I would be trying to use a rook check to either pull his king away from his rook, or try to skewer the king and rook with a check along the same line. I've allowed this idea to be performed on me before! It's plausible for a player to keep his rook and king close, but that does put the player at risk for this deflection/skewer idea. Not to mention the rook being outright hung.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #77

    gards1964

    My reading of insufficient losing chances (USCF 14H) in sudden death seems to give the TD a great deal of latitude. Although there are no options if a time delay clock is in use.There are 4 options available. First the TD does not consider ratings of players or the time available in making a ruling.

    • Option 1 claim of insufficent material is unclear and delay clock is available - add delay clock continue play.
    • Option 2 claim is unclear and no delay clock available then either deny the claim or watch the play for a bit and try to make determination prior to flag fall.
    • Option 3 claim is clear declare game drawn based on if Class C player would have little chance to lose the draw v Master (10% or less chance)
    • Option 4 claim is clearly incorrect then deny the claim and subtract time from the claimants clock.

    Note there is advice to use add the delay clock if the desire is the decision to be determined by the players which is almost always the TDs perspective.

    Note, the discussionabove  is only for sudden death play. Why? Because clock is the determining factor prior to sudden death. In other words, a # of moves in a time control. You either make or you don't. Insufficient winning chances are mute prior to that from my reading or are addressed in 14D which is below.

    14D discussing material insufficient to continue. It consists of KvK, KvK+B, KvK+N, K+BvK+B same color. K+RvK+R is not addressed. 14I Advice on insuffiecient losing chances in sudden death (note the qualifier)14I4 discussing K+RvK+R, the draw should be awarded unless it is one of the rare positions in which there is a quick forced win. It is assumed the TD will know these positions or will ask for assistance from a non-interested Master.

    Blitz adds a few different considerations. 1st insufficent losing chances has to be advertised in advance if it is to be used so it is not allowed in standard USCF blitz games. IF advertised then:

    • both players have one identical piece AND neither side can show forced win. (this seems to captured K+RvK+R most of the time)
    • K+Bv K+B opposite color Bs
    • K+Rpawn v K once defender on rook file in front of pawn  K+pawnvK is drawn if defender directly in front of pawn and not on 7th rank
    • K+R+Rpawn v K+R is draw is pawn blocked by K and no immmediate win.

    If no advertised Insufficent losing Chances then Draws are limited to 4 options.

    • stalemate
    • agreement
    • second flag falls after 1st flag falls and no win on time claimed
    • insufficient mating material for player when the opponent flag falls or makes illegal move

    That's my reading of the rules on this. YMMV.


Back to Top

Post your reply: