So, no one has any evidence, except for empirical one.

All I have learned from this little exercise is what I already know (but it's good to repeat it), and that's , whats reasonable/normal/standard for one person doesn't necessarily mean that it's the same for other persons.

So it appears that we have a different expectations from chess.com, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Peace.

This seems like a sensible proposal, but note that this is not exactly the same as enforcing the FIDE rule. The latter would seem to require adjudicating as to whether the draw offer is "reasonable." For all we know, it might be. But again, this is a sensible proposal for a website.

You are clearly incapable of understanding.  Peace on you too.

Yep, also 5.2.b, 6.9. But it's not defined as "insufficient material", in-fact material is not mentioned anywhere. Because, in blocked positions you can have a lot of material, and still you would not be able to checkmate.

That's why I said "so called" as the FIDE rule is more generic and it covers a situation where a casual definition as "insufficient material" would fail.

So are you.

Some more things to note: the "offer draw" button also functions as a "claim draw" button in some situations. In fast games, I often press the button several times because I am not certain whether the repetition has taken place, and my opponents do this too. I don't think that these should be taken to constitute unreasonable or annoying draw offers. In addition, when premoving or moving very fast in time scramble, it is easy to overlook a draw offer which you might have wanted to accept.

Edit: Frankly, I am not sure why it is not easier to just ignore draw offers than to institute some special mechanisms to deal with this, which might also not be perfect.

 hmm, but surely, since this automatically controlled via software, it would be possible to limit draw offers to one until a further move has taken place ?

declining the draw is clear & that refusal should be ensured..

Yes, my point was that not stating that you don't operate under a particular ruleset doesn't mean that you do.

There are multiple interpretations of the rules of chess (FIDE vs USCF for example), that at times conflict -- chess.com doesn't state that it doesn't adhere to FIDE, yet it also doesn't state that it doesn't ahere to USCF.  So it must adhere to both?  What happens when they contradict each other?

Incidentally, here are chess.com's rules regarding game play:

http://www.chess.com/learn-how-to-play-chess.html

And here are chess.com's rules regarding member conduct:

http://www.chess.com/legal.html

I would say that far more compelling than the fact than that either fails to cite FIDE or USCF is the fact that they attempt to enumerate the rules, and also that they're peppered with comments like this:

Some Tournament Rules

Many tournaments follow a set of common, similar rules. These rules do not necessarily apply to play at home or online.

...

What other websites do is entirely irrelevant. 

While it may be irrelevant to some, others does observe what other respectable sites do.

And:

1. xxxx   provides basic rules,  link to FIDE at the bottom of the page

2. xxxx   links to wiki page which has many sources, also many sub-pages

3. xxxx - "the document is based on FIDE laws of chess" , provides basic rules and link to FIDE.

...

[edited by a site moderator: erik prohibits advertising other sites on this site.

regards,]

Some sites allow engine use -- should chess.com have to adopt those rules too?

you said that, and you're distorting the discussion.

Some sites also doesn't not allow dragging out a lost game, and you championed that attitude in one of your posts. I liked it.

I'm not the one distorting the discussion, I'm highlighting why reference to what other sites do is not relevant here.  Citing the other sites in the first place is distorting the discussion.  Chess.com has their own rules, and while they adhere quite closely to FIDE rules, they are not FIDE rules.

I have opinions about what is sporting conduct, and I suspect we'd largely agree on these, but I also have opinions about what a pragmatic approach to policing these things would look like, and here we clearly do not.  These opinions are really moot anyway, as chess.com clearly already has a practice in place that reflects their philosophy on this issue.  For those that don't like it, there are other sites with other ruleset implementations that you may find more to your liking.  That's business.

Just ignore the offer and checkmate him. The game is over!

This is something most of us said in our own words. As rules of chess on every site I know does indeed does follow a spirit of FIDE where is applicable, or if it does not generate extra costs, and that is OK.

For example 50 moves rule was changed several times in history to allow a win with best play for some positions, but later its again reverted to 50 moves. None of the sites I know have for example 75 moves allowed for QvBB endgame.

And the rule which is usually not enforced is the concerning the legality of the moves due to a computer check(you can not leave your knig in check), but I believe it's a good compromise.

Sorry, we're not having that, far too simple for Chess.com.

to moderator, referencing is not advertising, but I do understand your position on this.

My impression was that chess.com tries to adhere to FIDE rules when it is practical to do so. The software doesn't recognize all drawn positions according to FIDE not because it shouldn't, but because it can't, at least that's what I think I was told by someone of the staff at some point. Like Fezzik, I see no reason why chess.com wouldn't adhere to this one, except if it puts too high a workload on the arbiter to adjudicate stuff like this. I would also advocate Fezzik's solution; as inferior as online chess is when it comes to human interaction, it has an advantage in that it can use software restrictions to keep down annoyments such as this and lower the workload of arbiters.

I'm pretty sure that the expectation that the site try to adhere to FIDE rules doesn't require an actual mention of them in the site rules to be warranted. This site has players from all over the world; the FIDE rules are the ones that players all over the world will be equally familiar with. The USCF rules get an honorable mention since the site and its owner are based in the US, I guess, though when in doubt I'd still prefer the FIDE rules to take precedence (given that they are actually available to the general public). That might just be my Germanness talking.