Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

bug ?


  • 13 months ago · Quote · #1

    dimwittedloser

    I won on time but the computer ruled it was a draw (insufficient material). He had material. My game was  svgargaritano against  dimwittedloser. I had no pieces left but I played for time and his clock run out. How can it be that it was a draw when in fact I won on time ?

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #2

    LunarBravoX

    I Think if your in check it becomes a draw if the time limit is hit.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #3

    NimzoRoy

    @dimwittedloser How can people not know the most basic rules of a game they've played +1,000 times - literally in your case. You can't win a chess game with all the time in the world if you don't have sufficient mating material so what makes you think you're entitled to a win when your opponent runs out of time but you can't mate him or her? 

    Where's the gratitude here? You drew a game that you would've lost if your opponent didn't run out of time. Oh well at least you know all the other rules inc the 50-move rule and what constitutes a triple repetition draw  right? I think you and LunarBravoX should make sure you know all the basic rules.

    PS: The point of the clock is so that players can't just sit around forever without moving when they're busted, a frequent occurence back in "The good old days" before chess clocks were mandatory (or available). If you can't think of any other points on your own read this: http://www.chessmaniac.com/index.php/2012/06/11/the-chess-clock-a-history/

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #4

    dimwittedloser

    Then what is the point of the clock ?

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #5

    dimwittedloser

    The point is that he run out of time and I didn't. Sorry my friend, you can dress it up how you like. He used up all his time. I didn't. It may be the roolz but it's not a good one.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #6

    Kansha

    What nimzoroy has previously stated is 100% correct, dimwittedloser.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #7

    Bur_Oak

    dimwittedloser wrote:

    The point is that he run out of time and I didn't. Sorry my friend, you can dress it up how you like. He used up all his time. I didn't. It may be the roolz but it's not a good one.

    If a player can't lose on the board, he can't lose on time. Look at it this way: Suppose, hypothetically, that when your opponent's time ran out, he lost the right to move at all. You could make any number of moves you wanted. If you could never checkmate him, why should he lose? In this hypothetical scenario, the game would draw, either by the 50 move rule or repetition of position. Therefore, a draw is the ONLY fair result.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #8

    dimwittedloser

    Thanks for taking the time to answer me. Personally I still think that someone who is so up on material and fiddles around and runs out of time then he deserves to lose. How would it have been if I'd had one pawn ? Or two ? What is the cut-off ?

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #9

    NimzoRoy

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #11

    dimwittedloser

    Thanks everyone! I shall now go and lick my freshly opened wounds.Sealed


Back to Top

Post your reply: