Draw by timeout vs insufficient material?

Sort:
jetoba

The second one would also be a draw in USCF as long as the TD (arbiter) reads 14D4 and sees that White has no legal moves leading to checkmate.  Weaker TDs may not understand that and may have been missing that rule for decades.

14D4. No legal moves leading to checkmate by opponent.
There are no legal moves that could lead to the player being checkmated by the opponent. 

 

PS  A flag falling in the following position would be a draw in FIDE and USCF and a loss on chess.com:  White Ke1, Pa4, Pd4, Pg4; Black Ke8, Pa5, Pd5, Pg5.  Neither king can get past the pawns but Chess.com simply looks to see if the unflagged player's army is enough to helpmate a lone king.

sdevane
ThrillerFan wrote:
sdevane wrote:

I got a message that the game was a Draw (Timeout vs insufficient material) - I dont understand, I had time remaining and 5 pawns, they only had their King remaining. I could hav easily won woth pawn promotion or mating with a pawn triangle - why was it a draw!!!???

 

Were you the one that ran out of time?  It would be a draw then.  He has just a king, your clock expires.  Draw.

 

As someone else mentioned, the mechanism here is closest in line to USCF, though not exact as it has no incorporation of forced mate.

 

See the 2 diagrams below, both with Black to move and Black's clock running out.  The first is a win for White in FIDE and USCF, a draw here.

The second, unless USCF fixed the rule, which I doubt, is a Draw in FIDE and a win for White here or USCF.

 

 

 

AS i said, I had time left on clock - they ran out. I had 5 pawns left and a king, they only had a king and were not in check or in stalemate position.

jetoba
sdevane wrote:
ThrillerFan wrote:
sdevane wrote:

I got a message that the game was a Draw (Timeout vs insufficient material) - I dont understand, I had time remaining and 5 pawns, they only had their King remaining. I could hav easily won woth pawn promotion or mating with a pawn triangle - why was it a draw!!!???

 

Were you the one that ran out of time?  It would be a draw then.  He has just a king, your clock expires.  Draw.

...

AS i said, I had time left on clock - they ran out. I had 5 pawns left and a king, they only had a king and were not in check or in stalemate position.

About the only two things I can think of are below (there may also be something I can't think of):

1) a glitch that needs to be reported to the site

2) a disconnection or lag that didn't show your time expiring

a link to the game might help somebody more tech savvy than me to determine what happened.

Martin_Stahl
sdevane wrote:

AS i said, I had time left on clock - they ran out. I had 5 pawns left and a king, they only had a king and were not in check or in stalemate position.

 

You ran out of time: https://www.chess.com/game/live/61133463993

 

Now, that may have been due to a disconnect from the live server process or actually on time. If your opponent would have had a pawn, or other sufficient material, it would have been a time loss.

jetoba

Looking at the time stamps (5/0 time control), 

After move 36 White had 20 seconds vs Black's 32 seconds

Move 37 had White 06.5 vs 32

38:  04.2 vs 28

39:  03.3 vs 28

40:  02.2 vs 26

41:  01.5 vs 25

40:  00.4 vs 25

and then white flagged.

KING_CHIBOT

This just happened to me too. I had a king, bishop and rook and he only had a king with 30 seconds left on the click to my 1:30 and I accidentally moved my rook into a position he could capture it cause I was only focused on not making it a cats game while letting the clock wind down. It was a first for me too. So annoying, but at least I learned something new. 

BeautifulGoose

premove = solution

ChillBaguette
Ayham300

i agree with imketo. you ran out of time, and you have like for example: a queen, and the other opponent for example has a : king, you cannot mate with a king! but now if you have the opponent timed out, how is he supposed to play??? so you are left with a king and a static queen and you cannot mate your opponent.

JohnThomasBreakwood

In my opinion once you have run out of time you automatically have lost all material because you cannot make a move!! If your opponent has a King and time on their clock that seems to be an automatic victory in logical terms....the argument that there is not enough material to mate is moot because my opponent is unable to move and is essentially in check mate by the clock. 

Martin_Stahl
JohnThomasBreakwood wrote:

In my opinion once you have run out of time you automatically have lost all material because you cannot make a move!! If your opponent has a King and time on their clock that seems to be an automatic victory in logical terms....the argument that there is not enough material to mate is moot because my opponent is unable to move and is essentially in check mate by the clock. 

 

If it's impossible to checkmate, given infinite time, then it shouldn't be considered a win.

johnzgambit

I just got a draw in this way and feel kinda lucky. I ran out of time but am certain that without the clock I would have converted a pawn.

TheyCallMeBruceLee

I just encountered a Draw "insufficient material" when I feel like I should have won on time-out. I had only my King, but they had a Queen, King and a Pawn. How is that possible insufficient material when queen king end game is a well known end game. Anyone with thoughts, I'd appreciate.  

jetoba
TheyCallMeBruceLee wrote:

I just encountered a Draw "insufficient material" when I feel like I should have won on time-out. I had only my King, but they had a Queen, King and a Pawn. How is that possible insufficient material when queen king end game is a well known end game. Anyone with thoughts, I'd appreciate.  

Please read through the thread.

 

 

If you are still uncertain after doing so then please explain how the lone king could somehow checkmate the other player.

TheyCallMeBruceLee
shangtsung111 wrote:
TheyCallMeBruceLee wrote:

I just encountered a Draw "insufficient material" when I feel like I should have won on time-out. I had only my King, but they had a Queen, King and a Pawn. How is that possible insufficient material when queen king end game is a well known end game. Anyone with thoughts, I'd appreciate.  

 

 

if its your last game you are mentioning. you made your last move just in time close to zero but you still had time.your opponent however might think you lost on time ,hesitated or had connection issue.whatever the reason he ran out of time.he should have lost on time if you had one more piece.but you had only king so winning was impossible,thats why it says insufficient and draw.

 

Kind regards and thanks for not being a snob like the last guy. I guess this just seems like another stupid chess rule, IMO. Person lost on timeout, seems like they should lose. Same for me IMO that Stalemate is kind of silly. When you are winning so much the other person can't move, that's a win in any other sport. Chess is funny like that. Have a nice day. We learn together, thanks for teaching a bit, and again, not being a snob as so often happens in this game. Kind regards, have a nice day. 

 

jetoba

I wrote my response at 3 AM when my bladder woke me up but I still say you should read the thread.  It also gives examples and explains why chess.com would declare time-out draws in positions that FIDE/USCF would call time-out wins and why chess.com would declare time-out wins in positions that FIDE/USCF would call draws.  Page 4 has examples of those explanations that have been repeated multiple times.

Allen314

i agree its a stupid rule. if you run out of time you should lose, it's that simple .

Allen314

unfortunately fide doesn't consult me on these things... they definitely should...

Martin_Stahl
Allen314 wrote:

i agree its a stupid rule. if you run out of time you should lose, it's that simple .

 

If it would be impossible to mate, given infinite time and worst play by your opponent, a win condition is nonsensical.

blueemu

A curious coincidence:

Pretty well everybody who complains about the stalemate rule turns out to be butt-hurt over carelessly dropping half a point to a needless stalemate.

Instead of trying to change the rules of the game, why not just play with a bit more care?

jetoba
blueemu wrote:

A curious coincidence:

Pretty well everybody who complains about the stalemate rule turns out to be [bothered] over carelessly dropping half a point to a needless stalemate.

Instead of trying to change the rules of the game, why not just play with a bit more care?

Most of the people complaining about stalemate say that stalemating the opponent should be a win.

If FIDE made that change then a lone king could get a lot of timeout wins (K vs K+aPawn or K vs K+hPawn is an obvious potential stalemate with White Kc1 and Black Ka1 Pa2 as one example).  For that matter, there are a number of possible stalemates even without an a or h pawn on the board (White Kh8, Bh7, Rg7, Pg6, Pf6, promoted Ba2 and Black Kd8 with the moves Ba2g8 Ke8, f7+ Kf8 stalemate).

If people are complaining now about ceding a stalemate draw when they are way ahead in material I have to wonder how they will feel about losing to a lone king.