Chess.com sneaks a cheap shot

I tried to read all the comments here before I decided to post, so I apologize if I'm simply echoing something that's already been said.

I understand the scenario is:

1. Your opponent ran out of time.
2. You ran out of power.

Neither of you have what it takes to win at this point, so the rules calling this a draw seem very appropriate.

So K vs K should be a draw? Well, in K vs K situations, both sides are equal on the board, while one side has an advantage in time (unless when the game reaches K vs K both sides have exactly the same amount of time). When one side has lone King and the other side has material but runs out of time, then the side with the lone King has an advantage in time, but the other side has an advantage in time. So in other words ur saying:

If one side has an advantage in time, and is equal on the board with the other side then it is a draw, but

If one side has an advatage in time and a disadvantage on the board, then that side wins.

Now, does that make sense? In scenario 1 the side with the time advantage is better off than in scenario 2, since in scenario 1 he isn't losing on the board but in 2 he is. Yet in scenario 1 he gets a draw, but in 2 you think he should win.

Because you think you win on time then you can win the game. In fact you are at disadvantage on the board and can't win.

How about your opponent should win because he had advantage on the board and checkmate you if he had time left. He was the one who should complain.

We've known the whole time that you're whining, even though you insisted for a long time that you know the rules when you clearly don't. Now you are changing your story but it doesn't change anything else.

If you play like a baboon and lose all your material, you don't deserve a win, however good you are at time-control. You are in a position where, even if your opponent tried to help you, you still couldn't checkmate.

The rules as they stand are both fair and rational, you are just whining because you didn't get a win that you don't deserve.

Once you lack mating material, you can't win anymore.

Which sucks. Why have a clock then? -_-

My gosh. It is as simple as.

Normal Chess: If their clock runs out, you win!

This-Idea: If the clock runs out, it does not matter because no one could not mate anyone-anyway.

Come on! -Time is still an advantage! - Let Us Keep The Advantage Man!

plz read post #68, and say a few words about your thoughts on it.

Thoughts do not seem to be something he is familiar with.

Some think the clock is more important than chess skill. Why should a player with worse chess skill have to win vs a better one?

It's a clear who's better skill. Just look at the board.

Actually, I think it's a very good point that Macer brought up.

Let's assume that we have a situation where you have 1 minute on the clock, and your opponent has 3 minutes. Now:

• if it's a dead-drawn (possible blunders notwithstanding) position, like a rook ending with a balanced pawn structure on both sides, then you can call an arbiter, and in most cases will be able to have the game adjudicated as a draw due to "insufficient losing chances" or similar;
• if you have a clear material and/or positional advantage on the board, there is no grounds to have the game adjudicated - you will have to play on, and will probably lose due to not having enough time to convert the advantage into an actual win.

Thus, the situation is really somewhat paradoxical: with an even position and a time disadvantage you get a draw (based on the positon being drawn, regardless of the clock), but with a won position and a time disadvantage you probably get a loss (due to the time disadvantage - nobody cares that your position is won). How does that add up?

How is it that it is considered unsporty to try to win on time in a drawn position (hence the likely draw adjudication by the arbiter), but it is considered OK to win on time in a lost position?

Exactly. I like the way you summed it up in the last paragraph - it's a lot clearer than how I put it.

Good point #76.

Actually, with a completely won position and down on time, you can claim an immediate draw from the arbiter. I don't know why you think otherwise.

Also, arbiters will most likely not make a draw ruling if it's a roughly equal middlegame or endgame with many pawns and pieces still on the board, unless it's a fortress or totally blocked position or some other exceptional case. It really must be a DEAD draw for them to make the judgement, and you must demonstrate knowledge of the drawing method.

So basically overwhelming board advantage -> draw; equal but not dead drawn position -> no draw.

As you seem not to have noticed, this thread is about a live chess rule implemented on chess.com. Jaaas is refuting the OP through a ridiculous hypothetical situation that would arise from the latter's proposal.

As I indeed have not noticed, not reading most of the thread up till now. My bad there. And I am aware of the live chess rule and accept it due to arbiters being obviously unavailable.

...and I'll step right back out of this thread. Reasoning with some people requires patience I do not possess.

Y'know, if i was ever in an endgame where i was a King vs King+Queen+pawn...man, i would thank Chess.com for this rule! Guess for me, even in an bullet or blitz game, to depend on the clock to somehow justify my own bad play isn't fair in itself. The side with the winning material, i can understand being cheesed...but even he probably can't argue the point. He was "losing" on time, ergo there wasn't any chance he could win either. It was an "fair" ruling all-around, i'd say.

So...

If A has a king and B a king, the game is drawn.

If A has king+queen and B a king, but A loses on time, B should win.

Don't you think that logic is a bit odd ?

Um...You need retire because you have a bad memory probably resulting in your old age. From the very first post I was asking if it was trully official rules or not. Before this whole thing I had the underfstanding that the clock was more important. That if you run out of time you lose; no exception. Which in turn helped create the way I play chess: with a respect for the clock. I had the understanding that the clock was more deadly than it really is. Before this thread I had never heard otherwise. In blitz chess one should not improve, concentrate, and excel in one area: proper chess strategy and accurate play; doing at the expense of the other: respecting the clock and properly using the time given to you.

Bean_fischer: Don't get sassy about more skill. I played you in online chess. You are rated over 1700 and I under 1600. I won, because even though I blundered, you blundered worse. If you are a solid 1700 then either you had a bad game or 1700s are really bad. 

Macer and all others with arguements: You make it sound simple, however with my previous understanding of a clock's importance and power, in my mind I understood it as fair. I expected a win because it was unheard of to me for someone to not lose on time if their clock ran out. In all of the tournaments I have played in I have never heard of this rule. But, now that I have, it does make a little sense, even though I still think a time-out should be a loss no matter what the situation. I will simply have to play with a different mind-set. Of course K-K situations should be a draw automatically. There is not chance for either to win because nobody even has the material to give it a try and out-do clock time. There is not opportunity.

Jebus, how'd you ever even get in such a situation?  When your opponent has scads of material and you have your king:  resign.

Why would I do that if he is going to run out of time? lol