Chess.com sneaks a cheap shot

I am still waiting for an answer to that, Xieff.

If you are honest and not trolling, you have two options : admit that strikingly shocking result comes directly from your suggested modified rule, but still support it, or drop the suggestion altogether.

If you are a troll, you can proceed to ignore me and/or challenge me for a match to settle the matter and/or insult me, all of this without answering the point.

Interesting. I wasn't aware that by the USCF rulest pawns can go backwards.

EDIT: You edited the post and removed your "suggestion" to move the pawn backwards. Now your post still does not make sense, as you just changed the postition with the pawn on h4 instead of h4 where it's supposed to be.

Sober up, see a doctor, or just stop trolling.

Go two pages back to post #117 to see what the original position shown by HattrickStinkyduiker (which I was referring to) was.

Besides, your "If Nf2 then that means the pawn is going closer to the bottom.  It would have been an a6 move if it was from black's perspective.  The knight move would have been Nc7."  babble makes no sense at all.

Gee... it isn't from any particular game (anyway, since when does a position need to be from an actual game to be valid?).

HattrickStinkyduiker simply brought up an example position which presents a corner case where the simplified USCF rules implemented by Chess.com fail, giving Black an unjust draw if he lets his time run out instead of making the forced move that leads to him being checkmated.

Your babble does not make any sense whatsoever. Either you don't have a clue what you are talking about, or you're going out of your way to troll.

If you "fail to see the merit" in why that position was posted, then don't discuss it, it's as easy as that. People who question and attack things just because their ignorance doesn't allow them to understand those things are indeed tiring. By saying that positions that aren't known to have appeared in an actual game make no sense you are stripping yourself of any credibility.

That's HattrickStinkyduiker's position turned around and with colors swapped (but otherwise exactly equivalent). So what? What is the point exactly?

HattrickStinkyduiker's position was posted to give an example of something you obviously fail to grasp (even though it is shown plain as day in the first post of this page). The position you slapped together seems to have no point to it whatsoever - at least you didn't give any description as to what it would be supposed to illustrate (as a matter of fact, with eleven queens it is invalid, and it doesn't even state what side is to move).

It is apparent that you cannot be taken seriously, and engaging in dialogue with you is a mere waste of time. Sigh.

Iron tiger: I do think B should win. Simply because I had never heard otherwise until now. I do realize the rules now though thanks to all of you guys. :) I do not troll. I am the ultimate anti-troll.(I should start an off-topic topic about that) The only reason I challenged ivan is because he talked about how bad I play and that I "should play better on the board instead of just playing for time", so I wanted to play him and win so he can sit in his own sh*t. lol ---> I was not angry and do not get angry on the internet. When people call names or insult I just throw it right back at them. It doesn't bother me but I do like to see how they handle their own sh*t. Sorry if it came accross that way...I was just like "what the devil" because I had never even imagined such a rule. lol :D I will get used to it though. After all it doesn't actually happen that much so it's not really a problem. I would like to play you still though so I am gonna challenge you. You don't have to accept but it would be fun so...it's up to you. Anybody here, I will accept challenges. I like playing extra games especially if they are tough ones. :)

I'm 17 btw. And yes, that was a good tournament for me. I actually focused on the positions really hard and cut out as many distractions as possible. I used to have a problem where I would move far too fast making mistakes. But I have successfully overcome that nightmare. :)

Blah blah blah... Here you go : "me" versus "myself and I, consultation" ; 2h/side :

Fantastic, the position has been reached (with mistakes, but how is it of any importance when discussing the rule ?). Now what ?

So, assuming your new rules, the following ending would be standard tournament play :

Well, I hope not to see that anyday soon. 

Your opponent was penalized by only getting a half point instead of the full point.  I think that was penalty enough.  I think the rules are fair.  Just because someone with a lone king can run naked all over the board and avoid checkmate, doesn't mean he deserves a win, in fact, you should have resigned. Just my opinion.....

The only reason I thought it unfair is because I played with respect for the clock and I thought time-outs were a loss no matter what. I wasn't informed is all. So since he was majorly down on time I figured it was fair that he "lose" because I thought that was the rules. Cuz I had a great respect for the clock and not running out of time. Now that we have all discussed it I guess it sounds fair. Cuz in blitz it just doesn't happen that much and in longer games there shouldn't be that little time left on the clock. (at least it doesn't happen that much to me) And yes irontiger by my rules which aren't official. It will never happen so don't freak you eyeballs out. Cmon can ya at least play a game??? Puuleeez. ^__^

If you had looked at the "game" I posted, you would have realized the final position is not a mate.

If your chess skills are as good as your understanding skills, I will help you : in the final position, White has the legal move 46.a6-a7. I hope you know algebraic notation.

I will help you further to understand : actually 46.a6-a7 is the only legal move for White, after what Black will indeed mate by 46...Nb5-c7#.

But the position itself is not a mate, so by chess.com rules about insufficient material, White should let his clock run instead of playing his forced move, so that he gets a draw instead of a mate.

The fact that the position was reached after mistakes is of absolutely no importance when discussing a rule. Which makes your demand to know how the position some guy posted (p)ages ago came on the board completely unwarranted.

Was about to ask the same thing.

The silliness of this "reasoning" is baffling. If presented with a "mate in 2" problem, will you reject it as invalid, and demand a list of moves leading to the given position all the way from the starting position in order to accept it...? I reckon that you reject the FEN position notation format altogether as well, accepting only PGNs containing a complete move list from the beginning?

Regarding the additional regulations you are so desperately trying to cling to, particularly FIDE Laws of Chess Article 10:

• it is in effect only when sudden-death (i.e. no per-move increment) time controls are employed - if the game is played with Fischer-style increments, Article 10 has no effect;
• it can only be made use of by a player who has less than two minutes on the clock and it is his/her move - if you have more and/or it's the opponents move, you cannot make any use of FIDE Article 10.
• regulations requiring an arbiter intervention to enforce (such as FIDE Article 10, USCF "insufficient losing chances", etc.) are obviously inherently irrelevant on online chess servers, be it Playchess, Chess.com, or elsewhere. There is no arbiter you could summon to adjudicate such a game while it is in progress. As such, only general rules that determine a presence/lack of mating material (that I lined out in detail) are decisive.

"If it is a "problem", no.  If it is part of a game, I will want to see the game.  I will hold judgement just like an arbiter would."

A position is a position is a position, simply. In case you weren't aware, there are positions from actual games presented as problems, too. Nobody in their right mind would demand a move list for that.

To assess a position, regardless if this would mean an evaluation, a search for the best move, or determining what side has (according to a given rule set) mating material, only the position itself is necessary (assuming there is no ambiguity on castling rights and en passant, if these are relevant). Which of the sheer multitude of possible combinations of moves (if there is any specific one at all) has led to a given position is entirely meaningless. I suppose you would demand a list of past moves even if presented with a retrograde analysis problem (while determining precisely that might be the actual task to be performed by the problem solver).

"If the time is 2:01 or longer, then all the opposing side has to do is wait until it reaches 2:00.  You are spending a lot of time addressing red herrings than actually discussing the issue of the original topic."

If it's the opponent's move, you cannot use Article 10, and your time won't decrease below 2 minutes either if it hasn't already and your opponent chooses not to make a move and let his time run out instead.

It's your own retorts that deserve to be called "red herrings". Somehow you're the only one who raises these funky objections. Given your outlandish reasoning, an argument with you sadly resembles one with a kindergarten kid that merely uses adult-level vocabulary.

Whoa. These cerebral-types can really shovel it, huh? Even as the OP openly admitted his failing to know the rules governing time & insufficient material. (btw, at 17, you're still a "kid" in my book! Heh.)

8)

Nowhere. It's the way it goes on chess.com servers, not a federation rule. In OTB, the "insufficient material" is much more stringent, thus running out of time in a matable position is lost, because on the other hand the arbiter would adjudicate the draw in obvious positions - chess.com just cannot put an arbiter behind each person, hence the more lax "insufficient material" rules.

Are you paying any attention ? Or do you just like strawmen ?