OMG such a long thread for something that happens often to everyone of us... just play the next one and thats all.

               R I D D L E M E T H I S ?              

If you was in your opponents shoes would you have moved your pawn at move 42 to reset the 50 move draw rule back to 0 ?

Here is where I have been pinning my argument it was certainly clear and both players had proven they knew it.

I'm with aln67. I agree it happens every day. My purpose of starting this thread was to see if it would gain support to improve the emulation of an OTB setting. Apparently most people here are not only content with the current system, they prefer it. In an OTB setting, this would have been ruled a draw, most likely without interference from a TD, but certainly if one was called over. Some have said him ending it would be arbitrary. I agree it would be. But that is a major part of being a TD or any official...to ARBITRATE disputes. My dispute arose not that I lost on time, but that I lost what both me and my opponent convincgly demonsrtated we knew was a drawn position. Since all meaningfull attempt at finishing the game had been abandoned, in OTB setting it would have been ruled a draw as the purpose of clocks is to ensure games do not reach past a certain length and both the 50 move rule and three-fold repition is to declare draws once it has been shown that no win could be reached (the fact that 3-fold repition is in the rule book proves this - any constantly repeating position will eventually reach the 50 move rule, and any impasse will eventually have the same position three times...eventually). But the ultimate goal is always to have the result determined as much as possible by actual play. Therefore, once all meaningul play has stopped, the game can be ended immediately.

Some of what I may not have considered is possibly how rare OTB may have become. I run a chess club and probably 1/4 of my members had never played an OTB game until they came to my club. I, on the other hand, grew up with no internet until I was at university. Perhaps the online chess community views the opportunity to win by drawing out a game and winning on clock an perfectly acceptable and effective strategy rather than poor sportsmanship. Growing up for me, it was definitely the latter and why such rules were invented to begin with (so a person couldn't just prolong a game indefinitely once they knew they could not win - I mean, after all, the three-move repition rule wouldn't have been invented if people actually always played fair, they would recognize there was an impasse and just agree to a draw, but because they didn't, the rule was made).

no, I have never made anyone play out to 50 moves. Once I see a drawn position and am comfortable he won't blunder it, I pre-emptively offer the draw.

Incorrect!

If your opponent knew it was a draw game. He would of offered you a draw.

The reason he did not offer you a draw is because he knew he could win won time. Simply because you used up to much time in your game.

There's more than one way to win. Time is one of those ways. It's not a draw. You lost on time. End of story.

You haven't been wronged, there's no error... your opponent empolyeed a perfectly valid and legal strategy to win the chess game. 

Congrats to your opponent. 

Basically, you are saying you would rather draw than win?

No, I'm saying I don't view a win PURELY on time an actual win - if time pressure forces a played blunder, fine, but if there is no way to win by playing the pieces, then the game is drawn, whether it is acknowledged or not.

As I have stated many times, we both had played several moves demonstrating we knew it was a drawn position. In an OTB situation, I would have offered the draw, if refused (which would be HIGHLY unlikely), paused the clock and immediately called the TD to declare the draw on the the instant the pawns and bishops interlocked. The difference being in OTB I can prove I know it is a drawn position by explaining it.

Obviously, there is no TD here, hence my suggestion on the first page of basically introducing a TD surrogate. Hence also why I thanked Stahl for at least sticking to the original topic - namely, his opinion was the resources required to achieve this would not be worth it.

Instead, the thread devolved (though it has been eye-opening) into calling me a sore loser. My whole point from the very beginning was within my experience I did not lose. OTB this is a draw. I have been playing chess for 20+ years. I have only been playing chess online for one year (look at my profile), and it did not replace OTB play, but rather has supplemented it. My whole complaint was predicated on the assumption that this site's purpose was to emulate chess, a board game, as close possible. In my one year here, this is the first complaint I have posted, and it wasn't intended to come across as whiny, but rather a "why is this aspect of chess.com not reflecting how chess is actually experienced in reality."

But, apprarently, chess online has evolved with its own unique culture and views. What my opponent did to me, OTB, would be considered very unsportsmanlike, borderline childish. But that's fine, you meet childish people everyday and move on. What shocked me was, to me, there is a simple solution to keep the situation from every even occuring, so why was it not being implemented. Only Stahl seemed to understand that was the point of the post, and he answered accordingly - that it was not as easy as I thought and would not be worth the effort.

You probably won't get auto-paired, unless someone is also looking for that time control but they can see it in the graph and take your seek.

My point.

Are there G10 blitz tournaments? I haven't ever seen them, but it doesn't mean they aren't there.

If the viewpoint here is that forcing people to play out a drawn position to claim a win on time is a viable strategy here, I can accept that. I will continue to see it as a shortcoming, but the sense of "cheated" will be gone if that is simply generally acknowledged as acceptable. Obviously there are already other minor shortcomings (misplacing pieces happening quite often, I use move confirmation playing on my phone, but sometimes even on a pc it happens - I try to castle and just move my king one square).

Sooooo now that we all have had a jab at the old-school guy, I'll just keep this knowledge in mind and accept that its part of playing here. That's fine, I still love playing here - I wasn't trying to come across as whiny, I assumed most people would agree that adding the ability to declare a draw would be a good thing - obviously I was mistaken.

This game was G10. Fast for regular chess, but slower than any blitz I had ever heard of, again, hence my position that this game should have been a draw. But I get it, it's not viewed that way here. I agree playing blitz and complaining about blitz structure would be silly.

Here, yes. OTB, probably some, though I would think it would be a less popular time control for rated chess. I would prefer 5|3 over 10|0.

I should have searched before posting. Looks like there are some G/10 OTB events. Many are probably side events at longer tourneys but they exist

That's a part of the game...

WOW - Can someone verify this statement in red?

I'm not an OTB player.

However, something sure does sound fishy about your statement.

TD's forcing draws on people who refuse to accept a draw?

When the opponent can clearly win on time?

We are talking about a 10 - 0 blitz game with no increment here.

But then your opponent can protest and claim a win on time

For FIDE, I don't believe it would be allowed since their draw rule is that checkmate isn't possible by any series of legal moves.

For the USCF, I believe the TD could declare such a game drawn. There are a couple of regulations that consider it but I don't have the rulebook near me to cite them. Basically,  it is about a failure to make progress. Trying to flag someone in a completely drawn position, or just shuffling pieces, without trying to make good moves that progress to a win on the board, isn't really allowed.

You must be looking at the old rules. Article 10 is now about points.

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article

As far as I can find, the rule you are referencing is no longer valid.