Change Chess Rules?

No.

Not being allowed to castle "through" a check makes perfect sense to me.  But not being allowed to castle "out" of a check is in my opinion wrong.

Your argument for the rule not to be changed was that since it is a rule people won't allow a position to arise where there is insufficient material to mate and so the rule doesn't need to change. That's justifying the rule by its own existence! It would be like claiming that we don't need to legalise something because people don't generally do it because it's illegal! That is fallacious reasoning of the most basic kind. You weren't 'just stating your opinion', you were arguing a case, and my point is that the case you were making makes no sense in the context of what the thread is about. If we assume a rule can be changed then it makes no sense to justify a rule based on its own existence. Hence my question, have you not fully grasped what this thread is about?

I'm stating that it makes no sense that a person that doesn't have the material on the board to checkmate can be awarded a win in any situation. Thus, in games where clocks are used, a player running out of time shouldn't lose if there is no possible way for their opponent to ever gain a checkmate.

I'm stating that since it is the rule, it makes no sense to try and "sacrifice" (aka getting out played) all your material in some attempt to get your opponent to overstep and run out of time (except to salvage the draw).

In a game with plenty of time (or untimed), the best a player with insufficient material can hope for is a stalemate (a draw) and that is they best they should get even when their opponent runs out of time in a timed one.

Thus, I'm stating the rule doesn't need to be changed. Can you grasp that?

No one has yet offered a concrete example of winnin/losing/drawing with insufficient material when the time runs out. Here is my humble offering:

White has a bishop and a king left on the board, and he also has 20 minutes left on his clock. Black has a king and a pawn, but he has only 30 seconds left on his clock. The pawn, if it can ever queen, will do so on a square opposite the bishop, thereby making things very nice for black. Given another 20 minutes and good endgame technique, black could win. Given the rest of eternity, white could never win.

 Black should be "punished" for mismanaging his time, certainly. But white cannot be rewarded with a win because he mismanaged his pieces. A draw is the only logical result. I can't see anything else that's fair.

I agree that if you run out ouf time, then you have used your clock poorly, and the result of the game should reflect that.  But I also think that if you lose all of your material, then you have either used your clock poorly, or you weren't capable of using it well.  I think that the result of the game should reflect this as well.  Therefore, if a game results in one player with no time, and one player with no material, then both players have had a poor showing and the game should end in a draw.

You stated that a loss of time is a catastrophic failure, and that those who lose all of their time deserve nothing.  I would agree, but amend it to say that they do not deserve to win, and add that a loss of all material is also a catastrophic failure which does not deserve a win.  If you have time left and no material, maybe you should have used some of your time to save some material.

If you can't keep enough mating material you don't deserve to win.  If you can't keep enough time to win when you do have mating material you don't deserve to win.

The most logical result between two such players who fail to manage all aspects of a chess game correctly is a draw.

The FIDE rules state that it is a win for White, since it's possible for Black to get mated, however implausible. (Promote the pawn to a bishop, then produce some sort of this position:)

I have never considered the clock to be decisive, and thus none of the argument "a player which loses on time must always lose no matter what the opponent has" makes any sense for me. My thought is that once a clock expires, the player with the clock loses control of their pieces (and thus essentially the remaining player plays both sides), which explains why the FIDE rules. MSteen's argument above explains USCF rules (draw when there is insufficient mating material).

Might as well flip coins as play chess if you only want to play for time. Though long distance running is probaby better for you. 

Change the  white always moves first rule...in our egalitarian world black deserves equal opportunity to move first...white versus black is a very sensitive set-up also

Okay, I change my mind.  There is a rule I wouldn't mind changing. (changing back?)

Again, this statement would be correct if 'lose' were changed to 'not win.'  Because if you fail to manage your peices and have no material that is capable of winning then you also deserve to not win.  So if both circumstances are present in a game, and neither player deserves to win, then the game must be a draw.

chester6 wrote:

balente wrote:

_Number_6 wrote:

chyss wrote:

Why? The clock is meant to be decisive. Why do they deserve the draw?

Might as well flip coins as play chess if you only want to play for time. Though long distance running is probaby better for you. 

This doesnt make any sense. Why the clock is less important that the position? If you failed to manage your time, you deserve to lose.

Again, this statement would be correct if 'lose' were changed to 'not win.'  Because if you fail to manage your peices and have no material that is capable of winning then you also deserve to not win.  So if both circumstances are present in a game, and neither player deserves to win, then the game must be a draw.

+Infinite

If you manage your pieces so poorly that you do not have enough material left to ever checkmate your opponent then how on Earth could you deserve the win?

Because your opponent deserves to lose, so you deserve to win, almost by default. If they don't lose then they've 'cheated' in that they've used more time than was available. They deserve to lose, so you, as their opponent get the win.

Does this really need to be played out another 50 moves or maybe there is  hope that one side moves and wins on time?

What an odd topic. If this was the case, then people would just play even more defensive openings in blitz if they knew they were faster. Also, there is a good reason why Fide has moved to time add, prevents the ridiculous ideas such as in Chaotic's game (if you lose on time in that position, you really do deserve to lose.

Also, think of this from an offline game perspective. I know you can make a move every .1 seconds/.2 on chess.com but what about offline? It would limit blitz to only people with faster arms/hands.

Yes, it does need to be played out, to establish whether one side has used up an unfairly large amount of time to reach this equal position. Using more time than is available is effectively 'cheating' unless you lose by doing so.

You've not understood my post. Your replies ignore my points. Please try harder to grasp what I'm saying.

I can grasp that you're saying that the rule doesn't need to be changed. Can you grasp that I'm saying that your reasons don't make sense? And more importantly, can you grasp where you've gone wrong in your reasoning?

Wow.

Any position where there isn't any checkmate by any series of legal moves by neither player, should be immediately drawn. The primary goal is checkmate and if it can not be achieved then the game is over.

With that comment, it is worthless discussing this particular suggestion. That is completely ludicrous.