I think it is ok since time management is part of chess.
it depends on the time control.
if both players have 2 hours to start with.
and one player has 1 minut left and I have 30 minutes left.
I think it is fair to reject the draw.
but again it depends on the position if both have K+R vs K+R I wouldn't play on.
For me, it depends on whether I had made moves during the game that were based on my opponent being low on time. If I was only playing the position, regardless of how much time my opponent had, then I will allow a draw, in a drawish postion, even though my opponent would likely lose on time. So, sometimes I make moves based on their clock.
For my part I would accept the draw but it will depend on your attitude to winning.
There is the attitude which says any legal method of winning is acceptable since the object is to win the game. There is something to be said for this, for after all you have played at least as well as your opponent at a quicker pace.
Chess is not just about the position it is about time as well, without the clock it becomes meaningless.
But all the reasoned talk in the world won't palcate your own uneasy feelings that's why you are seeking confirmation to do something that you are not happy about.
In life we feel best if we obey our conscience regardless of what is legal, or indeed what is usually done.
Obey your conscience and live in peace with yourself.
Are you a hard core ratings player? Play it out. Time controls are part of the game.
Are you playing for the sake of playing? Accept the draw position.
I play unrated games, and whether I'm up or down in time, if the endgame looks interesting, I'll play it out. Sometimes I'll win the endgame and lose on time, but it's nice practice for, say, correspondence chess or playing at a coffee shop where there are no clocks.
I don't care about rating. I consider chess game a battle. A fight there nobody wants to go down. of course in a good spirit. I don't believe in the perfect game.
if we both started with 2 hours and now he has 1 minute and I have 30 minutes. He failed to maintain his time. He was 29 minutes slower to arrive at the position.
somehow he deserves to lose.
otherwise everybody who is afraid of the endgame can spent a lot of time and hope that a player will give him a draw in the name of good sportsmanship.
I am not so much about what is the ruling, I just want to be a gentleman about how I win or draw. When I lose its all gloves off JK Chess is a proper game and I don't want to be a poop bag.
I think it's OK as long as there is some play in the position (and one can still play for the win), but it's rather unsportsmanlike if the one with more time just moves a piece back and forth, maybe even via premoves.
If it's online, then I figure it's fair to let time run out. In person, however, i feel you should accept the draw.
I recall this past year, in the Florida State championship, I was playing against the previous year's winner. At the end of our game he was up a bishop and three pawns to my two pawns. He had about 7 seconds on the clock, and I had around 10 minutes left, so I had to make a judgement call. Should I do what I believe to be the right thing and resign, or should I take the win?
I resigned, because I believed that to be the proper etiquette. After we left the tournament hall, my opponent thanked me, and offered to go over the game to show me my blunders. My coach freaked out when I told him, but I honestly don't care. My conscience told me that resignation was right.
In otherwords, it's all relative to your situation. -Preemptive "Cool story, bro."-
As your unable to make any 10.2 claims, add increments to your chosen game and avoid the issue, to a certain degree atleast.
In real chess, time controls exist only so the game doesn't last forever: so if you play real chess, accept the draw.
What is the ettiquet rule of playing out a drawn game when your oppenent is dangerously low on time? Is it unsportsman like to deny the draw play though the drawn position and then throw the game with 5 seconds left on the clock?
The position was clearly a drawn position, at the time it was offered.
I don't think it has anything to do with etiquette. You opponent entered the game knowing he could lose on time if he didn't move fast enough. So if he/she is losing on time, draw or no draw, that is what he/she agreed to when they hit the play button.
If you're OTB then the person short on time can make a draw claim to the arbiter based on insufficient winning chances. But by no means are you obligated to offer a draw. A win on time is a win, and when prize money is on the line, winning takes precidence over being a nice guy.
The way I understand the rule, if the player can not win the game by normal means regardless of the number of moves or time allotted, then the game is drawn regardless of how much time is on the clock.
The whole point of the rule is to grant draws to drawn positions which are about to be lost on time.
I don't think any arbiter would declare a draw on the grounds of insufficient winning chances. With 7 seconds on the clock the person with less material has very good winning chances!
The FIDE rule (10.2) says that the claim is justified if the opponent isn't trying to win by normal means (that is, on the board, not just on the clock). Or if winning on the board isn't possible.
So if you're only playing on time and shuffling pieces around without actually trying to win on the board, then the opponent can claim a draw.
The way I understand the rule, if the player can not win the game by normal means regardless of the number of moves or time allotted, then the game is drawn regardless of how much time is on the clock.
The whole point of the rule is to grant draws to drawn positions which are about to be lost on time.
Rule ... I am not sure what rule you are referrign to. I play 10 min games daily, some I win, some lose, some draw. Now if I have good mating material and more time and you have less and your time is up YOU LOSE. PERIOD.
If I dont have mating material(say a K & a N) and I still have more time than you and your time is up its a draw since I couldn't mate you anyway. Now what you said.
"The way I understand the rule, if the player can not win the game by normal means regardless of the number of moves or time allotted, then the game is drawn regardless of how much time is on the clock." This is not correct - in this case if your oponent has the material to mate you and has more time than you AND YOUR TIME RUNS OUT -YOU LOSE. If his time runs out first , its a draw since you can't mate him anyway. Get it? If I am wrong on this I would appreciate a correction. Thanks in advance.
I don't think any arbiter would declare a draw on the grounds of insufficient winning chances. With 7 seconds on the clock the person with less material has very good winning chances!
The poster you're replying to is from the US, so I think he really meant the USCF rule about insufficient losing chances; that claim would have to be made by the player with material advantage and time disadvantage (less than 2 minutes but more than 0 on the clock). In this case, the ruling has to be made without considering either the remaning clock time, or the players' ratings (USCF rule 14H2).
With B+3p against 2p, unless one of the 2p is about to safely promote, I'd likely rule a draw if the player with B+3p made a claim of insufficient losing chances. Or just put a delay clock so that the player with the insufficient time can prove that the position cannot be lost.
PS: regarding FIDE rule 10.2, I recommend reading The Never-Ending Story of Article 10.2 and some other relevant installments from the Arbiter's Notebook archives.
...I recall this past year, in the Florida State championship, I was playing against the previous year's winner. At the end of our game he was up a bishop and three pawns to my two pawns. He had about 7 seconds on the clock, and I had around 10 minutes left, so I had to make a judgement call. Should I do what I believe to be the right thing and resign, or should I take the win?
I resigned, because I believed that to be the proper etiquette...
That is a very different situation. I would play on. In that case, your opponent has used/invested the extra time to get a material/positional advantage. The game is not drawn. Either your opponent's investment in time will pay off with a checkmate or your faster play will with a flag-fall. He has the advantage on the board, you have the advantage on the clock. I would find out which ploy was better! Play on!!
The proper thing to do in a case like this is to offer a draw and give your opponent the chance to escape from defeat by flagfall, although he's in a winning position. If he however refuses, because he thinks he can win with only seven seconds on the clock, wel then it's his problem if he loses.
I might have forgotten to mention the 5 second increment... He had an obvious win, and he was rated around 600 points higher than me, so I gave him due credit and resigned.
That, and I'm terribly afraid of anyone being angry at me.
...I recall this past year, in the Florida State championship, I was playing against the previous year's winner. At the end of our game he was up a bishop and three pawns to my two pawns. He had about 7 seconds on the clock, and I had around 10 minutes left, so I had to make a judgement call. Should I do what I believe to be the right thing and resign, or should I take the win?
I resigned, because I believed that to be the proper etiquette...
That is a very different situation. I would play on. In that case, your opponent has used/invested the extra time to get a material/positional advantage. The game is not drawn. Either your opponent's investment in time will pay off with a checkmate or your faster play will with a flag-fall. He has the advantage on the board, you have the advantage on the clock. I would find out which ploy was better! Play on!!
The proper thing to do in a case like this is to offer a draw and give your opponent the chance to escape from defeat by flagfall, although he's in a winning position. If he however refuses, because he thinks he can win with only seven seconds on the clock, wel then it's his problem if he loses.
I might have forgotten to mention the 5 second increment... He had an obvious win, and he was rated around 600 points higher than me, so I gave him due credit and resigned.
That, and I'm terribly afraid of anyone being angry at me.
I'm with BorgQueen. Why offer a draw? Why resign? Because we're afraid of thin-skinned people's feelings? Because we're afraid of vendettas? Because we're overly concerned with manners? Don't misunderstand: politeness and proper etiquette are vitally important. But chess is a competitive game! If my opponent gets himself into time trouble, why should I bail him out?
...I recall this past year, in the Florida State championship, I was playing against the previous year's winner. At the end of our game he was up a bishop and three pawns to my two pawns. He had about 7 seconds on the clock, and I had around 10 minutes left, so I had to make a judgement call. Should I do what I believe to be the right thing and resign, or should I take the win?
I resigned, because I believed that to be the proper etiquette...
That is a very different situation. I would play on. In that case, your opponent has used/invested the extra time to get a material/positional advantage. The game is not drawn. Either your opponent's investment in time will pay off with a checkmate or your faster play will with a flag-fall. He has the advantage on the board, you have the advantage on the clock. I would find out which ploy was better! Play on!!
The proper thing to do in a case like this is to offer a draw and give your opponent the chance to escape from defeat by flagfall, although he's in a winning position. If he however refuses, because he thinks he can win with only seven seconds on the clock, wel then it's his problem if he loses.
I might have forgotten to mention the 5 second increment... He had an obvious win, and he was rated around 600 points higher than me, so I gave him due credit and resigned.
That, and I'm terribly afraid of anyone being angry at me.
I'm with BorgQueen. Why offer a draw? Why resign? Because we're afraid of thin-skinned people's feelings? Because we're afraid of vendettas? Because we're overly concerned with manners? Don't misunderstand: politeness and proper etiquette are vitally important. But chess is a competitive game! If my opponent gets himself into time trouble, why should I bail him out?
My answers - (Starting with the "Because" questions)
Yes. - Yes. - Yes. - Because, given that even I saw a win for him that would take no time off of his clock, I decided to resign. If I hadn't seen anything, I would have continued. Here I stand, afraid of people having negative feelings towards me. I am who I am, and I feel no regrets.
(You do make some powerful points, though.)
What is the ettiquet rule of playing out a drawn game when your oppenent is dangerously low on time? Is it unsportsman like to deny the draw play though the drawn position and then throw the game with 5 seconds left on the clock?
The position was clearly a drawn position, at the time it was offered.