Chess Rules - Is it a draw? Rapid Game
Sort:
#19 It's not being a sore loser, it's just the rules. I'm sure you read them, since he posted them, so no need to requote there. You even say yourself "because he could blunder". Do you really claim that Black in that position can win by normal means? Imagine a white pawn a4, black pawn a5. And the same system on c, e, f and h file. But white also has a pawn on b5. Do you also think there if black time is low, that he should lose only because his time is low? All he has to do is stay at b5 pawn and white can by no normal means win, so it should end in draw. That's the only "fair" end, both sportsmanship but also following the rules.
Feb 15, 2017
0
#23
I agree with you - time is as important a factor as any other in chess, and your logic regarding time is mine exactly. On the board it's a win/at least a draw for white, but there's no way he's going to be able to get those results with 13 seconds OTB. Online, it's possible through premove.
Nevertheless, there should be a FIDE rule similar to the USCF one regarding insufficient losing chances that *may* apply to this position, and help the OP to get a draw. But in the USCF ruling, I'm not sure if the OP would qualify..
Feb 15, 2017
0
#24
BTW, this is why all serious tournaments I've ever seen advertised/offered have at least a 5 second delay.
Feb 15, 2017
0
#25
OTB you can claim draws in certain situations even without increments when there are "insufficient losing chances", but the rules do differ from country to country which is why I was cautious. But certainly in many places that would be a very simple draw claim.
Feb 15, 2017
0
#26
^Maybe for titled and intermediate players, but the OP himself said he was inexperienced. I would not be certain at all if my local TD would give insufficient losing chances, to say, a 1000 player in that position.
Prologue1 wrote:
#19 It's not being a sore loser, it's just the rules. I'm sure you read them, since he posted them, so no need to requote there. You even say yourself "because he could blunder". Do you really claim that Black in that position can win by normal means? Imagine a white pawn a4, black pawn a5. And the same system on c, e, f and h file. But white also has a pawn on b5. Do you also think there if black time is low, that he should lose only because his time is low? All he has to do is stay at b5 pawn and white can by no normal means win, so it should end in draw. That's the only "fair" end, both sportsmanship but also following the rules.
The rules stated black would have to be unable to win. I get the odds are 100-1. But you're confusing impossible with improbable. Can black win? Yes. He has sufficient material. Therefore it is not a draw, according to the rules that OP posted himself. So it is being a sore loser if you ask me.
Feb 15, 2017
0
#29
As per the rules posted 'by normal means'. Not by any series of legal moves.
You said in your first statement that it could been done through a blunder, and ofc black can win, but in rules it says by normal means, and the only normal mean for black to so is on time, so I think it's fair for him to say draw.
JamesColeman wrote:
As per the rules posted 'by normal means'. Not by any series of legal moves.
By legal moves, absolutely.
Feb 15, 2017
0
#32
And that comes to what I've said - what's normal for intermediates/advanced players is not at all normal for "inexperienced" players, as the OP says he is.
So it's definitely an uncertain area, but since the TD apparently declared him unqualified, it's done and over with.
Prologue1 wrote:
You said in your first statement that it could been done through a blunder, and ofc black can win, but in rules it says by normal means, and the only normal mean for black to so is on time, so I think it's fair for him to say draw.
Is that what "normal" is supposed to mean? Does normal mean without inaccuracies, mistakes, or blunders? Maybe they should say that because normal does not mean that to me. Normal means legal. And there are legal moves that could be made by black and white to where black could win.
Feb 15, 2017
0
#34
One thing I'm confused about:
The OP says that he "resigned" after the TD declined his draw attempt. Does that mean that he actually managed to lose this position?? If so, then clearly he deserved to lose.
I would be slamming moves to get a repetition or try something with those 13 seconds - you could definitely get in a dozen or more moves without breaking anything.
I'm also looking at a bunch of FIDE rapid tournaments in India, and they all have increments. Is it possible FIDE standards weren't even used in this tournament? That appendix isn't even standard for tournaments. The tournament has to specifically state at the start that it will apply.
Feb 15, 2017
0
#36
If he hadn't made the "winning by normal means" draw claim, losing on time would be legimate. As it was, by the rules he should have been awarded a draw. Aribiters notoriously hate making decisions though,and even more so if a low rated player.
This is a normal win for black (with more time left white would have won of course) but time is a part of the game too and I don't think you can say having a better position is worth more than time. Since black has a "chance" to win, this is not a draw and under these circumstances I would have tried to use the final seconds to prevent a loss. It is not as easy as online where you can use premoves but a draw could be possible. If you was a little bit faster during the game you would have a comfortable win :)
Feb 15, 2017
0
#38
I still want clarification from the OP though... did he indeed lose this game by position after he was declined by the TD?
He lost by resignation 
His opponent declined draw offer
The point the OP is trying to make: This is an easy draw for white to hold if white wants to hold it, and so he should be "spared" from having to lose on time (because there's no way he's winning with 13 seconds OTB, without knocking the board over).
That's the reason I recommended blitz with delays and increments, to avoid this stuff. Online pure is good, but pure speed chess doesn't work OTB.
Bottom line though, there are many obscure rules and regulations in FIDE - I'd recommend forgetting them and focus on playing better chess. And play chess with delay/increments.
I get that. But in the exact situation in his original post, it is not a draw. That was his question and several people are saying it should have been called a draw which is ridiculous.
I also think I view time more harshly than a lot of people. It's not just a guideline for "hey try to finish in around this amount of time". It's an actual aspect of the game. The only reason he managed to get up a pawn was because he took minutes longer to think than his opponent did. I don't think he deserves to draw on position alone (when it's not a 100% guaranteed win if he had enough time). I think if you choose to spend that much time on thinking through your moves to gain an advantage, then you deserve to lose the advantage of time. It's the risk you take. He took the risk and couldn't convert it to a win in time so he lost.
But yes. To avoid this outcome in the future, he should only play games with increments/delays.