Draws

 Both of you guys ended up with an equally good position... there is one thing you are missing -- your opponent has used more time! If he used more time to get an equal position, has he really played as well as you?  Why not punish him for it? If there was any amount of increment, I might take the draw, but that would only be if I didn't believe I could exploit my opponent's lack of time (because the position might be simple enough), not because I feel like I have to show respect.

If my opponent uses more time than me, and I don't try to use that to my advantage, then it's like I've given my opponent a time handicap; I'd be making things unfair for myself.

All in all, getting to King and Queen with 5 minutes left on the clock is harder than getting to King and Queen with 20 seconds on the clock. In zero increment, that's as bad as being down a queen. I dislike zero increment (this scenario being one of the reasons), but if I happen to be playing such a game, then I will adjust my strategies accordingly. If you look at the top blitz players, you'll notice that they are able to get good positions yet still have plenty of time, even with no increment! Effective time management is a skill.

I think we should try to give opponents the same respect they would get OTB, where this behavior probably wouldn't be acceptable. Clocks have nothing to do with what chess is really about in my opinion, except in bullet chess, but that isn't really chess is it?

The following thread is very relevant to this one.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/rare-otb-chess-experience

I disagree: clocks have a lot to do with chess -- don't you think it would be cheap for your opponent to take his sweet time with each of his moves, just to make sure he would beat you? This is what the clocks prevent. It's not fair to lose because your opponent takes more time than you; the clocks correct this by ensuring equal rights to time usage.

Isn't that good logic?

Well, I guess I agree there, but winning a game from a dead drawn position because your opponent is physically incapable of moving his pieces fast enough doesn't seem right to me. Very simply put, the game is about checkmate, and clocks should take the second seat to that. Trying to win on time when checkmate is practically impossible should be ruled draw as it currently is with most OTB rules (I think).

@browni3141: Let's see how far your ethics hold up. Here are some questions for those who would agree to a draw:

• You play another blitz game against a GM, and again you are up on time in an equal endgame. This time, it is R+K v. R+K. He offers you a draw with five seconds left. Do you accept?
• In the final round of the world open blitz tournament, your opponent has only three seconds left in a dead-drawn endgame. If you win, you will win $2500.00, but if you draw, you'll walk away with nothing. You have a bishop and wrong-coloured rook-pawn, which is a book draw. However, when your opponent calls the TD, he says to play it out, and walks away. Immediately, your opponent offers a draw. Do you take it?

Now, to all the others who have said that they would force a loss on time, I have a question for you:

• Now, if everyone you knew was watching the game. Family, coach, friends, and they believed it was morally right to accept the draw, would that change your actions? Why or why not?

If this world level tournament has one arbiter per game as per appendix B of the FIDE Laws of Chess, he would rule it a draw, end of story. No "What if he doesn't" here; there's just no way at that level an arbiter wouldn't immediately rule bishop and wrong rook pawn a draw; unless of course the king is too far away to prevent promotion. Even if he postpones his decision, he can't "walk away", since arbitration in Blitz conditions is only possible to begin with if there is one arbiter per game. You're constructing a ludicrous scenario. (Not to mention that a draw offer after you've already requested arbitration is completey superfluous. Asking the arbiter for a draw as per FIDE 10.2 counts as a draw offer anyway.)

And I'm not exactly sure why you'd want to delve into "morality" of draw offers and the accepting thereof without first making sure you understand the rules. It's hard enough to get those straight.

Where the rules allow "forcing" a loss on time in a hilariously drawn position, there's nothing morally objectionable to it. You are allowed to win through any means covered by the rules. But that necessitates you understand the rules in the first place.

This is entirely not the point of my forum. Just because the arbiter should claim a draw, doesn't mean he will. I have reached similar situations where the arbiter refuses to call it a draw and insists that we play it out, never to help again. The scenario used was to simply get the idea that there is a lot of money on the line. I wanted to ask if this would sway your decision.

Also, the World Open blitz tournaments are USCF-rated, so your application of FIDE rules is totally out of line.

Here's a different way to approach this issue: Perhaps we could interpret that if you win a drawn position on time, you won the game in the sense that you were able to force your opponent to use more time than he wanted to. 

With all of this being said, I would feel a little iffy about doing this OTB, only because, if the players are moving too quickly to record their moves, then there is no way to prove a draw condition (such as 50 move rule). I would feel bad about winning that way, as just because one can't prove a draw condition without a record of the moves doesn't mean that draw condition didn't happen.

I want you to tell me where you disagree with my first paragraph.

"Now, if everyone you knew was watching the game. Family, coach, friends, and they believed it was morally right to accept the draw, would that change your actions? Why or why not?"

Absolutely not, and for a very simple reason: I don't need other people to tell me that I am doing the right thing for me to believe that I'm doing the right thing! I would stand by and defend my decision to the death.

a) It's not your bloody forum. It's not even your thread, you just started it. You can try to guide the discussion, but I'm not sure where you even want it to go. Constructing ludicrous scenarios will not lead to valuable answers.

b) All I can find on the USCF rulebook is that it's very similar. It's not publicly available either, so I can't check whether it's different in this very specific point. Is it? Am I "totally out of line" assuming that a tournament called "World Open blitz" might follow the FIDE rules?

You could have been helpful by pointing out the crucial difference in the US rules that makes your scenario not totally ludicrous. It's not like I can check on my own, since the USCF doesn't publish its rulebook. I found bits and pieces, but nothing that would make your scenario plausible. US arbiters at a tournament of any kind of importance would still never look at a drawn bishop+wrong rook pawn ending and not rule it a draw due to, what was it, insufficient winning chances.

c)Like I said, under tournament conditions, any way to try to win that is covered by the rules is also right. But I won't waste anyone's time.

I'd have accepted the draw the moment my opponent stopped the clock to fetch the arbiter, because I generally assume the arbiter of an international tournament is not bloody stupid and will declare the wrong rook pawn ending a draw anyway.

But let's say I don't do that, even though I would, and the arbiter returns wearing completely fogged up glasses, clearly stoned out of his mind, and says "Nah, totally not a draw"... No, I give up. That's like a police officer pulling a gun on me asking for my wallet, or a server telling me to get my own bloody food, or a tour guide asking me for directions, or a pilot asking me how to fly a plane. I'm not equipped to imagine myself in such a situation.

I think I'd still accept the draw offer, because there's going to be all sorts of fuss even if I get the clearly undeserved win. I made my fatal mistake when I let my opponent trade down into the clearly drawn endgame.

I'm not sure about the rules at the most precise tier, but I always thought that an arbiter can only claim a position to be drawn when, even with absolute worst play from either side, nobody would win. In the case of Bishop + wrong rook pawn, if black played as badly as possible -- run his king away from the pawn -- white could queen the pawn and win. Therefore there isn't insufficient mating material.

hell yes and yes

A TD can "enforce" a draw claim in positions--where a USCF C Class player can be expected to hold a draw against a USCF Master.

So not a lot of "drawn positions" get enforced.  Only the really simple ones.

draw is a fine result, but otb if you looked at the scoreboard and see a draw, you ask yourself it is really a draw as part of a fight or just two friends who decided to draw the game.
people talk openly about agreeing to a draw beforehand. some don't even play.
A: I have to go the party, so we have to play another day
B: I am currently busy too why don't we just tell the tournanment director it was a draw.
in some cases the tournament director is standing next to them.
A: I can win the tournament by a draw, so you can decide at any time when you want a draw during the match
B: ok

this happened in a last round and B took the draw on move 3. the tournament leader was standing next to them

A: no why show up a tournament to play only 15 moves and then draw. are we playing chess or counting points. if people want to talk fair play in chess then morality plays a big role in this question as well.
the best chess-player should win - not the best tournament strategist.- and how many you know that will give you a draw.
b. depends on the position.
c. sometimes the best game I've played end in a draw after 60 moves.

@Silfir: Still, many TDs will not follow the rules and leave the game to decide itself. While it may be "ludicrous," similar situations DO occur in real OTB chess.

@Everyone: As an added note, remember that I am asking what you WOULD do, not what you SHOULD do. Please be honest with yourself in this forum.

Draws harm neither player.

(when attempting to win on time an utterly drawn position)

Either you have money / fame (?) involved in the game, in which case, in my optinion, "the end justifies the means" and you can try to win at your leisure, either there is no stake and chess ethics plus comon sense should tell you that's tedious and stupid to go on. That's not the kind of win you are going to brag about anyway.

The TD has to assume the worst in the case of time actually running out. That's a different case from stopping the clock when you run very low on time to claim a draw on insufficient winning chances, which includes positions in which a legal sequence of moves can lead to mate, but there is no forced win and the defense is trivial, such as king and two knights versus king. In FIDE and USCF (as far as I can see) alike, that's only possible in the last three (two in USCF apparently) minutes of the claimant's time, in a game with no increments (if there are increments, playing out trivial positions is trivial) that has already passed all time control stages. This rule exists precisely so that players who have achieved a hilariously drawn position don't have to lose because they cannot physically move fast enough to get over the 50 move limit. In FIDE rules, at least, the rule even applies to blitz play, but only if there there is one arbiter per game.

Precisely because there are rules in place designed to prevent you from winning solely based on the clock, I don't think there is a moral obligation to accept a draw if the position is drawn but your opponent is low on time. They can ask for arbitration, either on the grounds of FIDE 10.2 or the USCF rule 14(?) regarding "insufficient winning chances", so it's not like they're dependant on you accepting the offer to get the draw they deserve. On the other hand, if I know the result of the arbitration is going to be draw, I'll accept the draw offer as not to waste either of our times.

However, in FIDE rules, under certain blitz conditions the option to attain arbitration does not exist. To me, that means you can play the clock. In a tournament, every legal way to win is also moral.

The USCF rule in question is about "insufficient changes to win". Insufficient mating material doesn't have anything to do with draw claims or arbitration; it's when time runs out for one side and the other side only has a king and so on. At least in FIDE rules, "insufficient mating material" is not even mentioned. The only question that is asked there is "Is there a legal sequence of moves that can lead to mate". If there isn't for either side, the game is drawn period; if time for one side runs out and there isn't a legal sequence of moves that leads to mate for the other, the result is a draw instead of a win. You can still win on time with king and bishop, for instance, if the opponent has, say, a rook.