Draws

Don't you think that's a little lame? I do, namely because in the situation you were mentioning, black would be better off without a rook, instead having just king vs king and bishop.

I'm pretty sure the rule is slightly different, not only because of logic but because I have seen this before in blitz:

If your opponent can't possibly mate you with the material he has, then he can't win on time. Since the player with king and bishop doesn't have sufficient mating material, he can't win on time; only his opponent can (because king and rook is sufficient mating material)

Doesn't it seem more plausible that this would be the rule, rather than the one you brought up?

Let me ask you a question: If it takes you six minutes to reach a drawn position against your opponent, and it takes him forty minutes to reach this same position, who played better? He ended up with a position no worse than yours, but perhaps that was only because he took the luxury of thinking longer than you did. With this in mind, is that claim on time (or attempt to time out the opponent, punishing him for taking too much time) looking quite as trivial?

I don't know if the above is "common sense," by your definition, but it's some sort of sense, in any event.

I screwed up anyway because there is no mate against rook and king with a bishop. I forgot that while the rook can hem its own king into the corner, it will always be able to interpose against the bishop check. It is possible against a knight, though, not to mention pawns. You can't generalize it either way, because there are plenty of quite beautiful puzzles around where the forced mating solution involves sacrificing all pieces and delivering mate with the sole remaining knight or bishop. And such mates do occur in actual games as well. It would be more than a little lame to have these suddenly drawn because such a position fulfills the requirement of having "insufficient mating material".

Unless you're down to just a king, whether or not you have "insufficient mating material" depends completely on the position. That's why the FIDE rules do not know the term, it only asks whether there is a legal sequence of moves that leads to mate. I don't know what the USCF rulebook says because those in the fortunate position of owning it haven't provided me with the relevant text.

By the way, if it turns out that none of the US participants in this thread own the USCF rulebook nor have access to it (I assume if they had, they'd have cited it by now), that seems to me a much more pressing issue than anything else in this thread. How is such a crucial document to any chess player in the States not available online? I can look up the rules of any sport that interests me, no problem. I can get the FIDE rules or even the German translated version, no biggie. Just not the USCF rules. If I were an US chess player, I'd consider that a little lame.

By the way, I find it contradictory that you object to someone winning on time because the other guy actually run out of time, but in the very next post argue that if one player has reached an equal position having spent 40 minutes and the other six, one of them somehow deserves a chance to win on time. I'd say that if two players reach a drawn and equal position, the one who has black must've played better to do it, so if anything, shouldn't black win in such a case? How much "minutes" is having black worth?

An equal position is just a position like any other. (A "drawn" position, technically, is only one where mate isn't legally possible for either side.) There are rules that state how a draw can come about from it. Knowing these rules, and knowing them precisely, seems to me much more important than anything else.

I will mainly address your first paragraph.

It appears your method of argument is to present an alternative interpretation of "who should win" -- "how can we distinguish who deserves to win a game -- is time more important or is color more important for instance" -- Fair enough -- that would imply that it's not clear we can agree on who deserves the win the most.

I counter by saying that we already have an unambiguous way to determine this! When your clock runs out, nobody cares about someone's arbitrary view of who "deserves" to win -- it has been objectively determined, since one of the win/lose conditions (time) that both sides have agreed to, has occurred.

The reason why we have these objective determining factors is so that the winner isn't open to arbitrary interpretation. An example of this would be, after losing a game, saying something like "I deserved to win -- even though I lost, that was just because of one blunder. For the other forty five moves, I totally outplayed you." But of course, the game ended in checkmate -- you can't argue against that.

What if we made the winner of a chess game debatable? Perhaps checkmate would be only one criteria for determining a winner of the game. But of course, then everyone would have their own way of interpreting the situation to suit their wants, just like in my example.

So you see the need for objective rules that can't be argued against, hopefully. The clock is one of them, because of the philosophy mentioned in my previous post.

Is it really worth it to get arbiters to make judgment calls like that? If he is asked if a player must accept a draw, then he has to interpret the philosophy of time in his own specific way. Then another player can counter by giving his own interpretation.

Because it avoids judgment calls and interpretations, I think it's simpler to have everyone accept the rules for what they are, and adapt to them as best as they can; a player is fully culpable for their clock, no matter the position, yes, but then, both players play with the same disadvantage, so it's hard to complain. This approach avoids having to answer the question "How much 'minutes' is having black worth?"

I apologize for the rather verbose response. It's admittedly not concise, but hopefully the key points have been evinced somewhere.

lol, I had never considered the rook hemming in the king -- your king and bishop vs king and rook situation was actually quite clever then! I guess it doesn't quite work out though?

You're right that it can't solve every problem. But I think it's simpler than making everything a matter of interpretation as I said. Making things a matter of interpretation can create more problems.

As far as morals go, I don't think there is anything wrong with it. My point is that there are two important things in a chess game -- playing good moves; and playing good moves without taking forever. I think the clock is as important as having a strong position -- if you have a strong position but not the time, then that means you did something right (played good moves) but something wrong as well (not quickly enough). So I think the rules make sense in that way. Flagging someone is addressing the second principle -- I may respect that my opponent achieved a drawn position, but what I wouldn't respect is the way he did it -- by using more time than I did. It would be my responsibility to punish him for it by trying to flag him.

Calling flagging immoral is almost like calling a person who wins because of a blunder, even after getting outplayed, immoral -- winning like that is within the rules, and although some rules, like stalemate, might be annoying, it's simpler to be responsible for the rules, and accept that sometimes you might not lose the way you wanted to, perhaps.

I will concede that some of the rules conjure prettier wins than others! But does that mean more legitimate wins? Nah...

What about when people repeat moves only to make the time control, or in order to increase their time via increment? Are those anti-thought moves not chess?

Question 1:  I would report it to the TD.  It is against the rules of Chess to agree on the outcome without playing the game.  Furthermore, I came to play Chess.

Question 2:  If he's 200 points lower than me, he's about 650.  Unless the mate in 5 is from a queen against a lone king, he won't see it.  Play on.

Slightly more serious answer:  If I'm playing someone and I think he can win, but I'm not sure that he knows how to do it, it would depend on other factors.  How would it affect my standing in the tournament and my prize opportunity?  Do I need a win, or is a draw good enough?  If a draw is good enough, accept the draw as a "bird in the hand".

(My answers assume OTB play.  In online play, I would accept the draw in scenario 1, just because that would be the only way to end the game immediately without resigning, and I wouldn't want to play anyone who was doing weird stuff like that.  As for number 2, play on, because there's nothing to lose.

I'm still not seeing the distinction. Both are practical methods that are more concerned with the clock than the best move.

King and rook vs king and rook is pretty easy to draw for most, but it may not be impossible to mess it up depending on who you are. Sure, you might have a hard time imagining botching it because you can use the technique of "moving back and forth," but as simple of a drawing technique it is, it still counts as a technique.  King and rook vs King is easy for me now, and I could point to an "obvious" strategy to win it, but if you asked me four years ago, it wouldn't be. My point is that no matter how obvious you think a position is, you are still playing chess when you play it; further, there should be no objective determination of what an "easy" position is because what you consider easy depends on your own disposition and it's different for everyone. Who are you to say that there is no life in K+R vs K+R? You might think that, but it's not illegal to try to come up with a strategy anyway, and enjoy doing it.

It would be natural, if you had say 15 seconds left, and flagged that K+R vs K+R, to get annoyed. But that's just an excuse for not managing your time well -- if you know that you can't physically make 50 moves with 15 seconds, try not to get down to 15 seconds in a 0 increment game!

Watch good blitz players. They get good positions, but they don't let others flag them because they always leave themselves with enough time. Others are only good at the former, and are not as good at blitz. Allowing flagging rewards the players who are able to do both; not flagging rewards the player who is only able to do one.

"One method is used to continue a playable game - the other is not. K+R v K+R is a dead draw. It is almost impossible to checkmate your opponent here and so there's no reason to play it anymore."

The fundamental problem here is that this is your opinion. Again, I will ask you: Who are you to say that there is no life in a K+R vs K+R position? When you say "playable game," it all depends on what you consider playable -- but that varies from person to person.

The next hurdle here is to come to an agreement on the value of time -- I think you said that checkmate is more important, but the way clocks are used, the clock is exactly as important, as a time-out produces the same result as being checkmated. As for why that rule is in place -- in order to make sure the amount of time being used is kept track of. I understand your concern, but it would be inconsistent to randomly bend the rule because a position looks "obviously drawn" -- that would lead to the problem mentioned in the first paragraph.

So you're saying that if there isn't a forced win, the game has to be declared drawn? But what if someone wants to see if his opponent hangs his rook? If one side in the king and rook situation hung their rook, then they would be losing.

Just be serious. Ok, when playing K+R vs. K+N the opponent can blunder, but vs. K+R ?

Do you think that in a rated tournament, at a 1600+ level, a player would hang a rook in that situation ?

Imagine someone trying this at the World Championship. It should be enough to convince you that this "just to see" stuff is just a poor excuse for playing the clock.

Besides, FIDE rules specify that if a player does not try to win "by normal means", the opponent, if under 2 min. time, can ask the arbiter for a draw. In K+R vs K+R I can't imagine he would hesitate. So yes, you can be a jerk and see if the opponent will dare calling the arbiter, or you can play chess.

I don't think it's likely, but if you are tested to hold king and rook vs king and rook, you should prove it. It's a simple position, but even simple positions have strategy to them, as narrow as the strategy may be.

How is "normal means" defined?

And again, playing the clock is legitimate. If it took you most of the time off of your clock to reach a drawn position, it's your responsibility to keep yourself from flagging. Don't like that? Move faster next time, and there will be absolutely no problem. Good players are able to get good positions and not flag. You have to do both; not just one.

This comes from somebody who has lost countless games due to time pressure; I don't use that as an excuse. I'm timed out in 0 increment blitz games all the time; but you know what? No matter how good my position was, it was my fault for using too much time to get it.

K+R vs K+R can be won if one side blunders a rook.

I totally understand why you want to bend the rules. It's just that, bending rules means assuming things. When you bend a rule, you have to make a judgment call ("Well I think this position is obviously drawn") that's subject to personal opinion. Then you can use your own opinion to justify anything.

Isn't that a decent concern? Isn't it reasonable to want to leave personal opinion out of this?

In any case, I think that time is just as important as good moves. It's my opinion, and I apologize if people think that makes me a jerk; it's what I believe in, so I'm not going to change it for the sake of everyone else. (You see the problem here? Both of us have different opinions about time; that's precisely why it's ideal for both sides to adapt to an objective rule that isn't subject to personal disposition, and that applies to flagging too)

That's not just being a jerk, that's being a sociopath. Saying "that's what I believe in" does not allow you to put yourself over common courtesy.

[For some reason when I posted a new comment it edited this one. Ivandh isn't crazy guys; I'm just too lazy to re-type what he was responding to!]

I don't "believe in" anything, except that people who think their beliefs take precedence over other human beings are dangerous to humanity.