In the old days, an opponent who runs out of time loses.
The rules have been changed.
Today when an opponent runs out of time, the game is drawn when the player does not have sufficient material to checkmate.
In your case, you only had a K remaining when your opponent run out of time.
Under the old rules you win.
Under the new rules, the game is drawn (INSUFFICIFIENT MATERIAL) - because you can not checkmate with only a K.
Can you give a source, please?
yeahhh owltuna NAILED IT dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
you clearly don't look at the rulebook then
the game is automatically drawn if it is impossible for the opponent to checkmate
You're missing my point here.
The match is based on a time limit.
It should be consistant throughout all matches that whoever runs out of time first losses unless somebody checkmates the other.
I've played other 3min. matches where I did not checkmate my opponent within the time limit and he won.
I've played other 3min. matches where my opponent did not checkmate me within the time limit and he lost.
But this, this is annoying and seems incosistant with those other matches I listed.
Matter of fact if you skim through my matches on my account page you might find some of those types of matches where it was a similar match of me with just my King and my opponant haing more pieces than me but his time ran out and I won.
I've read the comments and still don't see the logic.
I had a previous account where the same situation happened.
A chess game is not based on time. It is based on the rules. The rules state that if you have insufficient material, then it is a draw. If you only have a king remaining but your opponent still has sufficient enough material for a potential checkmate, then the game is not an automatic draw because that would be unfair to the player who still has a chance at victory. However, if either player under those circumstances run out of time, then the game is an automatic draw because one of those players had insufficient material to make even a check, never mind a checkmate.
Under these conditions, your best case scenario is to move your king in such a way that your opponent cannot checkmate you so that you can force a draw and not lose any points in your rating. Some people might say that you should simply resign and accept defeat but as far as I'm concerned (and I think a lot of people would agree with me), there is nothing wrong with playing for a draw. In fact, if I am not mistaken, even professional players will play for a draw rather than resign when they think that such an outcome is plausible.
Looking at the game you presented, your opponent had the advantage over you in every way except for time. This means his best case scenario was a win by checkmate and his worst case scenario was a draw as where your best case scenario was a draw and your worst case scenario was a loss by checkmate.
TL;DR When your opponent still has a chance at victory, it would be unfair to them for the game to be an automatic draw because you have insufficient material. It's a hard pill to swallow, but the rules were followed to a tee and the best opportunity you had was to force a draw (which you did and in that light, you actually came out on top, with or without a rating gain/loss on either side).
I think the reason why people are replying so vehemently to your original post is because you were acting as if you were screwed out of a victory when in reality, considering the circumstances/position, you came out on top. There is nothing wrong with not knowing this but try not to jump to the conclusion that you got screwed. Instead, you should have presented the game to the community and then asked why it was a draw rather than a win on time.
It still doesn't justify insulting you but you can at least somewhat deter such negative comments by choosing your words more carefully. Hope I was able to help you understand the situation a little better. You didn't get screwed. You came as close to winning as your position allowed.
A draw is when I draw a pawn on the board with a sharpie and hope it fools my opponent.
Love this chain for all the wrong reasons. XD
Has it been brought up (maybe I missed it) that a game is only AUTOMATICALLY drawn by insufficient material when NEITHER PLAYER can checkmate the other? The reason the game was drawn is because, once you are down to your lone King, MOST players start wasting their opponents time simply because they think they can win on time. The rules were modified to prevent that kind of foul play. You were not screwed out of a win. In my opinion, you should shut up and color, because you did not deserve a draw, forget the win you think you are entitled to! Also, you want calmer responses? Quit wasting everyone's time!
i think insufficient mating material is bugged on chess.com
there are positions where it is impossible to mate with any sequences of moves, yet it is not declared as a draw.
there are winning positions declared as insufficient mating material
@KirbyCake:
Would you care to provide some examples?
i think insufficient mating material is bugged on chess.com
there are positions where it is impossible to mate with any sequences of moves, yet it is not declared as a draw.
there are winning positions declared as insufficient mating material
I'm sure it's all based on an engine, saying it's bugged without an example is pretty far-stretched.
go look at my last 3 unrated games i used to test out.
in the final positions, draws were either incorrectly declared because mate is forced, or a win is declared even though mating is impossible.
if you're too lazy to look at it
1. 2p vs b+p with king stuck in corner. even if the person with 2 pawns makes the worst moves possible, it is impossible for him to get mated. the person with 2 p runs out of time and the person with b+p was incorrectly given a win.
2. 2n vs p when the pawn is below the triotzky line. the person with the pawn is about to get mated, but he lets time run out and is granted a draw incorrectly.
3. b vs 2p with unavoidable mate in 1. the person with 2 p lets time runs out and incorrectly gets a draw.
so yeah, its extremely bugged.
The vehement responses are because of his silly logic in stating that the game should be immediately drawn if he isn't allowed to win anymore, completely disregarding his opponent who could still possibly win.
Self centered much?
go look at my last 3 unrated games i used to test out.
in the final positions, draws were either incorrectly declared because mate is forced, or a win is declared even though mating is impossible.
if you're too lazy to look at it
1. 2p vs b+p with king stuck in corner. even if the person with 2 pawns makes the worst moves possible, it is impossible for him to get mated. the person with 2 p runs out of time and the person with b+p was incorrectly given a win.
2. 2n vs p when the pawn is below the triotzky line. the person with the pawn is about to get mated, but he lets time run out and is granted a draw incorrectly.
3. b vs 2p with unavoidable mate in 1. the person with 2 p lets time runs out and incorrectly gets a draw.
so yeah, its extremely bugged.
Lol, I'm too lazy to look at it, you're too lazy to post it. Gold.
Case 1 and 3, I'm still wondering.
But I'm pretty sure that case 2 is simply an engine calculation, as you can't force a mate in enough moves if you let the black pawn out.
I wouldn't call that 'About to get mated'.
Case one is very specific, and would call for adjucation under tournament conditions. Since adjucation is an automatic feature here by necessity, it's impractical to code for all exceptions.
Case three is simply the preference of USCF rules over FIDE. FIDE rules would make this a win for Black.
In otb play:
Case one is a "dead" position. You are correct that in otb play, the player low on time would call the arbiter and have the game declared a draw before his clock falls. Indeed FIDE rules state that the game is immediately drawn when a position such as this is reached.
Case three surely is a win for black under either FIDE or USCF ? I seem to remember from previous threads that USCF takes a much tighter line over whether a mate is possible, and unlike FIDE do not allow "helpmates" to be taken into consideration. However, in the example there is no question that after white moves the d pawn black has mate in one move.
I completely agree with you that it is wrong to call chess.com rules in this regard buggy. It would be difficult to program to account for the scenarios outlined in this thread. So chess.com takes a simpler approach and simply looks at the material left on the board.
Having one bishop or two knights, and on a timeout it will be a draw irrespective of the board position. If you have a pawn, you will get the win, again irrespective of the position. This is not perfect, but neither is it buggy.
The issue with chess.com is that it is impossible to call the arbiter before time runs out and claim a draw because the the opponent is not attempting to win by normal means (FIDE) or by insufficient losing chances (USCF). Therefore, the rules are that a knight, a bishop, or two knights are insufficient mating material if the opponent's time runs out. This would occasionally result in an undeserved draw, but the alternative would probably be a greater number of undeserved wins.
As for the position with "sufficient material" where mate is impossible, I don't see how to make the chess.com computers recognize that.
I think your opponent will be madder than you are with a draw because he ran out of time before he mated you. You only have your king. You don't get to win if you have insufficient material to mate your opponent when they run out of time.
I'm not mad over some video game on the internet.
Only sore losers get mad.
It's just a game and doesn't make a person any better at life in general.
Also, logically, since I've got "insufficient" material to win then as soon as that occurs the match should automatically stop and be a draw according to your comment. But, in that particular match the game continued thus showing that it goes by time or checkmate. There was no checkmate and his time ran out because he played to slow. I thought the clock was originally added so there would be no Draws. If you didn't checkmate your opponent before the time ran out then whoever's clock ran out first, lost. It was to stop Draws. It was like a backup so there would be a winner no matter what. No checkmate, fine, then it turns into a whoever moves the fastest match usually about 20-30sec. left. However, here apparently something isn't right.
You have absolutely no sense of logic. Your entire argument is completely nonsensical.