I got into a situation like that today too, where I ran out of time in the middle of a perpetual check with 2 rooks on the 7th and when I was two moves away from forcing a position for the third time (which would draw).
Impossible to force a draw in a timed game?
Sort:
It sucks a lot. That has happened to me many times. i play a lot more standard live chess games now because of it. You are a lot less likely to lose via time in standard. If you prefer blitz or bullet be prepared to experience the above scenerio over and over again.
I don't think there is a question of morality here. Maybe you can enable premove, it helped me to lose a lot less on time. And you can just wander your king around two alsquares back and forth if the position is totally locked. You can get to 50 moves in 1 min without it.
But the really annoying thing happens when you play against a computer and it delays the draw for as long as possible.(e.g moves a pawn at move 49 before the last capture). If a human does that I would kill him. :D
About the OP, with premove on you should have easily made 50 moves within 2 minutes and been able to claim a draw.
That is why I always play with one or two second bonus time
I thought the 50 move rule applies to a loan king. It also applies to no captures? I did not know that. I could have drew it. He could have moved a pawn too, though, but it would have been captured if he did, giving me the advantage. I'd still have lost on time.
My mistake was assuming I could at best have a draw since I was a pawn down. I did not think to realize that he had far more pawns on bishop colored squares than I did, making my bishop better than his.
I was playing a 10 minute game. That is my favorite amount of time. Just enough time usually avoid losing won games on time, but short enough I don't have to fear my opponent going on a coffee break for the rest of the game.
Doomclaw wrote:
That is why I always play with one or two second bonus time
What is that? Each player gets a second of bonus time added to their clock if they make one second moves? That sounds great. It won't help in OTB games, but it does make online games more fun by penalizing only those who don't move much.
By the way, I am not saying that my opponent should not have played for time, as that is part of bullet, but it IS pretty darn frusterating when something like that happens.
Jul 28, 2011
0
#10
There are some simple changes chess.com should do to make this better.....clicking draw should force a draw in insufficient material situations as well as 3 fold repititions & 50 move rule. if it already works like this , then thats enough.
Murphys_Law wrote:
Pawnm0wer wrote:
There are some simple changes chess.com should do to make this better.....clicking draw should force a draw in insufficient material situations as well as 3 fold repititions & 50 move rule. if it already works like this , then thats enough.
This does already exists on this site. The insufiecint material happens automatically, the others the "offer draw" button changes to "claim draw". Once you press this button you then get the draw Auomatically. I know this happen on the On Line Chess as I have exprience these situations myself. I don't play Live Chess, but I assume it also happens there as well
yes it does exist. I have claimed threefold repititions on live chess many times.
1 small correction on the previous replies, insufficient material draws are currently bugged: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/livechess/bug-live-chess-reports-draw-by-insufficient-material-in-winnable-positions
Play longer time controls.
If you don't have time to finish, why bother?
Couldn't you just move the same pieces to the same places 3 times and claim a draw by repetition? Of course it would depend on your opponent moving his king back & forth between the same two squares.
Jul 29, 2011
0
#15
FlyingD wrote:
1 small correction on the previous replies, insufficient material draws are currently bugged: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/livechess/bug-live-chess-reports-draw-by-insufficient-material-in-winnable-positions
Thanks for posting this...I recently had a game where my opponent only had one knight left, and 0 pawns....And it wouldnt let me claim a draw....
that is awful for u u could have won
AaronSolt wrote:
I played against an oponent rated 100 points higher than me, who won a pawn off me in the middle game via pile up, and then traded most of his pieces with me. I traded rooks to keep his off my 2nd rank. Each having a bishop of the same color, I proceded to lock up the pawns and keep his out, shooting for a draw. The only problem is even though I proved it was a draw, he just rapidly moved his king back and force, knowing he had 3 minutes and I only had 2.
That is when I noticed he had left his pawns unguarded on one side of the board, and attacked them with my bishop. This was after 30 seconds of king ticking and 30 seconds of thinking. By the time I captured his pawns and forced him to give up his bishop and had out flanked his king around my last pawn to queen, I had 10 seconds left on my clock, and 60 on his. I lost from time.
I actually don't care that I lost, since I learned something and think that clocks should matter. I'm just curious though what everyone here thinks of the tactic of declining a proven draw just because remaining clock time differs.
So basically you had a winning position and you lost on time?
Vulpesvictor wrote
So basically you had a winning position and you lost on time?
Yes, this happens to me all the time in 5 minute blitz. It happens much less in 10 minute blitz.
In all fairness, though, you have to realize that the reason I had a winning position is because I spent more of my time thinking. He was basically giving me time odds with his faster moves. So it is only fair that he wins on time. I need to be more familiar at evaluating endgames so I can recognize faster how to exploit a winning situation to a win. I should not complain about loosing on time if it is my fault for ticking my king back and forth for a draw for 30 seconds and then needing another 30 to realize I had a winning position.
The difference between a 1400 player and an 1800 player is they know endgame theory well enough that they trade and manipulate pawn structures during the middle game in a way that gives them a good endgame. They don't just scratch their heads when they can't find a good fork.
AaronSolt wrote:
Vulpesvictor wrote
So basically you had a winning position and you lost on time?
Yes, this happens to me all the time in 5 minute blitz. It happens much less in 10 minute blitz.
In all fairness, though, you have to realize that the reason I had a winning position is because I spent more of my time thinking. He was basically giving me time odds with his faster moves. So it is only fair that he wins on time. I need to be more familiar at evaluating endgames so I can recognize faster how to exploit a winning situation to a win. I should not complain about loosing on time if it is my fault for ticking my king back and forth for a draw for 30 seconds and then needing another 30 to realize I had a winning position.
The difference between a 1400 player and an 1800 player is they know endgame theory well enough that they trade and manipulate pawn structures during the middle game in a way that gives them a good endgame. They don't just scratch their heads when they can't find a good fork.
Good answer. Don't even sweat it, that'd be my advice. Everyone (maybe even Kramnik) drops something from time to time; it's called being human.
An example: During this month I've been playing my very first OTB tornament and I've managed to convert quite a few winning positions into losing ones, but hey - Next time I'll try harder not to get into tricky situations, right?
I shalln't try to discuss different levels of mastery at all seeing as I know close to nowt about chess as such. It's a process, or at least that's how I regard it.
As prawn suggested; play with different time controls. In my opinion it makes for a more interesting game when you have a chance to think things over and come up with some good moves in stead of having to deal with time issues and just - you know - going for the first candidate move, you spot.
Anyways, I realize that the tone given might have been subject to come off like critique. Provocative as it might seem, it's a matter of good intentions delivered in quite a clumsy fashion. I blame red wine. :)
I never would have guessed alcohol from your writing. When I drink, my writing is more free thought stream, almost disorganised but almost in a good poetic disorganised way. My dead give away is giving details that a sober person would probably not want to disclose or not care about. But let's not talk about that anymore since there are probably underage people reading this thread. I'm over 30.
As for time controls, I like blitz because I am forced to prioritize my thought process. I'd never play bullet chess, though. I like longer games too since you have to think more moves ahead to get an edge, which is a memory and logic challenge.
I played against an oponent rated 100 points higher than me, who won a pawn off me in the middle game via pile up, and then traded most of his pieces with me. I traded rooks to keep his off my 2nd rank. Each having a bishop of the same color, I proceded to lock up the pawns and keep his out, shooting for a draw. The only problem is even though I proved it was a draw, he just rapidly moved his king back and force, knowing he had 3 minutes and I only had 2.
That is when I noticed he had left his pawns unguarded on one side of the board, and attacked them with my bishop. This was after 30 seconds of king ticking and 30 seconds of thinking. By the time I captured his pawns and forced him to give up his bishop and had out flanked his king around my last pawn to queen, I had 10 seconds left on my clock, and 60 on his. I lost from time.
I actually don't care that I lost, since I learned something and think that clocks should matter. I'm just curious though what everyone here thinks of the tactic of declining a proven draw just because remaining clock time differs.