It isn't even winnable!

If you run out of time, you lose - it makes 0 difference how much you're winning by, or whether or not your opponent can theoretically win if the game were to be continued.

It does actually, if it's unwinnable then it's a draw by default, always.

As others have mentioned, there was a debate about this, and the two determining points seemed to be the general attitude of serious tournament players. Chess.com markets itself as a more serious chess site, while remaining open to the casual player. The argument, championed by CM Ilmago, was that if we started changing the rules, it would damage this reputation and shift the market significantly toward the online patzer (who, in my experience, is the type of wiener who pulls stunts like refusing draws). Ultimately this argument won out against patzers such as myself, who would prefer convenience over correctness, but could see the importance of keeping chess.com appealing to rigorous players.

It's a good thing you made this point clear in your very first post, because otherwise there may have been people who reached an incorrect conclusion after reading your whining over the past 17 or 18 hours.  

You started out saying it was impossible to obtain even a help mate, and were demonstrated wrong.  This is just another case of a malcontent who wants to change rules because the "wrong" people win under current rules (I see the same fellow beat you in the preceding game, too).  Other alternatives would be to improve your play under those rules, or, if you don't handle time well, don't play quick games.  Such results in blitz and bullet won't "distort" standard game ratings.

OK, so the guys have proven your game to be winnable, QED. Can we close this? 

Have you actually read all of my posts in this thread: because your response implies that you haven't.  It's nothing to do with the fact that I lost the game and nothing I have said has indicated that.  My opinion would remain the same, and I would have also posted about this, if it wasn't even a game of my own.

I expected that certain people would just write this off as me being a 'bad loser', but if they look into it more deeply they will see that it's simply not the case.  As you pointed out yourself the same guy beat me in the previous game and I have nothing to say about that except that he deserved to win.

Fide make their rules on the basis that an arbiter will be present to adjudicate such positions.  If this was an OTB game then I would have offered my opponent a draw (as I did in this case).  In the very unlikely event of him not accepting it I would pause the clocks and summon an arbiter to look over the position and he would declare it a draw.  There is currently no mechanism to 'call the arbiter' in online play, and it's therefore redundant to use the same rules as Fide because the rules were not intended for the scenario that Chess.com live Chess produces.  This means that in practically all cases OTB this position would end as a draw but in practically no cases would it end in a draw in live Chess, which surely demonstrates to even the most obedient followers of the Fide rule book that it cannot govern online Chess in the same way as it does OTB.

So for those of you who want this site to simulate serious Chess as best as it possibly can you would surely want to simulate all aspects (including the outcomes of games) in the most realistic way.  I therefore propose that certain endgame scenarios are deemed a draw by default because the probability of losing such a position is so remote that it's deemed to never happen by chance (and never has by the way).

Chess.com can justify the above in the same way as they can justify banning players who produce statistically conclusive evidence that they are receiving computer assistance (i.e. 90% first choice Rybka moves).  It doesn't take a statistician to appreciate that 90% first choice Rybka moves is actually not impossible to do without the help of Rybka, but so unlikely that it's deemed to conclusively suggest cheating.  So my main point is that if probability is conclusive enough as evidence to ban people from the site (some of them paying members), then surely it's good enough to determine the reasonable outcome of a game.

Such a more realistic outcome would make grades more realistically resemble actual playing strength, which is the only purpose of grade.

Food for thought.

The problem with trying to change the rule is that then they'd have to make a huge book about the positions that are and aren't considered rediculous enough (and of course different levels could have very different opinions on this!). What would then be more enticing: memorizing that tome or working around the rule? It's simplest by far to just use the rule, nothing is perfect.

Perhaps the same rules that arbiters use to govern their determination of the outcome of a game.  Arbiters are not always very strong players so they must be given guidelines that they use to determine whether a game is drawn or not. I don't think it needs to be a particularly specific list of positions, more just based on something along the lines of:

- K+P vs K+B or K+N = Draw ... etc

That's not hard for the players to remember either.  In most cases it's not even a case of remembering it because it's common knowledge that such a position would be a draw anyway (hence the reason for the whole thing in the first place).

Well, take the strange situation (as far as insufficient material draws go) we have in your original post. I'm sure there's many other random ones like that, for example two knights vs 1 pawn can sometimes win for two knights compared to two knights vs just king! Ok both positions actually have sufficient material for a possible mate whether it's forced or not, but I admit it's not easy to find many examples! With that said though, I could imagine someone digging up a lot of weird situations having to judge "rediculous enough" or not.

If there is increment, those "insufficent" positions should be very easy to hold, just wait 50 moves. If there is not, it's a little harder, but I suppose you just need to try your best, maybe try not to get into the same problem again. Worse has certainly happened to me! In blitz I could be a piece up but still lose for not winning quick enough, I guess in no increment it is a sort of punishment for not managing your time quite good enough.

I can understand you being frustrated about the loss, but it's just artificial to force positions to be a draw when there is a possible result, it's like forcing someone to resign a queen down, even though it tends to be extremely hopeless. There could be a beginner out there who loses the given position, who knows, I'm just saying it feels weird.

As far as your opponent being a bad sport, I totally agree, but what he did was legal, and in blitz people can go crazy just for a cheap win on time. That's what makes it intense, but remember you always have the option to play with increment if you don't want that kind of "wood pushing" for time.

I know this is not addressing your question, but after move 44.Bb7 if you had played Ra2, you would have a easy win because black's king cannot cover both sides of the board, just push the h pawn if the king goes to the a1 side but if the king stays on the h1 side push your pawns with your king!

Over all it was a nice game, too bad for the controversy of the ruling, but you should have won and there would be no question of the out come!

Thanks for your insight into the game.  You have to remember that I had seconds left on the clock and it's sometimes not easy to see the easiest win.  On move 40 I had about 10 seconds left and most of the moves after that were just pre-moves.

Hi ,

Your comments about an arbitor giving it as a draw in an OTB game is not necessarily true - indeed in a fairly high profile lady's (I think) game reported on ChessBase a while back, the win was awarded by the aribtor because of the fact that a mate could occur by a legal sequence of moves, even though unlikely.

It would be interesting to know how the player with the bishop plays for a win and therefore not fall foul (in an OTB game) of draw for lack of trying to win.

cheers

Mike

I find nothing wrong with your opponent's win.  I wouldn't call him a cheat or cheap either.

Play to win.  That's the goal.  Time pressure is part of chess.  Even in long games it can be an issue.  Managing time is part of chess skill.

Managing time well will only give a win if the other player does not manage time well.  Your opponent managed his time well and you did not.  This seems fair to me.

With longer time controls this position would have been a draw, but with longer time controls you would not have been in this position.

I see no reason to change rules.

Actually, according to US chess federation rules you game was drawn.They have the ruling you suggested:

"USCF 14E indicates that the game is drawn when a player exceeds the time limit if one of the following conditions exists. Opponent has only a lone K (14E1), Opponent has only K and B or K and N and does not have a forced win (14E2), Opponent has only K and 2 Ns, the player has no pawns, and the opponent does not have a forced win. (14E3)."

The key words are forced, not just legal sequence.

So your suggestion is not that strange as some people here are trying to say.

I agree that time managment is an impotant part of chess, but when it becomes a competition how fast are your fingers it is not what most people who play chess want. Unfortunately, I don't think that just listing positions like you described would solve the problem. Say if you build a castle and you have a very easy way to defend it, but you have just 4 seconds left and you won't be able to survive before  50 moves rule will kick in. I think the only sound solution is to play all games with few seconds delay. It does not change anything in blitz, except avoiding stupid situations like yours.

Thanks Misha.