Opponent not familiar with the 50-move rule + pre-moves = a win!

Close but not quite there. 

If you had read carefully, or read at all, you'd realize I wanted to share the bishop/pawn position that made it a dead draw. 

The fact that I won had nothing to do with it - as I've said before, I'd have posted this even if I had lost. 

What'd you do? I told you to read all posts and you just read the first page? If you'd read everything, I wouldn't have to tell you this stuff. 

You ran the risk of looking stupid... and... well. 

What title? I'm not a titled player.

I'm just explaining why I posted this thread to begin with. If you don't like it, that's fine.

I had a long reply all ready to post, but the hamsters ate it. Let's just say that I did read all the thread before I posted, that Nakamura may be a GM but that doesn't make him a citable authority on ethics, that in fact some GMs have historically had deplorable ethics just as do internationals in other fields, that I personally have accepted a draw rather than play on until my opponent's clock ran out (the board position was a draw and that was all that counted)... and that you may never see the day when you're good enough to criticize my English.

My sympathies lie with Arthur Bisguier, who woke up Bobby Fischer rather than let him snooze through a time control that would have handed Bisguier the game, the tournament, and the US Championship. YMMV (and evidently does).

I don't think I want to criticize teh OP here, in lightning chess ettiquete does not apply so much.  Still it's hardly something to brag about.  Something akin to "I scored a goal when my opponent broke his knee!  Epic win!"  And yes, I do believe you are bragging, people don't make threads to not brag.

As to disagreeing with hikaru - hikaru isn't exactly known for great sportsmenship, not unusually bad among lightning players, but when playing lightning I have to do things like make sure my felt hasn't been replaced by teflon and such.

Come on Gil, continue your story. Fischer went on to win that game. I bet Bisguier regretted his "ethical" choice. 

Chess doesn't beg any questions of ethics. 

And if you didn't use hamsters, maybe your mileage wouldn't vary as much 

Mustard, this wasn't a bullet game. If I'm bragging at all in this thread, it's about achieving an unusual "neat" position involving bishops and pawns. For the third time, I would have made this thread even if I had lost. But of course, you'd swear I'd be bragging that I lost 

No matter the reason for the thread, I think it throws up an interesting question on the 50 move rule in such situations: should it be automatically given in blitz? If I have say 0.5s left and want to claim a draw, but I will time out by the time I click the draw button, does it justify the addition of an auto claim. And if so, is this something the site should look at introducing?

That is a good question Kibitz. 

I would personally say there shouldn't be an auto-draw. If you have half a second left and don't have time to click the "draw" button, I don't think your opponent would have to go from a win to a draw because he managed to handle his time better. In a way, it's "close but no cigar." You both started off with 5, 10, 15, minutes, your opponent is, in my opinion, fully allowed to win on time, even if it's just half a second away from a draw.

I wouldn't know who bisguiser was if he wasn't so ethical however.

If you don't want people to think you are bragging don't act like one.  If everybody but you thinks you are bragging, it isn't everyone else that screwed up, it's you.

If Bisguiser wasn't so ethical, he would have won the U.S. championship, as Gil said, and you probably would've heard of him. Ethics didn't play apart on whether or not you know of him.

Not "everybody but me" thinks I'm bragging. I've made it perfectly clear that I wanted to share the position involving bishops and pawns. I've said that several times now. If you think differently, that's fine. You can discuss that in a different topic - this topic is for the position, not the end result. Like I've said over and over... if I had lost, this thread would still be here.

Wow. That should be a completely drawn game. Why did you decide to keep playing? It's just a big waste of time.

THIS is why no increment chess is stupid to me (though I still don't prefer it, time controls like 120 0 are more sensible in that if you can keep yourself from getting into time pressure the "out moving" shouldn't be an issue, but in blitz this can be very hard to avoid eventually). Some people will simply try to (admittedly it can be a logical thing to do in that time control, but to me it's a very stupid way to win a chess game), literally, out move you.

"Why would someone put me on a no-play list for a chess.com technical "glitch"? It most certainly isn't my fault."

You didn't have to move back and forth for 300 moves. I mean when you move THAT much it starts to look a little obnoxious, since the 50 move rule very, very obviously applies but the guy (like me) probably assumed it was automated (and that chess.com was just screwing up), and wouldn't "offer" (of course claim at this point) a draw because it would probably be refused with less time.

Fischer wasn't lying when you need a strong mind and body to play chess well. It's hard to move those pieces fast with chubby fingers 

Put it this way, if that game was played OTB, your opponent would have been quite entitled to call across an arbiter if under 2mins, show no progress was possible and it would be a draw. Similarly it would not take any time to stop the clocks and claim the draw by 50 move rule. OK, this game is blitz, so there can be no arbiter, but would you not agree that if your opponent has shown correct technique to prove the draw for 50 moves, then the automatic result should be given? There is a difference to this, and winning on time in general, my point is in this case he has proven a draw, wants a draw, and by all means deserves that draw, but is unable to claim. How can that be fair?

check, I would agree except that I don't think clicking on a button has anything to do with the actual game, unlike actually achieving a drawn position. Offering a draw should be part of the game, but online, I don't think claiming should be. OTB yes it should.

And I personally don't like the fact that a person can move 50 moves back and forth and still win, but I guess I should just stop complaining and only play increment (which I do). What I wonder though is why people like to play without it, not even 1 extra second? Do they enjoy those time wins?

You used the phrase "automatic draw", but this simply isn't true. Maybe on other servers, but on chess.com, the draw is by no means automatic. And who's to say whether or not progress can be made? In this game, progress could most certainly have been made if my opponent took my pawn when I moved my bishop. He wasn't paying attention - I'm not gonna show sympathy for his not paying attention by handing him a draw.

You ask "How can that be fair?", saying that he deserves the draw. If he deserved the draw, he would have got it. He was soooooo close, I admit, but he couldn't quite get his cursor on the "draw" button and press down. That's not my fault, and definitely not a reason for me to go from a win down to a draw. 

It started fair (we both had 5 minutes) and it came down to a drawn position with me having more time. Normally it wouldn't matter who had more time if the position was drawn, but in this case it does, because my opponent couldn't figure out how to claim the draw. That meant, because it was drawn on the board (no one could one or lose on the board), it came down to who could handle their time better.

Handling your time in chess is just as important as the position on the board - sometimes, such as in this case, even more important!

That was the point - to waste time until the opponent, not knowing what button to press to claim a 50-move draw, lost by default. And then to post the position which of course the OP would have posted just as willingly had he lost *cough*'ullshi'*cough*.

If Bisguier had been less ethical he would have been known as "that guy who won the Championship because Fischer fell asleep". Personally I'd heard of him long before I heard the story.

I have no idea of what the OP means by "does not beg any question of..." but I assume, from context, that he means "does not admit of any question of ethics" or even "pays no heed to ethics", and that if he studies long and hard enough will know what "beg the question" actually means, as well as learn something about not misusing hifalutin' phrases that promise to make you look at least as ignorant as the people he's arguing with. Anyway, there's nothing unique about chess that makes it exempt from the principles of ethics, but the very attempt to argue differently conveys all kinds of interesting information about yourself.

If there's one useful thing I've gleaned from this thread it's how chess.com's interface works when it comes to claiming statutory draws. I must admit I wondered about that in a game I was playing recently; not that I ended up needing to know. 

Most non-incremental games don't end in "time wins" or "time losses". But when it comes down to a drawn position, and no arbiter is around to prove it, and there is no automatic draw going on, it comes down to who has the better time management. 

If it takes a player fifty-nine minutes to reach a drawn position with another player, who took only twenty minutes, don't you think that second person played better? It may not seem "fair" to some people, but that's how chess works.

It wasn't about handling time better (he handled it fine obviously, if he could make the 50 move rule), it was most likely about an ignorance of a dubious method forcing you to claim a draw. I highly doubt it was because he didn't feel he had enough time to click on the button. For 300 moves?

Why you would make that many moves back and forth to win a pointless game like this I simply don't understand.

"don't you think that second person played better?"

Actually thats a sign of terrible time management by the first player, and in this case the second player WOULD have drawn had he known about an arbitrary rule.