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

I'm a college student Gil, double majoring in math and computer sciences, minoring in business (the minor in business is a complete waste, I'll give you that). We college students are educated  And "beggining the question" isn't an advanced phrase to understand. "Hifalutin'", on the other hand...

You say there's nothing unique about chess that makes it oblivious to ethics. So if a serial killer with no morals beats a nice, religious clergyman with morals coming out his ears, it should not be counted as a win for the bad guy "because he has bad morals." 

The point is, a win is a win. Ask Karpov and his magical yogurt.

Perhaps, but I certainly don't think the game should still end because of pointless shuffling. I think a better punishment (as in increment), is to force the guy to move really quickly (1-5 sec per move), but give him that increment (or delay) so that he has some protection from this stuff. If he can hold the position with that little time, yes I think he deserves the draw.

I addressed this in my last post, and that part of the game was not about time management, as it was clear the guy in his time pressure was holding the position. He probably thought he was doomed to a loss because the 50 move rule 'wasn't working". Sometimes I have played chess on very generic programs that forget stuff like this, so that's what I used to think.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Life may not be fair, but chess is 

Now, don't get me wrong, there have been plenty of times where I have lost winning positions, acheived by playing more logically while the other guy was playing for tricks, but then one of them finally worked. I was really mad, but yeah, a win is a win for that guy.

HOWEVER, this win had nothing to do with chess nor time management, rather an ignorance of a dubious draw policy, and you had to have known that playing the game because it was so obvious.

That's a good point Elubas. While your idea of an incremental punishment may be feasible, that's not the way it's currently done.

You said "why people would make pointless moves back and forth to win a pointless game" is a mystery to you. Well, it was Saturday. I was bored.

I feel this win had to do with ignorance of a dubious draw policy and time management. It came down to around ten seconds for my opponent and a minute thirty for myself, and I was able to "out move" him using the time I didn't use getting into that position. He would have had more time, and probably had won, if he didn't use as much time getting into that drawn position. 

Stunning!  Incredible length!  Can you imagine writing this down yourself during a real game.  All the sheets of paper for scoresheet.  It would be like writing a blue book essay and playing chess at the same time!  I suppose something was happening to make it so long.  Imprecise moves or B/N ending.  Something like that I guess.

D.J.

One time an incredibly stubborn opponent (fortunately, this was with increment), in a bad bishop vs knight endgame, only one pawn on the board, just moved back and forth. My king was on a square where it could NEVER be taken off, and basically all I had to do was move my knight back and forth and not hang it or allow a favorable trade into a king and pawn endgame. I was actually very happy when he disconnected and I got the win.

Would you have told that story if your stubborn opponent hadn't disconnected and managed a draw? 

But if he knew the policy he would have drawn, as he certainly seemed to have enough time to spare, getting in as many moves as he did.

But yeah my philosophy on punishment of using too much time has always been different, because I hate when somebody tries to win simply by taking as little time as possible, making a move with the sole purpose of running out the guy's time. The increment punishment means you have to move extremely fast, but "out moving" won't be enough, you'd have to actually create some kind of problem for the opponent at least by making a move with some imagination to hope to turn the game around. Otherwise I agree with you.

It will not be the first time this happens, nor the last, so should a player be punished for not knowing how the software handles this rule? The game was effectively over, he managed to prove his draw, and probably thought that the draw button would just offer you a draw, which judging by the fact you have played on for 300moves, would be declined. Would it not be better to automatically award the draw? Time management does not come into it, he has handled his time perfectly if he knows that the game would be over if he could enforce this rule.

 Maybe, though it wouldn't be nearly as ironic or interesting.

If he had handled his time better than I handled mine, I would have claimed a draw. The fact that I had more time than he did (as a result of better time management throughout the game) shows that, if my opponent doesn't know how chess.com does draws, I deserve that win on a chess.com server.

I mean, it's not really something that can be argued - I had more time than my opponent, thus I handled my time better.

"I mean, it's not really something that can be argued - I had more time than my opponent, thus I handled my time better."

Technically, you are right (if only by what a minute?), but I don't think that it should entitle you to win in that way. I respect that in 0 increment games people will try this strategy, the real problem I have with this is that this is a win over such a silly misunderstanding of how the counterintuitive chess.com rules work; shouldn't the result be based instead on his ability to scramble to actually achieve a 50 move rule draw? I don't like that. Oh well, I've said all there is, I'll just drop it lol.

What if chess.com rules thought checkmate meant stalemate and vice versa? Would that be fair?

In most cases, yes you are right, but here when the game is effectively over, remaining time is irrelevant. I am not really sure you understand what I mean. The game at say move 300, is drawn. He has played and proven that draw by the rules of chess, hence remaining time doesn't matter. Whether you take 2 hours or 2 minutes on a game, the game is played equally well, and you get the result based on the position, not time. My point this result should not be based on a time issue, but with the 50move issue, and how he should have been awarded it. If you do not know how to claim that draw on software you are unfamiliar with, then don't you think chess.com should intervene and award the draw in the interests of fairness. I don't think you can possibly say he didnt deserve the draw, can you?

Unless I'm missing something at another point in the game the only time you moved your bishop it was still protecting the pawn by his king while the pawn away from his king was unprotected and when he did make a move to take it you moved your bishop back into the middle protecting both your pawns.

I don't see you as winning in that pawn structure the only advantage you had was that your pawns were in whites territory so how did you go from winning to a draw by dancing a king winning on time when you knowing in your own words couldve been a bigger person and offered a draw?

The way you both were moving made it a drawn position you both could've danced around with your kings for the next month never moving a bishop.  and if either one of you did move a bishop you could always have moved it right back like you did preventing the other person from taking a pawn clearly drawn.

Also maybe if you had've just posted the position instead of the entire game, just as easily done, maybe it wouldn't like you are bragging about winning a drawn game.

lol He meant the thread's title!

without reading every post on this thread, I have to say that this is why computer/online chess is different than over the board.  We play for different reasons, but both players stuck around--no draw was offered.  I would imagine both players had some sort of fun just to play a game of this ridiculous length. 

Whenever you play any game you're obligated to play by the rules with the same legal equipment.  The game was silly, but please, there was nothing "unsportsmanlike" here.  I'm not obligated to tell my opponent in any computer game what button does what.

Philosophically, if anyone's going to complain about time, then why didn't the loser of this match make faster moves?  Time at the beginning of a match and time at the end is the exact same time.  By opting to play with time you create an alternative win condition.  A win is a win.

So yeah, not a great win, but an entertaining spectacle, and given the ratings (lowly 1400's--hey I'm below 1200 right now!) something to talk about for a long time for these two. 

--matt

i didn't say it was fun for me, but everyone here who is upset knows better than to play for that long.  As a fairly new Chess.com player, I didn't know you can just claim a draw after 50, I also thought it was an automatic thing. for the two opponents above, who cares?   I understand why it should have been a draw, but the players are relying on a website.  Therefore they are playing a video game.  If you are playing a video game, then the equipment is a relevant piece of equipment, just like if the two were playing computer (AI vs. AI) chess, right?

And yes, as a newbie who tries not to judge people based on their chess play, I enjoyed clicking through the game for the sheer spectacle of it.  I understand completely (despite my oh-so-low rating) that the basis of the victory was a technicality.

Two different games here:  The game as a game of chess was a draw, unofficially acknowledged as I think we can all agree-- The game of acquiring a win on chess.com was won fair and square.

"...if the other guy had offered the draw it would have auto claimed the 50move rule, so partly his own fault."

So true, so true. If a draw had been offered here, the other part must have agreed, no matter the time. I guess that's check2008s point here. He didn't offer to draw.