Think of time like fuel in a car.
You may be ahead in the race, but when you run out of fuel, you lose the race.
Time wins are stupid.
Sort:
Time too is a weapon.
Possibly the greatest weapon.
Think of lending money. A mortgage.
At 5% interest. All you have to do is wait 15 years, and you double your money.
Lending money is using only the tool of time!
Think about that.
If I would be 100km ahead of my opponent, I would leave the car and walk and still win such a race. This is absolute bs when a guy has one pawn left and he wins, it should be a draw at best if he is far behind in material.
Too bad.
Aug 18, 2023
0
#6
No he shouldn't, because having 1 pawn left means checkmate is still possible. For example:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
No he shouldn't, because having 1 pawn left means checkmate is still possible. For example:
Cool story bruh, looks exactly like the last game of Magnus Carlsen. I have seen so many such games, how could I forget it, thank you for your highly valuable input.
Aug 18, 2023
0
#8
Also the site shouldn't immediately declare a draw when one side has a knight left and the other side loses on time, because 1 knight is enough to checkmate if there's still pieces left on the board:
And this is why black should lose if he runs out of time in this position, because white can win the game. How does it feel to have your argument summarily refuted in less than 10 posts?
The point is, nobody should care about such cases, these are some unrealistic troll games, not real chess.
Aug 18, 2023
0
#12
I have a thread on this:
Realistic examples of why the FIDE rule for flagging should be universally used in all online and OTB chess.
PIaneswalker wrote:
ghstndshll wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
No he shouldn't, because having 1 pawn left means checkmate is still possible. For example:
Cool story bruh, looks exactly like the last game of Magnus Carlsen. I have seen so many such games, how could I forget it, thank you for your highly valuable input.
You aren't Magnus Carlsen, you're a random 1400. Time is a very important part of this game.
Even some rating 200 with dementia wouldn't lose like that, this is the point that you have missed, genius.
PIaneswalker wrote:
ghstndshll wrote:
PIaneswalker wrote:
ghstndshll wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
No he shouldn't, because having 1 pawn left means checkmate is still possible. For example:
Cool story bruh, looks exactly like the last game of Magnus Carlsen. I have seen so many such games, how could I forget it, thank you for your highly valuable input.
You aren't Magnus Carlsen, you're a random 1400. Time is a very important part of this game.
Even some rating 200 with dementia wouldn't lose like that, this is the point that you have missed, genius.
You are incorrect. There are videos on YouTube showcasing low-elo players drawing or stalemating positions similar to those you mentioned. And yes, I am a genius.
Show me.
Aug 18, 2023
0
#15
I personally find time wins as a fun challenge to balance rather than a obstacle, if you got rid of time wins when someone ghosts a game you would have to resign too.
Aug 18, 2023
0
#16
Here's a more "realistic" example:
In this position, if white realizes black has a forced mating sequence after playing a6 in a time scramble, white can deliberately let his time run out, and get a draw out of lost position. White can get out of forced mate and improve his game result, by losing on time. How does that make any sense? This is why insufficient mating material implementation on this site needs to take into account the material the other side has as well.
PIaneswalker wrote:
ghstndshll wrote:
PIaneswalker wrote:
ghstndshll wrote:
PIaneswalker wrote:
ghstndshll wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
No he shouldn't, because having 1 pawn left means checkmate is still possible. For example:
Cool story bruh, looks exactly like the last game of Magnus Carlsen. I have seen so many such games, how could I forget it, thank you for your highly valuable input.
You aren't Magnus Carlsen, you're a random 1400. Time is a very important part of this game.
Even some rating 200 with dementia wouldn't lose like that, this is the point that you have missed, genius.
You are incorrect. There are videos on YouTube showcasing low-elo players drawing or stalemating positions similar to those you mentioned. And yes, I am a genius.
Show me.
Are you so inept that you cannot use the search bar on youtube?
You are claiming some ridiculous bs that a human chess player can lose with 10 queens against one pawn, you are not a genius you have a missing chromosome.
PIaneswalker wrote:
ghstndshll wrote:
PIaneswalker wrote:
ghstndshll wrote:
PIaneswalker wrote:
ghstndshll wrote:
PIaneswalker wrote:
ghstndshll wrote:
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
No he shouldn't, because having 1 pawn left means checkmate is still possible. For example:
Cool story bruh, looks exactly like the last game of Magnus Carlsen. I have seen so many such games, how could I forget it, thank you for your highly valuable input.
You aren't Magnus Carlsen, you're a random 1400. Time is a very important part of this game.
Even some rating 200 with dementia wouldn't lose like that, this is the point that you have missed, genius.
You are incorrect. There are videos on YouTube showcasing low-elo players drawing or stalemating positions similar to those you mentioned. And yes, I am a genius.
Show me.
Are you so inept that you cannot use the search bar on youtube?
You are claiming some ridiculous bs that a human chess player can lose with 10 queens against one pawn, you are not a genius you have a missing chromosome.
I said positions such as those that you mentioned. Please, try to read.
What positions did I mention? Maybe you should try to read better.
PIaneswalker wrote:
"Estimated on points from captured pieces"
This could mean anything from 1 pawn down to 9 queens down... Please explain how you're meant to have 10 queens on the board at the same time?
Go back and read what you have said.
We were talking about positions from post #6 and #8 when you showed up claiming that you have seen players losing such positions, so please continue to show me how human player loses with positions like that.
Aug 18, 2023
0
#20
Here are 2 more examples of forced mates where a single pawn wins against almost the entire set of pieces:
Note how playing the pawn to h3 instead of h4, and capturing the c5 pawn before the c4 pawn, is crucial to timing the arrival of the knight to b3 when the queen is on a1, since the knight cannot triangulate.
When the game ends, the win should be estimated on points for captured pieces. Current time-based system is outdated and extremely dumb, the game should be fair and a better player should be awarded for being better.