In that scenario since the player was there and ran out of time, most TDs here would just log it as a loss.
Not all though :P
If you think they won't, then you could simply make your opponent aware he didn't hit his clock after most of his time has run off. He'll panic and hit the clock, making the game official anyway.
This game actually happeened in a club tournament (30/90 60 SD) between two 1600s from what I remember:
At this point white tried to play Nf2 and spent some time trying to figure out why it looked strange.
***
Used to go to this one (elementary and high) school tournament every year. They didn't have clocks but had to keep on schedule so the TD would, with a cursory look, declare a winner and award them 3/4 a point giving 1/4 to the loser. Only the TD either wasn't very good or didn't care very much as he often scored a game the wrong way or he'd declare the winner of a close game simply because of a small space advantage. The funniest part about it was that one guy from our high school team graduated and went to college in the same city where this tournament was in. So the following year he entered the tournament with us just for laughs despite being too old. During the awards ceremony, the organizers singled him out and gave him a special award... sporstmanship.
This game actually happeened in a club tournament (30/90 60 SD) between two 1600s from what I remember:
At this point white tried to play Nf2 and spent some time trying to figure out why it looked strange.
***
Used to go to this one (elementary and high) school tournament every year. They didn't have clocks but had to keep on schedule so the TD would, with a cursory look, declare a winner and award them 3/4 a point giving 1/4 to the loser. Only the TD either wasn't very good or didn't care very much as he often scored a game the wrong way or he'd declare the winner of a close game simply because of a small space advantage. The funniest part about it was that one guy from our high school team graduated and went to college in the same city where this tournament was in. So the following year he entered the tournament with us just for laughs despite being too old. During the awards ceremony, the organizers singled him out and gave him a special award... sporstmanship.
Threefold repetition does not necessarily have to be 3 moves in a row, just exactly the same position repeating 3 times with the same player to move. They could be 40 moves apart although humans wouldn't be too likely to notice that.
I once saw a successful 3-move-repition claim on about move 160 when the positions were 11 moves apart.
Wow!
I'll grant you, I've never had 3-fold 160 moves apart, especially given my longest game is 134 moves all told, but I have had multiple instances of non-back-to-back-to-back.
I had one game where I was Black in South Carolina where the first and third were about 10 moves apart.
I had another in North Carolina as White where I had my King and 2 Bishops, Black had his King, a Knight, and 3 pawns (a, b, and c, along the diagonal, it was either a5-b6-c7 or a4-b5-c6, so one of my Bishops basically stopped the pawn advancement. The 3 occurrances I know for this one occurred on White's 53rd, 58th, and 62nd moves
I was at a chess tournament with the rest of the highschool chess team and play this game against a girl that was... distracting in a sense. I played her to a stalemate (rook and king on both sides) to a fifty move draw. Then, she proceded to anhialate three of the best players on my team. She was pissed at me for continuing the game for another 30 minutes. Thinking back on it, I still had 15 minutes on my clock and could have just sat there for a while before making my last move since she was already pissed at me and there was no reason not to. I was kind of hoping that the extra fifty moves would have thrown off her game for the rest of the tournament, but I was the only person she didn't beat, so I guess I have something to be proud of. (I was surprised that that game was the reason our team beat hers by one point.)
I played her to a stalemate (rook and king on both sides) to a fifty move draw.
You have your terms incorrect. A stalemate is when there are no legal moves, but the position is not checkmate.
In your game, what you had with king+rook per side was a theoretical draw. The only way to win one of those is if your opponent blunders under a time scramble down to the last second. Since you both had many minutes remaining, what you did was actually pretty rude. I'd have immediately counted off the 50 moves and then spread the word that nobody should play you a friendly game since you pull stunts like that.
Also your team still would have won by a half-point if she had won that game, so it wasn't the only deciding factor.
I played her to a stalemate (rook and king on both sides) to a fifty move draw.
You have your terms incorrect. A stalemate is when there are no legal moves, but the position is not checkmate.
In your game, what you had with king+rook per side was a theoretical draw. The only way to win one of those is if your opponent blunders under a time scramble down to the last second. Since you both had many minutes remaining, what you did was actually pretty rude. I'd have immediately counted off the 50 moves and then spread the word that nobody should play you a friendly game since you pull stunts like that.
Also your team still would have won by a half-point if she had won that game, so it wasn't the only deciding factor.
no, because if I had lost that game, it would have been 8 points to 8 points, not 8.5 to 7.5 and I don't consider it as being rude, only stubborn, because she nearly blundered with a position similar to this one:
If my rook were one square to the right, I could have put the king in check, forced it in front of the rook, put the king in check again, and taken the rook with my rook protected by the king. I was just trying to make an oppurtunity and seize it. If it were against someone on chess.com, however, I would call dray, but being a state tournament, I tried to squeze every drop of oppurtunity out of the game.
1. There is no "nearly blundering". You either make a blunder or you don't.
2. There's a difference between a king+rook endgame and a tactical win that happens to have two kings and rooks involved at the end of it. In the endgame with several minutes still on the clocks for both players, anyone above beginner level should have zero difficulty drawing it. So to play it out is just wasting time and energy.
3. Well you got me on the team score. I forgot the swing is a full point since it subtracts .5 from your score and adds another .5 to their score. That was a brain-fart on my end.
1. There is no "nearly blundering". You either make a blunder or you don't.
Kasparov "nearly blundered" against Judit Polgar once. He realized it at the last second, and moved his piece to a different square instead.
Replay later showed that Kasparov's hand had infact let go of his piece for a fraction of a second. But Polgar was brand new to the Grandmaster chess scene, and did not call Kasparov, (then world champion,) on this.
1. There is no "nearly blundering". You either make a blunder or you don't.
Kasparov "nearly blundered" against Judit Polgar once. He realized it at the last second, and moved his piece to a different square instead.
Replay later showed that Kasparov's hand had infact let go of his piece for a fraction of a second. But Polgar was brand new to the Grandmaster chess scene, and did not call Kasparov, (then world champion,) on this.
suck it, FirebrandX you've been proven wrong again! (is a "brain fart" your excuse again? I can argue for quite a while, so keep it up and you may just end up with a severely bruised ego.
With beginners not knowing the rules, I guess you can always get lucky like that. Hell, with some of the stories in this thread, it would seem even a lot of TDs don't know the rules!
This wasn't a tournament game, just a club game. But was playing speed chess. My opponent says "Anybody else want to play him?" "Sure I will!"
I not even sure how the next part happened. This is as close as I can describe it.
The guy I was playing stands up. The second guy, having an untied shoelace, sits down very swiftly and puts his head down to tie his shoe. Somehow, he hits his forehead on the king, right between the eyes. You know that spot they call the Third Eye?
He was dazed for a couple minutes of course, losing his balance and such. Let a small imprint on his head. Even bled a tiny bit.
This was a pretty-faced young guy, all worried if he was going to need stitches. Or if a scar was going to be left.
So we started telling him "You can't play with that chess set anymore! You'll shoot your eye out!!" (Movie reference)
But like I said, it was right in front of me, and I still couldn't tell you exactly HOW it happened.
I remember my first OTB game; I was up several pieces but still lost on time because I didn't understand the clock thing.
In that scenario since the player was there and ran out of time, most TDs here would just log it as a loss.
Not all though :P
If you think they won't, then you could simply make your opponent aware he didn't hit his clock after most of his time has run off. He'll panic and hit the clock, making the game official anyway.
Lot of such cheating goes on at that particular tournament, I'm told.
there was a girl at the otb tournament and i think thats a pretty surprising incident
lol.
Unbeknownst to me, the guy had a pair of white gloves and ( LITERALLY ) slapped me across the face with them. I haven't been back to Chicago. :(
In years past slapping someone in the face with your glove was the challenge to a duel.
This game actually happeened in a club tournament (30/90 60 SD) between two 1600s from what I remember:
At this point white tried to play Nf2 and spent some time trying to figure out why it looked strange.
***
Used to go to this one (elementary and high) school tournament every year. They didn't have clocks but had to keep on schedule so the TD would, with a cursory look, declare a winner and award them 3/4 a point giving 1/4 to the loser. Only the TD either wasn't very good or didn't care very much as he often scored a game the wrong way or he'd declare the winner of a close game simply because of a small space advantage. The funniest part about it was that one guy from our high school team graduated and went to college in the same city where this tournament was in. So the following year he entered the tournament with us just for laughs despite being too old. During the awards ceremony, the organizers singled him out and gave him a special award... sporstmanship.
that's weird..
This game actually happeened in a club tournament (30/90 60 SD) between two 1600s from what I remember:
At this point white tried to play Nf2 and spent some time trying to figure out why it looked strange.
***
Used to go to this one (elementary and high) school tournament every year. They didn't have clocks but had to keep on schedule so the TD would, with a cursory look, declare a winner and award them 3/4 a point giving 1/4 to the loser. Only the TD either wasn't very good or didn't care very much as he often scored a game the wrong way or he'd declare the winner of a close game simply because of a small space advantage. The funniest part about it was that one guy from our high school team graduated and went to college in the same city where this tournament was in. So the following year he entered the tournament with us just for laughs despite being too old. During the awards ceremony, the organizers singled him out and gave him a special award... sporstmanship.
I had a checkmate in 3 moves - my opponent saw it, I saw it....and then I started to kid him on his silly moves, a little.
Unbeknownst to me, the guy had a pair of white gloves and ( LITERALLY ) slapped me across the face with them.
Those must have been the proverbial kid gloves.
I once saw a successful 3-move-repition claim on about move 160 when the positions were 11 moves apart.
Wow!
I'll grant you, I've never had 3-fold 160 moves apart, especially given my longest game is 134 moves all told, but I have had multiple instances of non-back-to-back-to-back.
I had one game where I was Black in South Carolina where the first and third were about 10 moves apart.
I had another in North Carolina as White where I had my King and 2 Bishops, Black had his King, a Knight, and 3 pawns (a, b, and c, along the diagonal, it was either a5-b6-c7 or a4-b5-c6, so one of my Bishops basically stopped the pawn advancement. The 3 occurrances I know for this one occurred on White's 53rd, 58th, and 62nd moves
I was at a chess tournament with the rest of the highschool chess team and play this game against a girl that was... distracting in a sense. I played her to a stalemate (rook and king on both sides) to a fifty move draw. Then, she proceded to anhialate three of the best players on my team. She was pissed at me for continuing the game for another 30 minutes. Thinking back on it, I still had 15 minutes on my clock and could have just sat there for a while before making my last move since she was already pissed at me and there was no reason not to. I was kind of hoping that the extra fifty moves would have thrown off her game for the rest of the tournament, but I was the only person she didn't beat, so I guess I have something to be proud of. (I was surprised that that game was the reason our team beat hers by one point.)
I played her to a stalemate (rook and king on both sides) to a fifty move draw.
You have your terms incorrect. A stalemate is when there are no legal moves, but the position is not checkmate.
In your game, what you had with king+rook per side was a theoretical draw. The only way to win one of those is if your opponent blunders under a time scramble down to the last second. Since you both had many minutes remaining, what you did was actually pretty rude. I'd have immediately counted off the 50 moves and then spread the word that nobody should play you a friendly game since you pull stunts like that.
Also your team still would have won by a half-point if she had won that game, so it wasn't the only deciding factor.
I played her to a stalemate (rook and king on both sides) to a fifty move draw.
You have your terms incorrect. A stalemate is when there are no legal moves, but the position is not checkmate.
In your game, what you had with king+rook per side was a theoretical draw. The only way to win one of those is if your opponent blunders under a time scramble down to the last second. Since you both had many minutes remaining, what you did was actually pretty rude. I'd have immediately counted off the 50 moves and then spread the word that nobody should play you a friendly game since you pull stunts like that.
Also your team still would have won by a half-point if she had won that game, so it wasn't the only deciding factor.
no, because if I had lost that game, it would have been 8 points to 8 points, not 8.5 to 7.5 and I don't consider it as being rude, only stubborn, because she nearly blundered with a position similar to this one:
If my rook were one square to the right, I could have put the king in check, forced it in front of the rook, put the king in check again, and taken the rook with my rook protected by the king. I was just trying to make an oppurtunity and seize it. If it were against someone on chess.com, however, I would call dray, but being a state tournament, I tried to squeze every drop of oppurtunity out of the game.
1. There is no "nearly blundering". You either make a blunder or you don't.
2. There's a difference between a king+rook endgame and a tactical win that happens to have two kings and rooks involved at the end of it. In the endgame with several minutes still on the clocks for both players, anyone above beginner level should have zero difficulty drawing it. So to play it out is just wasting time and energy.
3. Well you got me on the team score. I forgot the swing is a full point since it subtracts .5 from your score and adds another .5 to their score. That was a brain-fart on my end.
1. There is no "nearly blundering". You either make a blunder or you don't.
Kasparov "nearly blundered" against Judit Polgar once. He realized it at the last second, and moved his piece to a different square instead.
Replay later showed that Kasparov's hand had infact let go of his piece for a fraction of a second. But Polgar was brand new to the Grandmaster chess scene, and did not call Kasparov, (then world champion,) on this.
1. There is no "nearly blundering". You either make a blunder or you don't.
Kasparov "nearly blundered" against Judit Polgar once. He realized it at the last second, and moved his piece to a different square instead.
Replay later showed that Kasparov's hand had infact let go of his piece for a fraction of a second. But Polgar was brand new to the Grandmaster chess scene, and did not call Kasparov, (then world champion,) on this.
suck it, FirebrandX you've been proven wrong again! (is a "brain fart" your excuse again? I can argue for quite a while, so keep it up and you may just end up with a severely bruised ego.
With beginners not knowing the rules, I guess you can always get lucky like that. Hell, with some of the stories in this thread, it would seem even a lot of TDs don't know the rules!
lol.
This wasn't a tournament game, just a club game. But was playing speed chess. My opponent says "Anybody else want to play him?" "Sure I will!"
I not even sure how the next part happened. This is as close as I can describe it.
The guy I was playing stands up. The second guy, having an untied shoelace, sits down very swiftly and puts his head down to tie his shoe. Somehow, he hits his forehead on the king, right between the eyes. You know that spot they call the Third Eye?
He was dazed for a couple minutes of course, losing his balance and such. Let a small imprint on his head. Even bled a tiny bit.
This was a pretty-faced young guy, all worried if he was going to need stitches. Or if a scar was going to be left.
So we started telling him "You can't play with that chess set anymore! You'll shoot your eye out!!" (Movie reference)![Surprised]( "Surprised")
![Wink]( "Wink")
But like I said, it was right in front of me, and I still couldn't tell you exactly HOW it happened.