when is a draw not a draw?

i played a 5 minute game today against burton greenwood of spain i think.after attacking for most of the game all major pieces were swapped off leaving a totally drawn king and pawn ending.after playing a few moves i offered a draw but surprise surprise due to me having less time he refused and played umpteen pointless moves to simply run me out of time.i dont know about chess etiquette anywhere else in the world but in britain this would be seen as extremely bad form to simply run the opponents clock down.i won the rematch(on time ha ha)in a won position but would like to hear other players views on this.

This has been touched on in these forums before. It is not bad sportsmanship to try to make your opponent lose on time. The clock is one of several tools that both players have at their disposal, and they are both well within their rights to use it, especially when one player doesn't manage his clock all that well. If you didn't like running out of time, then play with longer time controls next time; it's a learning experience.

I doubt that this is seen as bad form in Britain, even, because--again--this has been discussed before, and that has never come up.

I find something interesting, though. You came to the forums to complain about your opponent (and gave his real name!) running you out of time because he was supposedly rude. Then you go on to proudly say that you exacted your revenge by running him out of time. I know the circumstances may be different regarding that second game, but on the surface, it sounds hypocritical. Also, you should keep anonymous the names of players you're upset with, and not use even their usernames, let alone their real names (if they're given).

+1

I had a live game yesterday where I was behind on time, had a forced repetition position available, made it obvious, and offered a draw. My opponent refused and a few moves later declined the repetition in favour of a forced checkmate ... by me ... how sweet was that :). [Inexplicably -- and I know this will be novel to all of you here on chess.com -- he became quite rude afterward. So much the sweeter. Told me I talked too much (offering the draw), I told him he played too little ... same ol' same ol'.]

I also agree with the above, clock is part of the game. If the position is drawn, we must be able to demonstrate that as conclusively within the time bounds as we must for a win.

to quixote 88pianist i didnt say my opponent was rude.im saying he(she)was in my opinion wrong.the reason iwas shorter on time is because i was trying to win the game by actually attacking the opponents king.ive played chess for over 30 years so it was hardly a learning experience.i rarely lose on time if i do then thats my problem.i dont consider myself to be a bad loser either.also i had over a minute left on my clock.its not as if it was a few seconds.whats anonymity got to do with it?people put pictures and other personal info on their profiles.thats hardly hiding.it was a dead draw.hopefully i can get a game soon where i am ahead on time and the position has 2 bare kings.oh no im being a hypocrite again.incidentally my real name is william malcolm.to firebrand youre really funny.not.at leasttry and get the joke right.to pathfinder 416 what would you call a position where no pawn can move and the kings have nowhere to go?yep a draw.

I played a lightning event once (In Scotland oddly enough), and I had a won game against a player 3-400 hundered elo above me, only to lose on time.

He was a nice guy who took some time after the event to point out that the clock is a friend or an enemy, but is as much at the table as your opponent.

As a newish player it stuck with me, and has beacome a focal point in my awareness of games.....especially fast time controls lol.

Yes, that position is dead drawn. Apparently the time loss algorithm isn't sophisticated enough to determine that to be a draw (and I guess that would be a pretty complex algorithm to code). Also, since the time loss process didn't see that as a draw I doubt the "offer draw" option would either.

I agree, in that position it was bad form not to agree to the draw and get the win on time.

Yeah, bad play.

I have an etiquette question.  I have always been lead to beleive (And this is based on OTB Rapid TC's etc.) that the player with the least time in a "drawn" position is incumbant to request the draw. 

Is that feeling shared, been expierenced, or common?  I ask as I had an incident in a blitz game where i was a minute up in a drawn position and would have happily agreed a draw, but he never offered one, and I won on time. 

Well, in blitz you will definitely see some people try to win on time otherwise drawn(but still legally winnable) position

Although this can be morally questionable it is still legal.

But, looking at the actual game, it is clear that this is so called "dead draw", regardless of the situation on the clock, so running the clock out is pointless.

Of course, as Martin pointed out, it is impossible for chess.com engine to recognize that, but staff can easily see it.

I suggest that you contact the support team, post the link to the game and laws of chess, and ask for your well deserved draw.

http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article

Article 5: The completion of the game

5.2

He gave you time odds by thinking less and the best you could do was a drawn position.  You really think you deserved a draw in the end?

Just playing the devil's advocate.  As anthony said increment is a good solution.

Redhand, what I meant about anonymity was, we on this website generally follow a custom of not disclosing our opponent's name whenever we talk about a game. This applies especially if said opponent lost, or behaved in an unsportsmanlike, rude, childish, etc. manner; this is to avoid potentially embarrassing the opponent, whose identity is exposed to the whole membership. The resulting bad feelings and enraged words that could fly stemming from this disclosure (especially if the opponent sees him-/herself talked about thusly in the forums) is avoided if the username is kept anonymous.

It is somewhat more acceptable to disclose the opponent's name if said opponent won the game, because, obviously, the opponent is essentially complimented by having his name mentioned.

Therefore, you displayed decidedly bad form by disclosing your opponent's real name, not merely his username, when you accused him of "extremely bad form." Telling us your real name in return does not really rectify this. I don't mean to sound blunt, but in the future, please be more sensitive to your opponents.

Pianist, would you be so kind and browse through redhands "live chess" archive.

You will quickly note that he did not use the real name of his opponent.

It is also a custom here to check the facts before posting something that might be considered an accusation.

I think the biggest problem is the thread author's way of handling this situation. He could have simply entered the forums and politely commented on the rather unfair draw detection and used his game as an example. I would most definitely be inclined to agree with him if that were the case. However, I'm astounded that redhand believed the best course of action was to crucify his opponent on these forums in a obvious attempt to vent his anger. 

Of course, this thread could merely be about opponents who run down the clock, and if that were your agenda then I have only ask what purpose was there to naming the opponent? Do you (redhand) find it enjoyable to publicly castrate someone if they displease you?  

I'm sorry about what happened to you and I do find it rather rude of players to do what your opponent did. However, the next time something bad happens to you, i'd recommend waiting some time to cool your head and then present your plight in a coherent and agreeable way.

Well, I agree that redhand was perhaps a bit over the edge, but he was (probably) still shaken by (IMO) pure presentation of unsporting behaviour by his opponent, but he did only state his opinion and asked for opinion of other players.

So, he did nothing so terribly wrong IMO, you will see many more angrier threads about winning on time in drawn positions, not resigning, timeouts, etc ...

Peace

I completely agree that what redhand did wasn't terrible and truthfully do agree with where he's coming from. That said, perhaps the words castrate and crucify were a bit extreme in my original post. However, I do stand by my belief that this was merely a crude anger vent thread, even if wasn't "terrible".

I didn't read everything here, but where I come from it's considered rude offering a draw in a losing position (Be it on time or whatsoever). Also trying to win on time is totally fine and not rude or immoral at all.

the only time I heard people say a player should be ashamed was when a player

reached a position where both had a 1 rook and a king.

The player with least time on his clock offered a draw and the other player insisted on playing the 50 move rule. knowing the other player did not have enough time to make the 50 moves.

he won the game.but not the respect of the spectators.

You missed a point because you did not read all the posts. IMO this is not about winning on time or offering a draw in losing position.

If we look at the actual game, it is indeed clear that this is draw according to the laws of chess, checkmate is impossible, so it is draw, regardless of the situation with the clock.

Please look at the link, example G is pretty much similar to the game itself, kings are separated by pawn blockade and neither king can pass the blockade.

http://www.e4ec.org/immr.html

I've resigned many live games where I was outplayed and in a clearly lost position, but was about to win on time. I only take a time win when my position is level or winning, or if we're playing for money (which I don't consider "sport"). That's just me though; the rating is amusing but not important in the end.

If you're about to win on time, you weren't outplayed.