Can you post the game so we can all see what happened?
Winning with ins. material
Sort:
That's quite natural since it's quite possible to mate the opponent's king with your bishop if he has a knight (or, for that matter, the rook or queen or possibly bishop your pawn might produce, or the pawn itself it's the right rook pawn) by the rule that if any combination of legal moves may lead to you checkmating him, you win if time runs out.
If you feel it is unfair to run away with the full point in blitz if you are so clearly lost, you might try offering a draw if your opponent is down to 5 seconds of time; but that's not a very good option either since it may confuse your opponent unduly. Maybe instead you should resign a clearly lost endgame. Keep in mind nobody expects you to not play for time in blitz, bullet, or standard for that matter. It's a generally accepted part of the game. It's highly silly in unrated play of course.
Dec 27, 2010
0
#5
Silfir wrote:
That's quite natural since it's quite possible to mate the opponent's king with your bishop if he has a knight (or, for that matter, the rook or queen or possibly bishop your pawn might produce, or the pawn itself it's the right rook pawn) by the rule that if any combination of legal moves may lead to you checkmating him, you win if time runs out.
If you feel it is unfair to run away with the full point in blitz if you are so clearly lost, you might try offering a draw if your opponent is down to 5 seconds of time; but that's not a very good option either since it may confuse your opponent unduly. Maybe instead you should resign a clearly lost endgame. Keep in mind nobody expects you to not play for time in blitz, bullet, or standard for that matter. It's a generally accepted part of the game. It's highly silly in unrated play of course.
Why do most people not understand what I have written ? Is it that unclear?
I made a post last night and by the time it was through 90% of the answers were irrelevant or goofy.
Some of the most ridiculous were higher rated players than me , which makes me even more skeptical .
I did not have any pieces except the Bishop , I made the move as he ran out of time , I had no idea it would happen , so I couldn't offer him a draw. I should have resigned , but I thought I might be able to force a stalemate.
I lost a game last night in a similar fashion and it is wrong in both instances.
We do understand what you have said, but it seems that you are not familiar with FIDE laws of chess. This is not insufficient material, moreover there is no definition of "insufficient material" in FIDE laws of chess.
Please note that I do not discuss or comment on what would be fair outcome IMO, I just point out the correct outcome as per laws of chess:
|
|
|
6.9 |
Except where one of the Articles: 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. |
http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article
So, since neither of 5.1.a(checkmate), 5.1.b(resign), 5.2.a(stalemate), 5.2.b(dead draw), 5.2.c(draw by agreement) applies, checkmate is possible by certain(doesn't matter if it's improbable) series of legal moves, you have won the game.
Voila. 
P.S. the ethic side of the issue has already been discussed (over and over) here on the forums, this thread is (so far) about the conformity with the laws of chess.
In chess , as you know ,one of the factors of winning is time.In my opinion ,you don't really need to be sorry.It wouldnt be a big deal in the way of politeness ,since you play it here, online.
Actually, I dont think there is a checkmate possible. Can somebody construct one?
rooperi wrote:
Actually, I dont think there is a checkmate possible. Can somebody construct one?
Black king on a8, Black knight on b8, White king on b6, white bishop on b7. Convoluted and not likely, but possible.
Nargus wrote:
rooperi wrote:
Actually, I dont think there is a checkmate possible. Can somebody construct one?
Black king on a8, Black knight on b8, White king on b6, white bishop on b7. Convoluted and not likely, but possible.
Ah, ok. I thought the knight would always be able to block.
simp wrote:
Silfir wrote:
That's quite natural since it's quite possible to mate the opponent's king with your bishop if he has a knight (or, for that matter, the rook or queen or possibly bishop your pawn might produce, or the pawn itself it's the right rook pawn) by the rule that if any combination of legal moves may lead to you checkmating him, you win if time runs out.
If you feel it is unfair to run away with the full point in blitz if you are so clearly lost, you might try offering a draw if your opponent is down to 5 seconds of time; but that's not a very good option either since it may confuse your opponent unduly. Maybe instead you should resign a clearly lost endgame. Keep in mind nobody expects you to not play for time in blitz, bullet, or standard for that matter. It's a generally accepted part of the game. It's highly silly in unrated play of course.
Why do most people not understand what I have written ? Is it that unclear?
I made a post last night and by the time it was through 90% of the answers were irrelevant or goofy.
Some of the most ridiculous were higher rated players than me , which makes me even more skeptical .
I did not have any pieces except the Bishop , I made the move as he ran out of time , I had no idea it would happen , so I couldn't offer him a draw. I should have resigned , but I thought I might be able to force a stalemate.
I lost a game last night in a similar fashion and it is wrong in both instances.
Only, of course, it's not wrong. It's only draw "by insufficient material" if there is no checkmate possible by any combination of legal moves. In this case, since you didn't know and assumed you would only get a draw by time running out there was nothing you could've done to avoid it. That's why I wanted to share additional options if you happen upon a similar situation in the future. If you really do want to avoid stealing points on time at all then don't play on in completely hopeless situations. By the way, if you feel scoring points that way is improper, then it should be improper too if it's only half a point.
rooperi wrote:
Actually, I dont think there is a checkmate possible. Can somebody construct one?
Next FIDE congress in in Poland in October 2011, so prepare yourselves:
http://www.fide.com/index.php?option=com_fidecalendar&view=fcalview&aid=598
Wait..I thought only USCF rules state a win on time when a mate is possible. Do FIDE say the same? I thought they say win on time only when there is a forced mate?
Jan 1, 2011
0
#15
Estragon wrote:
I could understand you offering a draw before this move, but why resign? Because your last move was a losing blunder?
If the Bishop moved to any square on that diagonal except d2 and g5, it's a draw.
It is admirable that you have such a strong sense of honor, but you must remember that all the rules of a competition are of equal importance. You are bound by them all.
If you wish to lobby FIDE to change the rules, you are free to do so, but they have been developed over many decades of competition and experience and careful revision, so your campaign is unlikely to change anything.
I just started moving around in disgust after I sent draw offers on a drtawn position....obviously this guy needs the 8 points for validation in life , a lot of the answers I got here lead me to believe he is not the only one..... If you don't understand that by the end of this game I really didn't care about where I moved nothing I will ever say will get through to you. Have a great day and eat by all means get your points, without them, life is meaningless
Your insistent sense of superiority over anyone who plays differently than you would is off-putting.
I find his obvious lack of basic reading comprehension to be more off-putting.
Jan 1, 2011
0
#18
Estragon wrote:
I could understand you offering a draw before this move, but why resign? Because your last move was a losing blunder?
If the Bishop moved to any square on that diagonal except d2 and g5, it's a draw.
It is admirable that you have such a strong sense of honor, but you must remember that all the rules of a competition are of equal importance. You are bound by them all.
If you wish to lobby FIDE to change the rules, you are free to do so, but they have been developed over many decades of competition and experience and careful revision, so your campaign is unlikely to change anything.
Whats off putting to me is that so many people only read part of a post and take off in so many different and sometimes completely irrelevant directions.
As a great example the board someone posted with 2 black knights and 1 White Bishop mating in the corner.???????
In a similar post to this a few days ago where I lost the game the same way people would post something irrelevant and then the next 10 posts were about that position acting as if it was the original post.
What other conclusion could someone draw from so many people getting confused about something that is quite easy to understand?
Some people just can't see the forest for all the stupid trees in the way.
" Whats off putting to me is that so many people only read part of a post and take off in so many different and sometimes completely irrelevant directions."
I'm sorry, but "Let's all see how morally superior Simp is to the poor, immoral souls he plays against online" isn't as interesting to me as the tangents, despite that being the purpose behind your posts.
I just won a game with a king and a bishop vs a King Knight and pawn getting ready to promote . I checked him with my bishop just as time expired and won the game . I told the opponent I was sorry , I had no idea it would happen