Actually pawns are powerful because they can become queens. If your opponent only had a bishop or knight, then running out of time results in a draw because your opponent has insufficient mating material. Manage your time better in your next game.
you shoulddnt be awarded winm in time if you olny have pawns or less
Sort:
Gil-Gandel írta:
Instead of knobbing around checking him over and over again, you should have taken his last pawn if you couldn't figure out how to mate. Then he can't win on time because he's got no mate even if you cooperate.
He still can win on time, even with a king. There's no rule saying that the game ends with a lone king. Though it should be applied, just like in shatranj.
Jun 9, 2014
0
#24
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
Gil-Gandel írta:
Instead of knobbing around checking him over and over again, you should have taken his last pawn if you couldn't figure out how to mate. Then he can't win on time because he's got no mate even if you cooperate.
He still can win on time, even with a king. There's no rule saying that the game ends with a lone king. Though it should be applied, just like in shatranj.
Not with just a king. I've had enough of those draws happen and forced a few :) to know that if the opponent only has a king and you run out of time, it's considered a draw.
Jun 9, 2014
0
#25
This thread is pointless. One single person's complaint isn't going to change the established rules of chess or chess.com.
wkmjr írta:
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
Gil-Gandel írta:
Instead of knobbing around checking him over and over again, you should have taken his last pawn if you couldn't figure out how to mate. Then he can't win on time because he's got no mate even if you cooperate.
He still can win on time, even with a king. There's no rule saying that the game ends with a lone king. Though it should be applied, just like in shatranj.
Not with just a king. I've had enough of those draws happen and forced a few :) to know that if the opponent only has a king and you run out of time, it's considered a draw.
Well, on tournaments, sure, I guess. But not here. I have won on time with a bare king, I think.
Yeah OP clearly you are a patzer, but not to worry, so am I. Unfortunately, the difference between yourself and me is that I understand what the clock is used for.
A quick story for the forum in 2 paragraphs or less. In the cafe where I play at weekly among several of my friends, we have a really strong player that shows up on occasion. He likes to sit on his moves, which I don't blame him for...but we don't use clocks most of the time!!! Another friend of mine told him (in regards to sitting on his moves) "I can't handle this very well, you are draining me of my stamina and quickly fatiguing me."
The point that my friend complaining about waiting was making that if they WERE using a clock, it would have been much better, because any one of us can sit on a position and find all kinds of traps and look for tactics, but since there is no clock? Ah! Not to worry, take your sweet time...
Mud is clear.
It is quite possible, that OP has very bad sportsmanship.
In my experience on this site through the games I have played, I have noticed a pattern. The lower the player's rating here on chess.com is, the more than likely that said player is going to act consistently of one who exhibits unsportsmanlike conduct. Abadoning games, offing a draw when they have a losing position and know they cannot win, and, complaining about rules they do not understand are examples I believe that may suspect one to believe one is acting in an unsportsmanlike manner.
Winning on time when you only have a pawn and the other guy has a lot of pieces is the most satisfying win of all.
Dodger111 wrote:
Winning on time when you only have a pawn and the other guy has a lot of pieces is the most satisfying win of all.
Haha, so true. This goes especially if he's trying really hard to take all your remaining pawns in his last second by batching up premoves.
So you just think, what could be his next premove? And then you move such as to make him go past and waste time.
Fun times. 
I love Chess.com. If you ask for help, everyone will do what they can to help, if you make some dumbass complaint, they will beat you down.
Just like a good father.
OOPS Edit: I didn't mean to say a good father beats his kids.
My father always beat me. He'd put me over his knee and use his belt, a hazel stick (broke multiple) or his hand.
Eventually this didn't work anymore and it was the other way around. Except I didn't use those kids toys.
kleelof wrote:
I love Chess.com. If you ask for help, everyone will do what they can to help, if you make some dumbass complaint, they will beat you down.
Just like a good father.
OOPS Edit: I didn't mean to say a good father beats his kids.
No! You're fine, bro. It's helping either way. This is where the mods are, IMHO, greatly confused because they were instructed by some upper authority that ALL trolling is bad. When in fact it's not.
Now OP can look through this thread and say, "Boy oh Boy! I sure did get trolled! I wonder why? OH. I see now. Perhaps I should be more careful with the topic of discussion next time, and maybe google the question first, THEN I can ask unbiased questions later if I reasonable feel my question justifies anything. If I still get trolled at least I can provide an explanation to show how my question was generated in the first place."
People who don't like silly losses on time should play to sensible time limits.
Sometimes having extra material is bad, in the above position if black didn't have a queen it would've been stalemate