False draw system claim?
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Actually, to be fair, the FIDE version of the rule states "if mate is possible by any series of legal moves" (or something similar).
[Edit: This was in response to the above deleted post]
dave_9990 wrote:
There could be a rule for the time/material draw ... if the side with time remaining can checkmate with any sequence of moves then its a win, otherwise a draw ... this is with the side with no time making no modifications to the position ...
Not "any sequence of moves..." only a "forced sequence of moves." The search gurus among you can find that clause in the FIDE rules...the time "loser" can achieve a draw on the demonstration of a forced checkmate. Chess.com could impliment this (even using its native engine, Crafty), but the coding effort to add that functionality FAR exceeds the site benefits gained.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_chess
If player A does not have the possibility of checkmating B then the game is a draw (Schiller 2003:28). (The United States Chess Federation (USCF) rule is different. USCF Rule 14E defines "insufficient material to win on time", that is lone king, king plus knight, king plus bishop, and king plus two knights opposed by no pawns, and there is no forced win in the final position. Hence to win on time with this material, the USCF rule requires that a win can be forced from that position, while the FIDE rule merely requires a win to be possible.) (See Monika Soćko#Rules appeal in 2008 and Women's World Chess Championship 2008 for a famous instance of this rule.)
chessteacher001 wrote:
So what is the correct rule for play here at chess.com?
Don't be a #@$% by winding your opponent's time down.
DeepNinja wrote:
dave_9990 wrote:
There could be a rule for the time/material draw ... if the side with time remaining can checkmate with any sequence of moves then its a win, otherwise a draw ... this is with the side with no time making no modifications to the position ...
Not "any sequence of moves..." only a "forced sequence of moves." The search gurus among you can find that clause in the FIDE rules...the time "loser" can achieve a draw on the demonstration of a forced checkmate. Chess.com could impliment this (even using its native engine, Crafty), but the coding effort to add that functionality FAR exceeds the site benefits gained.
If there is no limit to the number of moves then a lot of chess.com time losses would be draws - especially in bullet chess and assuming that "forced" means that there are no moves that the opponent can do to prevent checkmate.
[COMMENT DELETED]
I think you might be right there, however a time loss during a checkmate is not fair.
Some positions are impossible to prove, so there might be a solution. What about the fact that some time losses happen during a checkmate sequence?
Feb 25, 2011
0
#30
Fezzik wrote:
Right dave! You got it! And that's the reason so many people are complaining! Chess.com has fixed the site so that chess is played, even in bullet. It is now in line with other reputable chess sites. And the ones complaining are those who were trying to "win" by playing out dead drawn positions to flag their opponents.
Yes, there will still be grey areas. And yes, there are the amazingly rare problem positions that will occasionally be incorrectly scored. But chess.com has got this one right.
If you took your head out of your ***, you might notice that there are several people, myself included, making legitimate complaints about the recent rule change, if indeed it applies to anything more than KvKNN and KNvKN.
Feb 25, 2011
0
#31
In another thread similar to this, I gave an example of a position where White (KP) has two legal moves: one of them draws immediately and the other loses immediately. It's not trivial which one is which, and it would be a shame if people in such a position could time out for an automatic draw.
Feb 25, 2011
0
#33
Sorry, Firebrand, I mis-typed. I meant I would be against the KP side getting a draw if they timed out.
Feb 25, 2011
0
#34
How do we premove? I lose atleast 0.4 sec per move even if i know what im going to play next.
@Firebandx: I would just take the knight with the queen for checkmate. Qxc3# (or if the board is slipped Qxf6#)
Feb 25, 2011
0
#36
The queen could be on e6 or d3 whereas Qxc3 or Qxf6 is not possible. Its just the concept im putting out there that if NxQ after check, it's a draw by the system if black runs out of time even though it is force mate..
You didn't leave pieces to show how Qh3 isn't possible either.
People are creating funny position that would never appear in real game, and in fact they wanted to get a win in KN vs KN game.
@Fezzik: how can 1...Qa6 win if 1...Qxc3# not win ? the whole idea is stupid Qxc3 doesn't make his point and Qa6 doesn't make his point, the point i made was that he should have put some extra pieces on the board to show that.
Yes, this is a good point. It's not really realistic to expect that an arbitrator can be made available to enact the insufficient losing changes rule, and without that rule the insufficient mating material on timeout rule is much more open to abuse.
As a result, this seems like a really reasonable compromise.
As long as the only endgames it turns into a draw are KNvKN and KvKNN, I agree with you. If it includes stuff like KPvKN, then I am strongly against the KP side getting a draw in all cases if the KN side times out.