people, please stop posting silly images and stay on topic.
(sorry - couldn't help myself!)
Game shown as loss when there was not mating material
Sort:
erik wrote:
people, please stop posting silly images and stay on topic.
(sorry - couldn't help myself!)
if only i could use this as a type of signiture that goes at the bottom of easch of my posts automatcaly ( i mean the whole post)
May 20, 2011
0
#24
May 20, 2011
0
#26
FIDE 10.2a is also applicable. Because chess.com does not have an arbiter, this has been incorporated into "insufficient material".
|
10.2 |
If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b) |
|
|
a. |
If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim. |
|
The chess.com programing cannot cover every conceivable position, and, like an artiter, the program does not always make the correct decision.
May 20, 2011
0
#27
Sorry, my mistake, I reversed the board, it should read this way. It took me a lot of moves, but here is a possible checkmate:
See, I was robbed!
May 20, 2011
0
#28
A.3 and B.2 allow 10.2a to be invoked if there is adequate supervision, i.e., an arbiter is observing the game. Again, chess.com has no arbiter.
Americanflag, you are correct: if either player times out in the position in post 29 he loses. If chess.com doesn't enforce this, there not enforcing fide rules. I'd be surprised if that was the case (but it may be). Could you show where it happened?
May 20, 2011
0
#31
mathijs wrote:
Americanflag, you are correct: if either player times out in the position in post 29 he loses. If chess.com doesn't enforce this, there not enforcing fide rules. I'd be surprised if that was the case (but it may be). Could you show where it happened?...
...
...
...
+1
Yeah, it seems you should have won there. Surprising that chess.com differs here.
well chess.com does not exactly have to follow fide rules it is an internet site not a world organization so i think they have a choice of what policies they use and to what extent they use them
If you JUST have a king left, and he has a king, and knight, It's a draw cause there's no possibility of a smothered mate.
TheWayOfTheMate wrote:
well chess.com does not exactly have to follow fide rules it is an internet site not a world organization so i think they have a choice of what policies they use and to what extent they use them
Yeah, but it is really silly that the position from #29 is a draw (according to chess.com regulations), but if white found a way to promote the pawn to a knight, he would lose on time.
In general, it's not at all clear to me what reasons chess.com has in deciding some games drawn and others not. Clearly it is not the insufficient material clause, that is, unless this is just some programming error. It seems really hard to justify as a policy.
May 20, 2011
0
#36
There is another rule, "insufficient losing chances" (USCF wording). Chess.com has identified certain conditions where it is unlikely that checkmate can be forced and calls them a draw due to "insufficient material." In reality, they fall under the "insufficient losing chances" rule and would require adjudication.
Computers cannot do everything, and the Chess.com policy is a reasonable compromise.
May 21, 2011
0
#37
woodshover wrote:
If you JUST have a king left, and he has a king, and knight, It's a draw cause there's no possibility of a smothered mate.
Woodshover, it was the reverse, I had the King and a Knight, he had a King and a Pawn.
May 21, 2011
0
#38
woton wrote:
There is another rule, "insufficient losing chances" (USCF wording). Chess.com has identified certain conditions where it is unlikely that checkmate can be forced and calls them a draw due to "insufficient material." In reality, they fall under the "insufficient losing chances" rule and would require adjudication.
Computers cannot do everything, and the Chess.com policy is a reasonable compromise.
Chess is not about compromise. Am I wrong?
May 21, 2011
0
#39
One way or the other, please. Here is a game I lost. My opponent had a King and a Knight and I had a King and Knight. The same situation, except this time I lost!
Americanflag wrote:
One way or the other, please. Here is a game I lost. My opponent had a King and a Knight and I had a King and Knight. The same situation, except this time I lost!
That game was played in November 2010.
Since then, Chess.com have changed the rules in regard to this matter.
Much of the early part of this forum is now redundant.
lol i just woke up from the mental lapse i had after thinkin it over but you beat me to posting lol