FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
I would like to know if there's any consideration for allowing players to claim a draw in a rook vs rook ending - it makes no sense to allow players to reach a RvR endgame (with no pawns on the board) and allow the player with more time to flag the other player - I know the Playchess server allows draws to be claimed when the position reaches RvR (as does the USCF) so I would love to see that implemented! It's very frustrating to have to play on a dead-drawn endgame only to have to watch your time run out because your opponent will not accept a draw.
By the same token, playchess allows a player with just a knight to refuse to take your last pawn and run you out of time if they can. This is because "technically" a helpmate is possible with such material. I've never agreed with it, but such are the ways of online software-controlled blitz interfaces.
You make a good point, however, it would be fun to see who could blunder first in a time scramble, and the better with the better premove technique could have a slightly higher chance of winning.
btw I'm assuming this is for live chess, not cc chess right?
It is for live chess. I don't agree with the Knight vs Pawn if the side that has the pawn is going to lose. Can we claim a draw with RvR in the correspondence games?
this is ridiculous! seems like someone needs a good cry to let it all out.the purpose of blitz chess is TIME,not position. if there is a chance for mate, take it away. otherwise lose on time. take it like a man.
I was playing on FICS last trying to survive with just a knight. I had minutes, he mere seconds.
Whilst I would have accepted any drawoffer, he run through his time in this position:
However the game ended as a draw because "black has no material to mate."
I thought that was strange because a helpmate is quite easy to achieve. This might be the consequense of a discussion like this one.
It leaves me to believe that if your opponent has a one move mate, with his only remaining piece (a knight), you can achieve a draw by letting your time run out.
By the way I have to agree with rawtaterz .
We have the 50 move rule, that is enough to cover useless shuffling of pieces.
In blitzgames against an unsportive opponent just be sure to have enough time left to make the last moves. Otherwise you might lose. It's as easy as that.
Adding more rules (and or positions) to claim a draw only increases the complexity and leads to other problems.
Suggestions to change rules like this are really suggestions to change the nature of the game. Currently, this is one way to win a blitz game. If you change this rule, you've altered the balance of what has to be achieved to get a draw.
1) time is a part of the game, a loss on time is a legitimate loss even with drawn material
2) there are lower level players who can still lose in these positions and therefore they should be played out
I agree with Tonydal, there are some positions which should not be draws because of extenuating circumstances and therefore there should be something to determine whether the position should be claimable as a draw.
To everybody that's saying win or lose on the clock, that's fine when you're playing a chess game; when you're playing a trivially drawn endgame it becomes a matter of who has slightly more time, who can premove, and who has less lag between their premove and when the move gets played on the board. That's not chess, that's being lucky with the mouse. I have no problem winning or losing while there's still material on the board to require strategic play - that's what chess is all about.
Why has your opponent not out-played you if he/she has brought about an endgame position where his/her advantage on the clock will be translated into a win? The final shuffling of pieces may not be "chess," as you define it, but that situation has been brought about by all the moves that have been made up to that point.
Every player is in the same situation: you have to always be on the watch for what sort of endgame your opponent can bring about. If you leave yourself vulnerable to an endgame that is better for your opponent, then he/she has outplayed you.
Frankly, someone can say that blitz in general is not "chess." If you agree to play blitz, you have to accept the possibilities. If you don't like that, play games with longer time limits. Essentially we seem to be arguing about trying to import into a blitz game a feature of slow games. Why not just import yourself into a longer game if it is bothersome?
ajgreen, the same problem with drawn positions happened to me several times in LiveChess. Truely a bit annoying. It made me decide, as a practical solution, to play only challenges with some extra time added per move ... like that you will never time out in such a situation.
agreed. just have time added per move as opposed to complaining that losing on time in a drawn position is somehow "not right".
I agree with you guys on the unsportsmanship and uselessness of playing R v R. However, there are two factors: 1) people who don't share your opinion are usually so bad at chess they might actually lose this endgame 2) virtual rating points mean nothing. Winning on time in such a pos wrecks one's reputations among pros, makes him a victim for mocking. Not to mention damaging the person's karma. Therefore, I don't think there should be an auto-draw in that situation. It's a good way to determine against whom you're playing - if he's good enough and decent, he will agree anyway.
Not to throw fuel into the fire, but in a 1 0 game, any such "declared" draws should not be implemented. One could argue for all Quick time controls actually. I might agree for a classical 5 min blitz time control.
can someone please explain to me why it's unsportsmanlike to win on time in a drawn game? is time not a factor in the game? why should this factor just not count in drawn situations? doesn't it count if you are winning or losing? why does a drawn position warrant this special treatment?
as mentioned previously, if a player plays a game and gets led to an unequal engame (be it on time or position or material) does not the other player deserve the win? who care's if it's a drawn position? it still took you longer to reach this drawn position then your opponent. therefore they put you at a disadvantage by their superior play and deserve the win. if you were better then you wouldn't have taken more time then them in reaching this point.
and again, simple solution: add time per move and you'll never have this issue.
I can explain to you how I think about it, I can't explain how you should think about it.
In a 1 0 game, I think anything goes. If you get into a R v R endgame, then you better have enough time to reach 50 moves, or maybe the opponent will be nice and offer a draw. Heck, if you've got 5 secs left to his 30 secs, just resign.
In a 5 min blitz game, let's say one side has 1 min and the other side has 2 min, and the last capture just happened. If I were the side with the 1 min and the other guy started blitzing off his moves, I would consider that unsportsmanlike. Yes he's up 2 min to 1 min, but I should be able to easily reach 50 moves in a minute. Is he really going to try for the win? If you extend it further, maybe I have 1.5 min to his 4 min. Dude, give up, it's a draw.
I have similar logic in an OTB game. If I reach some drawn endgame, let's say R + P v R, with the opponent's king well placed, and I'm rated about 2250 and I'm playing a 2390-rated FM, and he's got 1 min left to make all his moves to my 20 min, I'll play for the win. Look, we don't have a 50 move problem, I can make pawn moves for awhile, and I don't mind trying to win this. Heck, maybe the guy has to go the the bathroom at some point. But if he's got 5 min left, I offer a draw.
What about if you look at it that way:
The position you reached is drawn or in other words equal. You needed more time than your opponent to reach or maintain an equal position. This means that he thinks faster than you and is better at chess.
But in a way I agree. I think it should be taken into account how long time control is and how big is time difference between players. Example: If the time difference is lower than a certain percentage of full time control, it's a draw. If not, they can play on until one of the players accepts a draw offer.
But then again, it can be considered better player's fault that he didn't use his extra time to get a positional advantage in the game.
perhaps i don't understand what you are saying exactly, but it seems like you just have arbitrary time restrictions or cutoffs in which draws should or should not be mandatory.
maybe you/opponent can make 50 moves in a minute, maybe you/opponent can't. isn't the time limit exactly for this reason - to limit the time of the game under certain restrictions? you pretty much just stated that it's unsportsmanlike to do so in a 5 minute game when someone has 1 minute left, but did not mention a reason as to why other than "I would consider that unsportsmanlike" and "is he really going to try for the win?"
simply assuming that one could make the required number of moves or that in your opinion it is absurd that he/she is trying to go for the win does not really explain why the time limit restriction should simply be overlooked only in drawn situations since they are "special" situations (allegedly according to you and some others in this thread - i still don't get why).
i guess what i'm trying to say is other than you just saying that it is of your personal opinion in specific time situations there should just be a draw announced doesn't really answer my question. that opinion does not suggest why this should be so compared to non-drawn positions. furthermore, it does not explain why the time restriction should not be a legitimate factor in the game simply because the position is drawn. why have a time limit at all then if there are situations in which using the time to win is "unfair" or "unsportsmanlike" and other times it is legitimate?
all i'm saying is where does the time restriction legitimacy start and end? and are there any issues or implications with the notion of time restriction being legitimate in one situation and not legitimate in another? obviously you know my answer to that one.