x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

Claim Draws in Drawn Endgame

  • #81

    i dont know what u want. these unwritten rules are exactly rules which completely disregard factors of their games. these rules if u read them stipulate specific situations in which factors of a game are disregarded. i honestly have no idea what u want. i read and responded to your posts and u keep telling me im not giving u what u want.

    also it is in my opinion that people who win a position that is drawn or lost because of time are completely missing out on the point of the game. Note that i am referring to positions which can only be a draw or better. if there is any play left whatsoever (such as a rook v bishop w/ a few pawns for each) and a person runs out of time i see that as their fault and they deserve to lose. i am not condoning poor time management skills. i agree with the concept that manners are manners and if you wouldnt do it over the board dont do it online.

    However, in situations which literally have no chance of winning and you repeat checks or play a position such as rook v rook just to win on time, it is my opinion that u are missing the point of the game entirely and being unsportsmanlike.

  • #82
    TheGrobe wrote:

    Ooh, now that's personal.  It's OK to slag a guy a little, but to go after his religion like that?


    im a jackets fan. its in my religion to make fun of others because i have nothing to be proud of :( 

  • #83
    steelers1fanoh11 wrote:
    TheGrobe wrote:

    Ooh, now that's personal.  It's OK to slag a guy a little, but to go after his religion like that?


    im a jackets fan. its in my religion to make fun of others because i have nothing to be proud of :( 


    Which team is that? Oh right those guys... I forgot about their existence because they are so forgettable.

  • #84

    There are conventions, and courtesy, and player preferences, but none of these are rules, unwritten or otherwise and they are also all inherently subjective, so what's unsporting to one person, might be entirely acceptable to another.

    This is what's at the core of all of these disagreements about when it's acceptable to resign, or to not resign, whether it's OK to play for a win on time in a given position, whether you do or do not chat, say "good game" or "good luck", whether you simply disable chat pre-emptively, or grant rematches, or exclusively play premium members, or cherry pick your opponents by rating, or use opening databases and the analysis board, or automatically accept wins on timeouts in turn based, or do a post-mortem with your opponent if he asks, or a million other "preference" based discussions not explicitly covered by the rules that have occurred here ad nauseum.

    What was stated earlier applies to all of these:  The consensus is that there is no consensus.

  • #85

    id think there is always going to be the its in the rules vs it should be in the rules argument. I guess my feelings toward this are similar to that of if a cop pulled me over for going 61 in a 60 mph zone. i technically broke the law but i just feel violated that he pulled me over for such a technicality. i guess the difference is that more people believe in the "a victory is a victory" concept then the 1 mph being imp. but i think you guys get my point that its violating to get beaten on a technicality.

  • #86
    steelers1fanoh11 wrote:

    i dont know what u want. these unwritten rules are exactly rules which completely disregard factors of their games. these rules if u read them stipulate specific situations in which factors of a game are disregarded. i honestly have no idea what u want. i read and responded to your posts and u keep telling me im not giving u what u want.

    also it is in my opinion that people who win a position that is drawn or lost because of time are completely missing out on the point of the game. Note that i am referring to positions which can only be a draw or better. if there is any play left whatsoever (such as a rook v bishop w/ a few pawns for each) and a person runs out of time i see that as their fault and they deserve to lose. i am not condoning poor time management skills. i agree with the concept that manners are manners and if you wouldnt do it over the board dont do it online.

    However, in situations which literally have no chance of winning and you repeat checks or play a position such as rook v rook just to win on time, it is my opinion that u are missing the point of the game entirely and being unsportsmanlike.


    i read the examples, and they don't disregard factors of the game. so i guess you just don't understand what i'm talking about.

    perhaps if you considered them one at a time it would helps:

    Baseball

       
     

    1.0. Don't embarrass yourself, your teammates or your opponent.
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    1.1. Never show up an umpire on balls and strikes.
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    1.2. Never steal a base when leading by a bunch of runs.
    (this one i might grant to you, but it is not quite the same as our discussion - it would more aptly compared to a person getting multiple queens instead of just mating the opponent, but since one can just resign in chess, this shouldn't be an issue.)

    1.3. Never show up an opposing pitcher after hitting a home run off him.
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    1.4. Always run onto the field in support of your teammates or players after a fight breaks out.
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    1.45. Don't fraternize with opposing players.
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    1.45. (a) Players who don't run onto the field in support, or who fraternize with opposing players, shall be fined by a kangaroo court.
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    1.45. (b) Kangaroo courts shall exist in every major league clubhouse and operate by their own set of unwritten rules.
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    2.0. Play the game the right way.
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    2.1. Never lay down a bunt to break up a no-hitter.
    (again, i might grant you this one, but it also differs in that it's not effecting the overall outcome of the game - which is our issue - as much as just screwing over the pitcher. i honestly can't even think of a comparison for chess for this one.)

    2.2. When breaking up a double play, always go in with a clean slide.
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    2.3. Always throw a fastball on a 3-0 count.
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    2.35. Never swing at a 3-0 pitch when your team has a comfortable lead.
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    2.4. Never put the tying or go-ahead run on first base.
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    2.5. Never make the first or third out of an inning at third base.
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    2.6 Always run out ground balls, even routine ones.
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    2.7. Never interrupt a pitcher's focus by talking to him before a start.
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    2.75. Applicable to broadcasters and players alike, never mention "no-hitter" when a pitcher has one working.
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    2.8. Never steal another team's signs
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    2.9. Pitchers must work inside to keep opposing batters honest but must never throw at a batter's head.
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    2.95. Pitchers must retaliate for egregious acts committed by opposing pitchers.
    (no factors in game disregarded)

    i was going to do them all but i got bored. if i'm wrong about any of these please explain to me how. furthermore, we are (were) discussing chess and your examples obviously are not chess related. i said that it's strange to disregard a factor of the game of chess, and that i don't know of any such situation in any other games/sports either. although, even if you were to find one possible example in another game/sport, it does not necessarily correlate to chess as well, but feel free to keep trying.

  • #87

    What about the unwritten rule about making the right call on the 27th batter in a perefect game?

    28 up, 28 down.

  • #88
    TheGrobe wrote:

    What about the unwritten rule about making the right call on the 27th batter in a perefect game?

    28 up, 28 down.


    that one must be really unwritten because it wasn't written with the unwritten ones from this link apparently.

  • #89
    TheGrobe wrote:

    There are conventions, and courtesy, and player preferences, but none of these are rules, unwritten or otherwise and they are also all inherently subjective, so what's unsporting to one person, might be entirely acceptable to another.


    I think his is correct. i was generally stating that unwritten rules are in sports and games and that they are generally to promote sportsmanship. Sportsmanship in a game is more important to me than winning. i feel that flagging people is not the conduct chess employs and it is unsportsmanlike to do so. this is why the whole unwritten rules situation arose. if you believe it isnt unsportsmanlike than i would disagree with you for the same reason i would tell an official if he made a bad call in my favor. just because you can "win" by time doesnt make it right. the point of chess is to checkmate the king. the point of the clock is to speed up the game. i think abusing a rule for a different purpose than it was intended just because its technically the letter of the law is always wrong. 

  • #90

    But if there are no consequences to playing the clock then why should I bother to speed my play in order to meet the objective of having a clock?

    The point might have originally been to speed the game, but the result has been that the clock has become an integeral part of the game's strategy.

  • #91
    TheGrobe wrote:

    But if there are no consequences to playing the clock then why should I bother to speed my play in order to meet the objective of having a clock?

    The point might have originally been to speed the game, but the result has been that the clock has become an integeral part of the game's strategy.


    exactly. you can't have it both ways.

  • #92

    you can if people dont abuse it. if you cant manage the clock well then at the end you will have less time to make good moves and that it to be the downfall of poor clock management. i dont think winning on time is bad if your opponent is just that bad at clock management but in positions like this:

  • #93
    ajgreen wrote:

    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.


     Have not read replies, so I'm not sure if this response has already been given.

    But there is a way to make sure you do not lose on time in a clearly drawn/won game.
    The answer is to simply play with an time increment.
    And inc as little as 1 second may solve this problem completely.
    And because the inc is so small, the opening and middle phases of the game still move at just as fast of a pace.

    Yes, it is still annoying to have to play on in a drawn R v R game.
    But at least you will never have to be saddled with a loss because of it.

    If you ever choose to play with 0 increment, then you are playing a game in which time is a major factor in the result.
    Often times, it is more important than even the position on the board.
    Recognize this before you begin playing a 0 inc game.

    --CM

  • #94
    CoranMoran wrote:
    ajgreen wrote:

    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.


     Have not read replies, so I'm not sure if this response has already been given.

    But there is a way to make sure you do not lose on time in a clearly drawn/won game.
    The answer is to simply play with an time increment.
    And inc as little as 1 second may solve this problem completely.
    And because the inc is so small, the opening and middle phases of the game still move at just as fast of a pace.

    Yes, it is still annoying to have to play on in a drawn R v R game.
    But at least you will never have to be saddled with a loss because of it.

    If you ever choose to play with 0 increment, then you are playing a game in which time is a major factor in the result.
    Often times, it is more important than even the position on the board.
    Recognize this before you begin playing a 0 inc game.

    --CM


    You should read the replies first before posting. The OP himself said this:

    I was premoving in the ending to conserve time, but there was still a significant premove lag (unlike some other live chess sites where it's only about .1 seconds).

    I no longer place open seeks for sudden death time controls because of this.

  • #95

    Time is one way of winning, but in R vs. R, it's not sportsmanlike. I mean, in that position when one person has low time, you or your opponent can lose because of a mouse fumble. People should accept draws when offered, but only if it's a truly drawn position.

  • #96

    I find that when I play unorthadox openings, my opponents forget that a king can't checkmate the other one.

  • #97

    Yeah, exactly like that game.  Wow, what an odd coincidence.

  • #98

    (Back on topic). Maybe someone should attempt to time-out his/her opponent when the opponment has one minute or less with no delay, or 20 seconds or less with delay, but if yyour opponent has three minutes while you have five, you shouldn't.

  • #99

    I think in R vs R (no pawns) there needs to be some way to claim a draw. You have both arrived at this position due to an equal skill level at that particular game, regardless of time. Im sure many players have been the victim of 'time chess' - which is what i like to call it, where one player will not accept a draw as he or she has 1 minute more than their opponent and will continue to play and will win on time. It is unsportsmanlike and possibly childish. It shows no respect for your opponent. Could you imagine Kasparov and Karpov doing this sort of idiocy 25 years ago OTB in a World Championship Match....no. Then we should follow the same standard.

    Perhaps players should be able to claim a draw in rook vs rook games if there has been no capture etc..for 10 moves - the same as the 50 move rule but just for R vs R situations.

  • #100

    Dragging out a drawn position to win on time is never unsportsmanlike?  I beg to differ -- if your opponent's within seconds of timing out, OK, but if you're running down a significant amount of your opponent's clock it's unsportsmanlike.

    There's a reason there's an arbitration rule for tournament play that addresses precisely this situation.

Top

Online Now