Is that legal and good sportsmanship to win a dead drawn game on time when you have one more day than your opponent? I have a 2003 tournment game that I have one day remaining and my opponent has two days. The position is a dead drawn: I have a king and a h-pawn and my opponent has only a single king. I have offered a draw, and my opponent refused it and try to beat me on time even though he has absolutely no checkamte material.
g1059939532
Question: try to win a dead drawn game on time?
it's not legal - and bad sportsmanship!!
http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101
says:
9.6 The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled play. This immediately ends the game.
So Greg Miller should stop that game manually, with a draw, if your opponent is still bullheaded - or is there another way than claiming via the forum to get a correct end here?
http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101
says:
9.6 The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled play. This immediately ends the game.
So Greg Miller should stop that game manually, with a draw, if your opponent is still bullheaded - or is there another way than claiming via the forum to get a correct end here?
This seems to be a nice chat channel.
Sorry, the FIDE Law 9.6 doesn’t say that the game can be forced to be drawn if one of the players is not able to reach a checkmate by any possible series of legal moves. It says that if the checkmate cannot be done in any possible ways, then it will be drawn. Now the situation is that white player is able to make the checkmate and definitely there is that possibility in this game.
In the beginning on the game all the players were aware of the rules and one of those rules was the time that can be used for one game. Every one of us is able to make their own strategies based on the rules agreed beforehand. If the rules will be changing in the middle of game how can we sure that the strategy, we made, can be used to end of the game. That’s the name of the game in the chess.
Now the rules were changed because you complained publicly about me that you are going to lose the game because you have used too much time and your point is that your time usage should be forgotten in this case because I don’t have anything else than a king on the board and I got more time than you.
Did you mention any reason why you have used so much time, e.g. that you had a nice good break in the middle of the games and you lost many days of the time during your break? I got holiday too and still I was able to manage my other games.
Have you though about the possibility that about 10 ..15 moves before this situation I have started to move quicker to avoid using too much time of mine and to get this mentioned advantage in this game? The problem is that I made a few mistakes when I was doing those quick moves. That WAS my risk in this game and I served my sentence by losing a few pawns but still I was able to reach the situation – you was running out of the time that was my strategy – One of the rules was, that every player has 60 days time to play – nothing more.
Have the Administrator though about this kinds of point of views?
So, I don’t agreed about the drawn or the more time we got for this game because if the rules has not been changed during this games you would have lost this game.
Sorry, the FIDE Law 9.6 doesn’t say that the game can be forced to be drawn if one of the players is not able to reach a checkmate by any possible series of legal moves. It says that if the checkmate cannot be done in any possible ways, then it will be drawn. Now the situation is that white player is able to make the checkmate and definitely there is that possibility in this game.
In the beginning on the game all the players were aware of the rules and one of those rules was the time that can be used for one game. Every one of us is able to make their own strategies based on the rules agreed beforehand. If the rules will be changing in the middle of game how can we sure that the strategy, we made, can be used to end of the game. That’s the name of the game in the chess.
Now the rules were changed because you complained publicly about me that you are going to lose the game because you have used too much time and your point is that your time usage should be forgotten in this case because I don’t have anything else than a king on the board and I got more time than you.
Did you mention any reason why you have used so much time, e.g. that you had a nice good break in the middle of the games and you lost many days of the time during your break? I got holiday too and still I was able to manage my other games.
Have you though about the possibility that about 10 ..15 moves before this situation I have started to move quicker to avoid using too much time of mine and to get this mentioned advantage in this game? The problem is that I made a few mistakes when I was doing those quick moves. That WAS my risk in this game and I served my sentence by losing a few pawns but still I was able to reach the situation – you was running out of the time that was my strategy – One of the rules was, that every player has 60 days time to play – nothing more.
Have the Administrator though about this kinds of point of views?
So, I don’t agreed about the drawn or the more time we got for this game because if the rules has not been changed during this games you would have lost this game.
Unless the rules have changed since I took my arbiter course, you're mistaken. If YOU cannot mate your opponent even with worst play from him, the result will be at most a draw, even if his flag falls. I have been witness to several such arbiter desicions in FIDE tournaments (on Gausdal, Norway). In fact, it was stated that even if there's mating material on the board, the arbiter has the power to judge that the player is not trying to win on the board, and declare the game drawn.aheino wrote:This seems to be a nice chat channel.
Sorry, the FIDE Law 9.6 doesn’t say that the game can be forced to be drawn if one of the players is not able to reach a checkmate by any possible series of legal moves. It says that if the checkmate cannot be done in any possible ways, then it will be drawn. Now the situation is that white player is able to make the checkmate and definitely there is that possibility in this game.
Chess is supposed to be a gentleman sport, which is why most of us still shake hands before we start a game.
-
gmiller
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1388
- Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
- Location: Jeffersonville, IN
- Contact:
The rules also said I may add time for long games. The USCF also has a similar rule which allows a player to claim a draw (or have time added) if his opponent has little or no chance of producing checkmate. Which is in line with the idea that the clock's priamary goal is to keep the game moving.
6.10aheino wrote: Sorry, the FIDE Law 9.6 doesn’t say that the game can be forced to be drawn if one of the players is not able to reach a checkmate by any possible series of legal moves. It says that if the checkmate cannot be done in any possible ways, then it will be drawn. Now the situation is that white player is able to make the checkmate and definitely there is that possibility in this game.
Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay.
--- QED
I never bash on other payers, but it's clear that aheino, and vkramnik both ask for it. Here are two players rated over 2500,one trying to win a drawn game on time, and the other one complaining about it instead of playing out the game, which is a stalemate anyway. And the game will end, long before either one runs out of time.Sorry but you both deserve the attention! 
*PAWN* POWER*
-
fingelaere
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 9:07 am
In official games(national & international) you cannot loose a game where your opponent does not posses mating potential (f.i. a pawn is mating potential, a single bisshop isn't). If your time is spent it automatically becomes a draw. That rule should be applied here as well, so ask Greg, he surely will agree.
Is this right?
I just want to know if I have this correct. The game should be a draw if played out with correct play. If white times out it is a draw, lack of mating potential. If black times out white wins because he has the potential of being able to mate black. That would take a major mistake from black of course, but black should still lose as that is possible. 
-
gmiller
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1388
- Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
- Location: Jeffersonville, IN
- Contact:
IIRC, it's not automaticly a draw. The player with an advantage has to ask for it to be ruled a draw, at which point the TD may make it a draw, add some time to the clock(s), or make them play as is. If the game continues on the act of requesting a draw from the TD is interpreted to be an extended draw offer which lasts for the rest of the game, so the opponent can always accept the draw if he is about to loose on time, or get checkmated.
I don't plan to include this rule here because:
a) I'm not good enough to tell if a game is really a draw (I actually resigned a game in this exact possition not too long ago).
2) The clocks here serve one sole purpose: to keep the game moving at a constant pace. In OTB it also serves to keep the game moving, but also puts a limit on the player's ability to analyze the game.
iii) The situation almost never occurs here.
I don't plan to include this rule here because:
a) I'm not good enough to tell if a game is really a draw (I actually resigned a game in this exact possition not too long ago).
2) The clocks here serve one sole purpose: to keep the game moving at a constant pace. In OTB it also serves to keep the game moving, but also puts a limit on the player's ability to analyze the game.
iii) The situation almost never occurs here.
I've just seen, that _black_ offered a draw. So white can accept now.Isn´t it so, that you can´t win on time if you don´t have winning material?
I don´t know the FIDE-rules, but in every tournament I have played that has been the case. In this possition, in game g1059939532, if white ran out of time the game would be drawn since black does not have winning material.
mberggren
I don´t know the FIDE-rules, but in every tournament I have played that has been the case. In this possition, in game g1059939532, if white ran out of time the game would be drawn since black does not have winning material.
mberggren
I offered a draw because it can be said that by referring to the Article 6.1 the draw was claimed (even the opponent was guided to refer to correct FIDE’s article but it’s just a small detail in this discussion.) It was my mistake that I didn’t remember that the 9.6 applies in this situation too. When a claim is based on one of Fide’s articles, the games should be judged base on those articles – so simple.
However, I don’t agree with the idea “I may add time for long games” if there are no predictable (which means systematic and known before-hand) arguments for that.
Let’s think what had happened if the game (g1059939532) would have continued a little bit longer. Based on my strategy, I already calculated that in case the opponent would have reached situation in which my next move could have led into a stalemate, I would have allowed him to get his pawn into H8 and upgrade it to be a Queen. Reason why I chose this strategy was that it would have taken at least 7 moves more to checkmate me and he would not have had so much time. So, if you (gmiller) had added more time after the “pawn to h8” move, you would have changed the game situation dramatically.
So, if you add time, please do it in a predictable way.
As you like the idea of clock keeping the game moving and limiting player's ability to analyse the game, how do you find the following idea:
Player gets 60 days to play and after e.g. 40 movements they will get automatically 10..15 days more.
In this way you would keep all of your ideas, the clock is keeping your games moving, players are able to get more time to finish their games by playing the game to the end and there would be a definite limit for how long player is able to analyse the game. Also, the idea is predictable for players.
In addition to this, what are the reasons for adding more time to the game g1059939533? I had less time than the opponent but I was willing to lose the game based on the same strategy I was going to use for winning the another game. Now you cannot take back the time because my opponent has used his advantage already…
However, I don’t agree with the idea “I may add time for long games” if there are no predictable (which means systematic and known before-hand) arguments for that.
Let’s think what had happened if the game (g1059939532) would have continued a little bit longer. Based on my strategy, I already calculated that in case the opponent would have reached situation in which my next move could have led into a stalemate, I would have allowed him to get his pawn into H8 and upgrade it to be a Queen. Reason why I chose this strategy was that it would have taken at least 7 moves more to checkmate me and he would not have had so much time. So, if you (gmiller) had added more time after the “pawn to h8” move, you would have changed the game situation dramatically.
So, if you add time, please do it in a predictable way.
As you like the idea of clock keeping the game moving and limiting player's ability to analyse the game, how do you find the following idea:
Player gets 60 days to play and after e.g. 40 movements they will get automatically 10..15 days more.
In this way you would keep all of your ideas, the clock is keeping your games moving, players are able to get more time to finish their games by playing the game to the end and there would be a definite limit for how long player is able to analyse the game. Also, the idea is predictable for players.
In addition to this, what are the reasons for adding more time to the game g1059939533? I had less time than the opponent but I was willing to lose the game based on the same strategy I was going to use for winning the another game. Now you cannot take back the time because my opponent has used his advantage already…
I agree with you aheino that once opponents agree on a time control,and the game has started, time should not be added to either players clock.
I disagree with your strategy though. Giving up a sure draw for a sure loss doesn't make sence to me. But thats just me! .......Well, maybe if your opponent looks like she belongs on Bay Watch!
I disagree with your strategy though. Giving up a sure draw for a sure loss doesn't make sence to me. But thats just me! .......Well, maybe if your opponent looks like she belongs on Bay Watch!
*PAWN* POWER*
-
gmiller
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1388
- Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
- Location: Jeffersonville, IN
- Contact:
This really has nothing to do with the FIDE rules, it only has to do with the rules I specified for the tournament before anyone joined. It specifically says I may add time for games that progress over 50 moves, and I put that rule there specifically so that players wouldn't have to make more than one move per day. I haven't altered the outcome of any games through use of this rule, it's just that your strategy failed to take all of the rules into account. By not adding time, I would have been altering the outcome.
But I really like your idea of making the added time more automatic, rather than on request only. I suppose the best solution is to go with time controls like 40 moves in 40 days, then 20 moves in 20 days, then 1 move every 1 day. More like real tournament time controls.
But I really like your idea of making the added time more automatic, rather than on request only. I suppose the best solution is to go with time controls like 40 moves in 40 days, then 20 moves in 20 days, then 1 move every 1 day. More like real tournament time controls.