1 edit
Originally posted by Lord ErdrickAgreed. If you play those sort of short time controlled games then getting timed-out shold come as a risk for enforced speedy play. I only accept 0 time out if the time bank is long (30 to 60 days).
I consider it a lesson learned then, I guess. No more 24-hour no timebank games! X_X
While we're on this subject...
I stumbled across the following game: Game 759602.
Black won on timeout, but didn't have any pieces, and so had no chance of winning the game. In this case, the timeout should only grant a draw - not a win.
Originally posted by craigyIf this happened in an OTB game and the flag fell, black would be awarded the game. Why should this case be any different?
While we're on this subject...
I stumbled across the following game: Game 759602.
Black won on timeout, but didn't have any pieces, and so had no chance of winning the game. In this case, the timeout should only grant a draw - not a win.
Originally posted by craigyAlthough I can see how this doesn't seem fair, the fact remains that white broke a rule by not following the designated time restraints. In chess, when the time rule is broken, the other side has the opportunity to claim a win. I have played over the board chess tournaments and I will tell you that I have never seen someone grant their opponent extra time. It is certainly understood in OTB chess that you have to comply with the time restraints. In the game you referred to, had I been white I would have not let my timebank run out and I would have won that game.
Black won on timeout, but didn't have any pieces, and so had no chance of winning the game. In this case, the timeout should only grant a draw - not a win.
All players should understand that when you accept a game you are accepting the possibility you will lose on time, even if you have an emergency in your life. If you do not like the time frame that has been designated, or are concerned you might not be able to comply with it, don't join the game (or create it for that matter). Only play games that meet your requirements for time. Just as you would not play an OTB blitz chess game if you have to spend time thinking every move out, do not join games here that do not suit your style.
Originally posted by craigyBTW, how does one 'stumble' over a game like that?
While we're on this subject...
I stumbled across the following game: Game 759602.
Black won on timeout, but didn't have any pieces, and so had no chance of winning the game. In this case, the timeout should only grant a draw - not a win.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by ivangriceNo, that's wrong. In order to be awarded the win, the side who is claiming must have sufficient material to be able to mate. In lone King situations, when the opponent's flag falls, it's always a draw. Anything else just isn't chess.
If this happened in an OTB game and the flag fell, black would be awarded the game. Why should this case be any different?
1 edit
Originally posted by David TebbI was not aware of this. After referring to the Official Rules of Chess I have to change my original position. If there is not sufficient material to mate, it should be a draw. Until there is a change in rules on Red Hot Pawn, I will continue to claim the win though. I would fully support this rule change though.
In order to be awarded the win, the side who is claiming must have [b]sufficient material to be able to mate.[/b]