On Mar 20, 5:12*pm, help bot wrote:
On Mar 20, 5:26 pm, " wrote:

This brings back a discussion I had (I believe here) about a 5/0 blitz
game which I won on time. *I had a minute left and the other fellow
timed out. *He was very angry that I did not accept a draw in an
"obviously" drawn position, claiming that I had to accept due to
insufficient losing chances. *We each had a rook and a pawn. *The
pawns were on the same file, and there were no particular advantages
otherwise such as well advanced pawn, superior King position, etc.

The position was certainly a textbook draw. *But in a time scramble,
how easy is it to play textbook moves? *I felt justified in taking the
win given that the possibility of a blunder was quite real.

* Well, in my experience, expectations are
quite different in five-minute blitz from those
in serious play. *I knew one fellow who saw
no problem with steering toward such
positions, with the intention of winning on
time by shuffling wood quickly; he was
more "booked up" on Rook endings, and
won quite a few games (more complex
than your example) in this manner. *No
one considered him to be a cheater, just
a jerk. *:D

* In your specific example, a blunder might
result in one side hanging their pawn-- but
then you still have a theoretical draw, *if*
the weaker side knows what's what.

* I've played in some tournaments where
the newfangled time-delay clocks are
used, and lots of people still get into
time pressure and blunder. *Others use
their big time advantage to secure a draw
where they are losing on the board, but
their opponent cannot handle his shortage
of time.

* -- help bot

So...should the arbiter have stepped in and awarded a win to your
opponent, on the grounds that you were not trying to lose by "normal"
means??

Regards,
zdrakec