zdrakec wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
But it isn't `superior time management'. Black has used most of
his time to get to a position that's a crystal-clear draw. White,
on the other hand, still has twenty minutes left on his clock that
he can't do anything with. Black has managed his time better
than White.

I must respectfully disagree with this last comment. If the position
is even, and White has 20 minutes more than Black, then White has
needed less time to play at least as well as Black. Therefore, in my
opinion, White has managed his time better.

Perhaps White could have used those twenty minutes to consider his
moves more deeply and get to a better-than-equal position?

I note that you've ignored my questions about whether the game should
degenerate into a a king-wiggling competition if both players have the
same amount of time left in a dead-drawn position.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Hilarious Tool (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ hammer but it's a bundle of laughs!

David Richerby wrote:

If the position on the board was the same but the players both had
only one minute left (so there's no question of one player having
managed his time better than the other), do you believe that the game
should be won on time by the player who's able to wiggle his king
faster? If so, why does the same not apply to cases where no
checkmate is even theoretically possible (e.g., two bare kings)? If
not, doesn't this demonstrate that the clock is actually less a part
of the game than is trying to checkmate the opponent's king?

It seems to me that, without a rule such as the USCF insufficient
winning chances rule or the similar FIDE article 10.2, good time
management is impossible in any game with a time control of `... and
then X minutes for the rest of the game.' In such a game, you could
never know how many moves your opponent will insist on playing in a
dead-drawn endgame so you'd never be able to leave enough time for
that. OK, so the fifty-move and repetition rules help but, even in a
simple ending, a player could drag things out for maybe a hundred
moves before either became available.

While I totally agree with you concerning the need for FIDE article
10.2, I don't think that the example in the first paragraph shows
that "the clock is actually less a part of the game than is trying
to checkmate the opponent's king." Your example is one where
trying to checkmate the opponent's king is no longer a viable
option.

With a modern chess clock that adds time on each move, you
cannot lose on time in a position that allows you to mindlessly
move your king around. In that case FIDE article 10.2 just
makes the inevitable draw happen sooner.

On Mar 20, 9:25*am, David Richerby
wrote:
zdrakec wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
But it isn't `superior time management'. *Black has used most of
his time to get to a position that's a crystal-clear draw. *White,
on the other hand, still has twenty minutes left on his clock that
he can't do anything with. *Black has managed his time better
than White.

I must respectfully disagree with this last comment. If the position
is even, and White has 20 minutes more than Black, then White has
needed less time to play at least as well as Black. Therefore, in my
opinion, White has managed his time better.

Perhaps White could have used those twenty minutes to consider his
moves more deeply and get to a better-than-equal position?

I note that you've ignored my questions about whether the game should
degenerate into a a king-wiggling competition if both players have the
same amount of time left in a dead-drawn position.

Dave.

--
David Richerby * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Hilarious Tool (TM): it's like awww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/* * * *hammer but it's a bundle of laughs!

Ah, I didn't ignore them, I simply addressed the point you made that I
did not agree with. However, "dead-drawn" (if mating material is
present) means different things to different levels of players. To
have the arbiter look at the clock, conclude that one side or the
other is not trying to win by "normal" means (whatever those are), and
declare the game drawn is, in my opinion, simply incorrect. By doing
so, he basically penalizes the side with more time by depriving him of
the use of that time. It's the player's time to use as he or she sees
fit...

Respectfully,
zdrakec

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.

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

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

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
If the position on the board was the same but the players both had
only one minute left (so there's no question of one player having
managed his time better than the other), do you believe that the game
should be won on time by the player who's able to wiggle his king
faster? If so, why does the same not apply to cases where no
checkmate is even theoretically possible (e.g., two bare kings)? If
not, doesn't this demonstrate that the clock is actually less a part
of the game than is trying to checkmate the opponent's king?

While I totally agree with you concerning the need for FIDE article
10.2, I don't think that the example in the first paragraph shows
that "the clock is actually less a part of the game than is trying
to checkmate the opponent's king." Your example is one where trying
to checkmate the opponent's king is no longer a viable option.

I assume you mean the example of two bare kings? In that case, as
soon as checkmating stops being an option, the game is immediately
declared drawn, regardless of the situation on the clocks. That, to
me, clearly demonstrates that the clock is subsidiary to checkmate --
as long as you have time on your clock, you still have to try to
checkmate; but as soon as checkmate is no longer possible, nor is a
win on time.


With a modern chess clock that adds time on each move, you cannot
lose on time in a position that allows you to mindlessly move your
king around. In that case FIDE article 10.2 just makes the
inevitable draw happen sooner.

Actually, FIDE 10.2 doesn't apply if there's an increment in the time
control. It's only applicable where the time control is a fixed time
for the rest of the game. (In particular, if the time control is
forty moves in two hours and then an extra hour every fifteen moves,
10.2 can never be invoked. If it is forty in two hours and then an
extra hour for the rest of the game, it can only be invoked after move
forty.)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Radioactive Peanut (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ roasted nut but it'll make you glow
in the dark!

On Mar 20, 8:26 pm, zdrakec wrote:

So...should the arbiter

Arbiter? Are you joking? There are no
arbiters in five-minute blitz games.


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

No. That requires an (invalid) assumption
that we -- I was certainly not the only victim
of this fellow's Rook-endgame savvy -- must
have been /trying/ to lose, when in fact we
were playing for big money-- a quarter or
even fifty cents per game! Such an
assumption is ludicrous, for we all needed
the quarters for the vending machines; hey,
man does not live by chess alone!


-- help bot

David Richerby wrote:

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

With a modern chess clock that adds time on each move, you cannot
lose on time in a position that allows you to mindlessly move your
king around. In that case FIDE article 10.2 just makes the
inevitable draw happen sooner.

Actually, FIDE 10.2 doesn't apply if there's an increment in the time
control. It's only applicable where the time control is a fixed time
for the rest of the game. (In particular, if the time control is
forty moves in two hours and then an extra hour every fifteen moves,
10.2 can never be invoked. If it is forty in two hours and then an
extra hour for the rest of the game, it can only be invoked after move
forty.)

You are, of course, entirely correct.

Note to self: next time, smoke crack AFTER posting to r.g.c.m...

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Most of you seem to be missing the point of the "insufficient losing
chances" rule. Under a "real" time control, it is _possible_ to reach
the next time control and get more time. It may be vanishingly
unlikely, but it's possible. This is not true with sudden-death. The
ILC rule was invented in order to make SD look more like "real" chess.
It's neither fish nor fowl, but given the determination of organizers
to use sudden-death, it was the best anyone could come up with.

It is worth noting that these claims are becoming increasingly rare,
as more players are now using time-delay clocks. (If the game starts
with a time-delay clock, no such claim is permitted. You just have to
play it out.)