+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: The Arbiters Jotter (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-13.html)
+--- Thread: "Drawn" positions when there is an increment (/thread-1618.html)
"Drawn" positions when there is an increment - PeterReidSmith - 05-02-2017
I've never been too sure about this, but it has happened to me, so:
Increment - hence, in theory the game can go on forever.
Drawn position, but not trivially - e.g. there might be a fortress, but that might not be evident to everyone. In the particular case I remember I had a Rook+Bishop fortress against a queen and King but there were also pawns on the board. It was "clearly" drawn, but the point is...
the game can just go on and on and on. Three move repetition need never arise ; the 50 move rule (does that even still exist) need never arise (or at least not for many hours) as the odd pawn move can always be made, and any 2 minute rules can be kept at bay by the increment. So...what exactly is the protocol?
In my case, I did call the arbiter (it was 22:30pm and I wanted to get some sleep), but even then it took another 30mins and probably only ended because the other player did eventually concede the draw- probably only due to my demonstrable frustration and having to pseudo repeat moves.
In short...is there an issue here or am I (and I suspect a few others) just ignorant of the correct protocol?
Re: "Drawn" positions when there is an increment - hamish olson - 05-02-2017
It's just the way it is (unfortunately if you are the one defending). Game goes on till 50 move rule or draw agreement. I've had some very difficult defenses and some frustrating losses but there's not really an obvious solution (to me anyway).
They used to have an extended version of 50 move rule for rook and bishop vs rook (100 moves!). <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawnless_chess_endgame#Browne_versus_BELLE">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawnless_ ... rsus_BELLE</a><!-- m -->
Re: "Drawn" positions when there is an increment - Alan Jelfs - 08-02-2017
... which is why increments are unsuitable for mid-week league games, when the janitor wants to lock up and go home.
Re: "Drawn" positions when there is an increment - PeterReidSmith - 11-02-2017
Yeh, it's a separate (and far too debatable point) but I do wonder if the increment idea has been embraced a little too quickly (globally) without sufficient thought. The argument over "purity/quality" only washes with a certain perspective (who granted might even be a majority in numbers) but the case in my view is a long way from proven. I will always be of the view that chess is a game between mere humans with flawed and imperfect psychologies and that that is a material part of the game, and the fun. Managing time (deliberately and consciously - or not doing so) is then just another way for those differences to distinguish themselves - while "fixing the problem" with increments is a misconception based on flawed assumptions about what "quality" means. Still, we are where we are so I'll pack caffeine tablets the next time I'm playing in an increment tournament
RE: "Drawn" positions when there is an increment - Stuart McKinney - 22-07-2021
(11-02-2017, 04:29 PM)PeterReidSmith Wrote: Yeh, it's a separate (and far too debatable point) but I do wonder if the increment idea has been embraced a little too quickly (globally) without sufficient thought. The argument over "purity/quality" only washes with a certain perspective (who granted might even be a majority in numbers) but the case in my view is a long way from proven. I will always be of the view that chess is a game between mere humans with flawed and imperfect psychologies and that that is a material part of the game, and the fun. Managing time (deliberately and consciously - or not doing so) is then just another way for those differences to distinguish themselves - while "fixing the problem" with increments is a misconception based on flawed assumptions about what "quality" means. Still, we are where we are so I'll pack caffeine tablets the next time I'm playing in an increment tournament
Just my thoughts on an old thread: Imagine the same scenario with no increment. The position would be decided on time alone if one of the players refuses the draw. Again unsatisfactory.
I was playing a game on chess.com and we got down to a K & R v K & R so I offered a draw. The game had an increment so couldn't be decided on time. The draw offer was refused. I was annoyed and after a few moves I blundered and eventually lost which is beside the point. I've also watched games on chess.com where clearly drawn positions are played out only to win on time. Should players be allowed to claim draws in these positions. In my game should I have had an option to claim a draw rather then offer one?
RE: "Drawn" positions when there is an increment - Adam Bremner - 22-07-2021
(22-07-2021, 10:52 AM)Stuart McKinney Wrote:(11-02-2017, 04:29 PM)PeterReidSmith Wrote: Yeh, it's a separate (and far too debatable point) but I do wonder if the increment idea has been embraced a little too quickly (globally) without sufficient thought. The argument over "purity/quality" only washes with a certain perspective (who granted might even be a majority in numbers) but the case in my view is a long way from proven. I will always be of the view that chess is a game between mere humans with flawed and imperfect psychologies and that that is a material part of the game, and the fun. Managing time (deliberately and consciously - or not doing so) is then just another way for those differences to distinguish themselves - while "fixing the problem" with increments is a misconception based on flawed assumptions about what "quality" means. Still, we are where we are so I'll pack caffeine tablets the next time I'm playing in an increment tournament
Just my thoughts on an old thread: Imagine the same scenario with no increment. The position would be decided on time alone if one of the players refuses the draw. Again unsatisfactory.
I was playing a game on chess.com and we got down to a K & R v K & R so I offered a draw. The game had an increment so couldn't be decided on time. The draw offer was refused. I was annoyed and after a few moves I blundered and eventually lost which is beside the point. I've also watched games on chess.com where clearly drawn positions are played out only to win on time. Should players be allowed to claim draws in these positions. In my game should I have had an option to claim a draw rather then offer one?
There are hundreds of positions where K+R v K+R is winning, for example white has rook on a1, king on b1, black has king on b3, rook on h3. Regardless of who is to move, black wins. Add to the mix there will be tactics that deliberately swap into K+R vs K+R because of a winning pin. There will also be some cases where one side actually is fairly close to being mated and has to play a move in a few seconds - panic sets in and blunders happen. So there is no way for the platform to determine if the K+R vs K+R position is actually a draw and therefore you should never be allowed to claim the draw there. FWIW, I would play on if my opponent looked close to blundering online, but maybe not OTB. If you have no incrament, sadly that is just time management. If you have incrament, you just have to play it out (then block and never play the person again if it upsets you).
I have more sympathy for something like K+B v K+P, where the only way for the K+B side to win is if the opponent underpromotes to a knight and decides to self mate. Probably in that position you should be able to claim a draw.
RE: "Drawn" positions when there is an increment - Stuart McKinney - 22-07-2021
(22-07-2021, 02:46 PM)Adam Bremner Wrote:(22-07-2021, 10:52 AM)Stuart McKinney Wrote:(11-02-2017, 04:29 PM)PeterReidSmith Wrote: Yeh, it's a separate (and far too debatable point) but I do wonder if the increment idea has been embraced a little too quickly (globally) without sufficient thought. The argument over "purity/quality" only washes with a certain perspective (who granted might even be a majority in numbers) but the case in my view is a long way from proven. I will always be of the view that chess is a game between mere humans with flawed and imperfect psychologies and that that is a material part of the game, and the fun. Managing time (deliberately and consciously - or not doing so) is then just another way for those differences to distinguish themselves - while "fixing the problem" with increments is a misconception based on flawed assumptions about what "quality" means. Still, we are where we are so I'll pack caffeine tablets the next time I'm playing in an increment tournament
Just my thoughts on an old thread: Imagine the same scenario with no increment. The position would be decided on time alone if one of the players refuses the draw. Again unsatisfactory.
I was playing a game on chess.com and we got down to a K & R v K & R so I offered a draw. The game had an increment so couldn't be decided on time. The draw offer was refused. I was annoyed and after a few moves I blundered and eventually lost which is beside the point. I've also watched games on chess.com where clearly drawn positions are played out only to win on time. Should players be allowed to claim draws in these positions. In my game should I have had an option to claim a draw rather then offer one?
There are hundreds of positions where K+R v K+R is winning, for example white has rook on a1, king on b1, black has king on b3, rook on h3. Regardless of who is to move, black wins. Add to the mix there will be tactics that deliberately swap into K+R vs K+R because of a winning pin. There will also be some cases where one side actually is fairly close to being mated and has to play a move in a few seconds - panic sets in and blunders happen. So there is no way for the platform to determine if the K+R vs K+R position is actually a draw and therefore you should never be allowed to claim the draw there. FWIW, I would play on if my opponent looked close to blundering online, but maybe not OTB. If you have no incrament, sadly that is just time management. If you have incrament, you just have to play it out (then block and never play the person again if it upsets you).
I have more sympathy for something like K+B v K+P, where the only way for the K+B side to win is if the opponent underpromotes to a knight and decides to self mate. Probably in that position you should be able to claim a draw.
Thanks for your reply. In the game in question it was definitely a drawn position. After any game you can have your game analysed on chess.com and it confirmed the draw until of course when I had a brain freeze and blundered.
If this game had been in an over-the board game in a congress I probably could have claimed a draw as I probably could in a league match under Chess Edinburgh rules.
My own thoughts: If the game is clearly drawn and the only way for someone to win is to run down your opponent's clock you should be able to claim a draw. You should also be allowed to claim a draw in incremental games if a player is just playing moves without any realistic way of winning. I also believe though that if you are in a losing position but your opponent is in time trouble you should be allowed to play it out.
RE: "Drawn" positions when there is an increment - Adam Bremner - 22-07-2021
(22-07-2021, 08:32 PM)Stuart McKinney Wrote:(22-07-2021, 02:46 PM)Adam Bremner Wrote:(22-07-2021, 10:52 AM)Stuart McKinney Wrote:(11-02-2017, 04:29 PM)PeterReidSmith Wrote: Yeh, it's a separate (and far too debatable point) but I do wonder if the increment idea has been embraced a little too quickly (globally) without sufficient thought. The argument over "purity/quality" only washes with a certain perspective (who granted might even be a majority in numbers) but the case in my view is a long way from proven. I will always be of the view that chess is a game between mere humans with flawed and imperfect psychologies and that that is a material part of the game, and the fun. Managing time (deliberately and consciously - or not doing so) is then just another way for those differences to distinguish themselves - while "fixing the problem" with increments is a misconception based on flawed assumptions about what "quality" means. Still, we are where we are so I'll pack caffeine tablets the next time I'm playing in an increment tournament
Just my thoughts on an old thread: Imagine the same scenario with no increment. The position would be decided on time alone if one of the players refuses the draw. Again unsatisfactory.
I was playing a game on chess.com and we got down to a K & R v K & R so I offered a draw. The game had an increment so couldn't be decided on time. The draw offer was refused. I was annoyed and after a few moves I blundered and eventually lost which is beside the point. I've also watched games on chess.com where clearly drawn positions are played out only to win on time. Should players be allowed to claim draws in these positions. In my game should I have had an option to claim a draw rather then offer one?
There are hundreds of positions where K+R v K+R is winning, for example white has rook on a1, king on b1, black has king on b3, rook on h3. Regardless of who is to move, black wins. Add to the mix there will be tactics that deliberately swap into K+R vs K+R because of a winning pin. There will also be some cases where one side actually is fairly close to being mated and has to play a move in a few seconds - panic sets in and blunders happen. So there is no way for the platform to determine if the K+R vs K+R position is actually a draw and therefore you should never be allowed to claim the draw there. FWIW, I would play on if my opponent looked close to blundering online, but maybe not OTB. If you have no incrament, sadly that is just time management. If you have incrament, you just have to play it out (then block and never play the person again if it upsets you).
I have more sympathy for something like K+B v K+P, where the only way for the K+B side to win is if the opponent underpromotes to a knight and decides to self mate. Probably in that position you should be able to claim a draw.
Thanks for your reply. In the game in question it was definitely a drawn position. After any game you can have your game analysed on chess.com and it confirmed the draw until of course when I had a brain freeze and blundered.
If this game had been in an over-the board game in a congress I probably could have claimed a draw as I probably could in a league match under Chess Edinburgh rules.
My own thoughts: If the game is clearly drawn and the only way for someone to win is to run down your opponent's clock you should be able to claim a draw. You should also be allowed to claim a draw in incremental games if a player is just playing moves without any realistic way of winning. I also believe though that if you are in a losing position but your opponent is in time trouble you should be allowed to play it out.
I have no doubt your position was a draw. My point on this was more that if you had the option to claim a draw, you would have to define positions that are draws and positions that aren't draws (because it can't be determined by just the piece composition alone, which is how the computer automatically awards a draw for say K+B v K), code that in (including who is to move), then have trickier in between positions where blundering was easier to do. This would be a mess and also subjective on the positions that were easier to blunder. Unfortunately the computer can't apply common sense, so as you can't blanket allow all K+R vs K+R as draws, you have to blanket them as positions to be played. Your thoughts are correct for OTB chess and does happen, it just can't work practically for online chess, as unfair as that may seem.