Several times I ended up with rook vs rook endgames (with no pawns on the board). I know that from the formal point of view this is not a draw according to the official FIDE chess rules but it can't be anything else according to a common sense (and in a real life games I've never seen people who continue playing such games even in blitz). However, opponents here often refuse to agree upon a draw and start making meaningless moves hoping that I'll run out of time before making 50 moves. Such endings in games without time increment are only about who has less laggy connection. What's the point of this? I realize that you can't automatically award a draw once only two rooks are left on the board since there can be a forced win due to a checkmate in 1 (or in 2 but no more than that) threat. However, what about awarding a draw after making, say, 5 moves in rook vs rook endgame?
You're suggesting that Lichess create its own chess rules because you lose on time.
Ridiculous.
Ridiculous.
Nope. In the real tournament I could have asked the arbiter to claim a draw (and it worked in the era when time control without the increment was used). Moreover, in the real tournament nobody would decline a draw offer in such position, otherwise my opponent would just be ashamed of looking at me or at any of spectators till the end of the tournament. But on the web none of these is the case. And some people just don't care about the so-called "spirit of the game of chess".
Well, if you're so punctilious about observing the official rules (but hey, they are not the same in the real life and on the web since I can't call the arbiter here!), how about having an option to punish the opponent by, say, lowering their carma (which doesn't exist now but why not add it)? I know, I can add a person to spam but that will not help me to avoid similar players in the future and will not help other players, who respect their opponents, to come across the similar situation either. However, people with low carma may be marked somehow so that those, who care not only about rating but about being polite to each other, will see that they'd better avoid such persons.
Well, if you're so punctilious about observing the official rules (but hey, they are not the same in the real life and on the web since I can't call the arbiter here!), how about having an option to punish the opponent by, say, lowering their carma (which doesn't exist now but why not add it)? I know, I can add a person to spam but that will not help me to avoid similar players in the future and will not help other players, who respect their opponents, to come across the similar situation either. However, people with low carma may be marked somehow so that those, who care not only about rating but about being polite to each other, will see that they'd better avoid such persons.
Nice Idea. Also I just came across such an endgame where my opponent refused draw and I lost on time.
In real life it is really somewhat different then just that:
One of both players offers a draw,
if the other one refuses, the one who claims it should be a draw calls the arbiter. Now lets assume we dont have GMs sitting at that board. (Cause I never saw GMs play r vs.r endgames refusing draw offers.)
The arbiter doesn't automatically say: Yes its a draw. more often in lower rated tournaments he says: "Ok play some more moves" He has to check weather the player who is claiming the draw also knows how to "hold" it.
With a rook vs. rook endgame the situation should be clear and easy to proof - but there are situations in which players blunder their rooks. After something like maximum 20 moves the arbiter would draw that game eventually.
For blitz and fast games there is even an optional appendice in the fide rules. In "common sense" or not: In the end the fide rules are not pro or contra any player - and arbiters have to act in favour of the chess sport itself. The rules ... They are made for the sake of chess and have to be layed out like that.
But why not implement something like an "arbiter button" for extra tournaments where the fide appendice D counts? malinovsky239 proposed for these endgames? It dont have to be necessarily 5 moves only to play... but a senseful amount like maximum 20. Also I ask myself if the computer could live-check if its still a draw in every of the moves. At least for r vs. r endgames this should be easy to see for the computer. eg:
Player white pushes the button.
Computer checks the value of the position after every move. r vs. r should be equal = 0 all the time. So if after these amout of moves the player pushing the button proved that he holded (at least) the "0" the game has to be finished and declared as a draw.
Here the points to be considered:
www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf
Page 2:
FIDE Laws of Chess cover over-the-board play.
The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they
regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the
Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are
discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound
judgement and absolute objectivity.
A member federation is free to int
roduce more detailed rules provided they:
a.
do not conflict in any way with
the official FIDE Laws of Chess, and
b.
are limited to the territory of the federation concerned
, and
c.
are not valid for any FIDE match, championship or qualifying event, or for
a FIDE title or
rating tournament.
=> @ Melora: The Fide doesn't find it ridiculous at all to propose some sensible rules.
Appendice D:
D. Quickplay finishes where no arbiter is present in the venue
D.1
Where games are played as in Article 10, a player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.
He may claim on the basis:
a.
that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or
b.
that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.
In a) the player must write down the final position and his opponent verify it.
In b) the player must write down the final position and submit an up to date scoresheet. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position. The claim shall be referred to an arbiter whose decision shall be final.
In real life it is really somewhat different then just that:
One of both players offers a draw,
if the other one refuses, the one who claims it should be a draw calls the arbiter. Now lets assume we dont have GMs sitting at that board. (Cause I never saw GMs play r vs.r endgames refusing draw offers.)
The arbiter doesn't automatically say: Yes its a draw. more often in lower rated tournaments he says: "Ok play some more moves" He has to check weather the player who is claiming the draw also knows how to "hold" it.
With a rook vs. rook endgame the situation should be clear and easy to proof - but there are situations in which players blunder their rooks. After something like maximum 20 moves the arbiter would draw that game eventually.
For blitz and fast games there is even an optional appendice in the fide rules. In "common sense" or not: In the end the fide rules are not pro or contra any player - and arbiters have to act in favour of the chess sport itself. The rules ... They are made for the sake of chess and have to be layed out like that.
But why not implement something like an "arbiter button" for extra tournaments where the fide appendice D counts? malinovsky239 proposed for these endgames? It dont have to be necessarily 5 moves only to play... but a senseful amount like maximum 20. Also I ask myself if the computer could live-check if its still a draw in every of the moves. At least for r vs. r endgames this should be easy to see for the computer. eg:
Player white pushes the button.
Computer checks the value of the position after every move. r vs. r should be equal = 0 all the time. So if after these amout of moves the player pushing the button proved that he holded (at least) the "0" the game has to be finished and declared as a draw.
Here the points to be considered:
www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf
Page 2:
FIDE Laws of Chess cover over-the-board play.
The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they
regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the
Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are
discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound
judgement and absolute objectivity.
A member federation is free to int
roduce more detailed rules provided they:
a.
do not conflict in any way with
the official FIDE Laws of Chess, and
b.
are limited to the territory of the federation concerned
, and
c.
are not valid for any FIDE match, championship or qualifying event, or for
a FIDE title or
rating tournament.
=> @ Melora: The Fide doesn't find it ridiculous at all to propose some sensible rules.
Appendice D:
D. Quickplay finishes where no arbiter is present in the venue
D.1
Where games are played as in Article 10, a player may claim a draw when he has less than two minutes left on his clock and before his flag falls. This concludes the game.
He may claim on the basis:
a.
that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or
b.
that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means.
In a) the player must write down the final position and his opponent verify it.
In b) the player must write down the final position and submit an up to date scoresheet. The opponent shall verify both the scoresheet and the final position. The claim shall be referred to an arbiter whose decision shall be final.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.