@zzc3308 said in #29:
I tried playing this position out on chess.com, black flags when white has mate-in-one, but a draw is still declared. This is a bit weird since white can force mate.
From what I understand, chess.com looked at the position and deemed that you have a Bishop, which in itself is not enough to force a checkmate against a lone king. Therefore it declared this a draw. I know what you are saying, but I agree with one of the other users who said that a draw is the exception in this case, because flagging almost always results in a loss for the side who flagged.
@zzc3308 said in #29:
> I tried playing this position out on chess.com, black flags when white has mate-in-one, but a draw is still declared. This is a bit weird since white can force mate.
> 
From what I understand, chess.com looked at the position and deemed that you have a Bishop, which in itself is not enough to force a checkmate against a lone king. Therefore it declared this a draw. I know what you are saying, but I agree with one of the other users who said that a draw is the exception in this case, because flagging almost always results in a loss for the side who flagged.
In my opinion, FIDE has these rules which make more sense than USCF in the context of an OTB game. That's because there's increment or delay. Imagine you get one of these scenarios, you are on the "winning" side with R+N v. N, or B+P v. P. Then, with even a 2 second increment or delay, you shouldn't have any problem holding a draw without flagging. If you flag, you deserve to lose.
Online is a different scenario. Because the game may not have increment or delay, it can become impossible at times to hold a draw in those same conditions. FIDE rules were not meant to account for games without increment.
In my opinion, FIDE has these rules which make more sense than USCF in the context of an OTB game. That's because there's increment or delay. Imagine you get one of these scenarios, you are on the "winning" side with R+N v. N, or B+P v. P. Then, with even a 2 second increment or delay, you shouldn't have any problem holding a draw without flagging. If you flag, you deserve to lose.
Online is a different scenario. Because the game may not have increment or delay, it can become impossible at times to hold a draw in those same conditions. FIDE rules were not meant to account for games without increment.
@AARAVG_CHESS said in #39:
Hi guys, what's up
@AARAVG_CHESS said in #39:
> > > Hi guys, what's up
@DylanYuIM said in #42:
Online is a different scenario. Because the game may not have increment or delay, it can become impossible at times to hold a draw in those same conditions. FIDE rules were not meant to account for games without increment.
FIDE also has blitz ratings. And there is to my knowledge nothing in the FIDE regulations that says that all games should have an increment.
In my opinion: if you don't have enough time to keep a draw, you've spent too much time. Increment or not.
There is one rule in OTB chess that says: "if your opponent is not trying to win on the board, you can claim a draw". That's something we don't have online. But that's really the only relevant difference, I think.
@DylanYuIM said in #42:
> Online is a different scenario. Because the game may not have increment or delay, it can become impossible at times to hold a draw in those same conditions. FIDE rules were not meant to account for games without increment.
FIDE also has blitz ratings. And there is to my knowledge nothing in the FIDE regulations that says that all games should have an increment.
In my opinion: if you don't have enough time to keep a draw, you've spent too much time. Increment or not.
There is one rule in OTB chess that says: "if your opponent is not trying to win on the board, you can claim a draw". That's something we don't have online. But that's really the only relevant difference, I think.
@Molurus said in #44:
FIDE also has blitz ratings. And there is to my knowledge nothing in the FIDE regulations that says that all games should have an increment.
I'm not too sure about that, but even in practice there are very few games that play without any increment at all. The closest I can think of in the faster time controls is Armageddon, but even those have a 1 sec increment starting move 41 or 61.
@Molurus said in #44:
> FIDE also has blitz ratings. And there is to my knowledge nothing in the FIDE regulations that says that all games should have an increment.
I'm not too sure about that, but even in practice there are very few games that play without any increment at all. The closest I can think of in the faster time controls is Armageddon, but even those have a 1 sec increment starting move 41 or 61.
