[Retros] Is it always right to loose because time?

[A J Mestel]

This isn't very relevant, but a long time ago I witnessed someone resign 
just before his opponent did! They were both reasonable players and 
each had plenty of time, but one of them had inadvertantly allowed a mate
in 2 in a winning position.

There have been a few occasions when someone has offered a draw and his 
opponent thought he was resigning and they signed differing results on a 
scoresheet, but I know of no occasion where they've each signed a loss...

What are the rules if someone loses on time and the only conceivable way 
he could be mated would lead to a 3-fold repetition? Is it assumed that if
he is playing badly he would forget to claim a draw? I suppose that's 
logical.

    Jonathan

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, andrew buchanan wrote:


> Hi,

>

> I posed this question a few years ago to International Arbiter Guert Gijssen on

> his monthly chesscafe column.

>

> Here was his response:

> http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt59.pdf

>

> In summary, he said he would think about changing the rules if anyone could

> supply him with real life examples of this happening! :-)

>

> Cheers,

> Andrew.

>

>

> --- "Rol, Guus" <G.A.Rol at umcutrecht.nl> wrote:

>

>> I agree with Joost that FIDE rules are clear on this. Interesting to

>> note though is the relation to dead positions. Deadness is only assigned

>> to positions where neither side can win and therefore draw is the only

>> outcome. Why not declare a position equally dead when a white or black

>> win is unavoidable? In the abstract world of composition such an

>> approach would only be natural. The answer is simple though. This is not

>> actually a chess game rule but a chess game management rule. Its purpose

>> is to prevent abuse of the time clock by drawing out games until some

>> flag falls. Such management measures are unnecessary when mate is in

>> sight. But, if a 'win'-extension to the dead position rule was ever

>> included, all selfmates would be half a move shorter :-)

>>

>> Guus Rol.

>>

>>

>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----

>> Van: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] Namens

>> Joost de Heer

>> Verzonden: woensdag 10 oktober 2007 0:31

>> Aan: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List

>> Onderwerp: Re: [Retros] Is it always right to loose because time?

>>

>>

>> Franco wrote:

>>> Hi friends,

>>> let us suppose that after his flag's fall the player

>>> shows to the arbiter that the only legal move

>>> he had just was checkmate.

>>> As example:

>>> 1k6-ppp5-8-KP6-P7-8-Q2r4-4b3

>>>

>>> W plays Qg8 and then B flag just fall before he can move.

>>> The only move he could do is just:  Rd8 mate!

>>> The Question is: is it right that Black looses that game because time?

>>> I think no. I think Black is the winner.

>>

>> 6.10

>>

>> Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c)

>> apply, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in

>> the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is

>> drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the

>> player`s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most

>> unskilled counterplay.

>>

>> This is the case, so the game is drawn.

>>

>> Joost

>> _______________________________________________

>> Retros mailing list

>> Retros at janko.at

>> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros

>> _______________________________________________

>> Retros mailing list

>> Retros at janko.at

>> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros

>>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Retros mailing list

> Retros at janko.at

> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros

>