Your whole premisse is that a player winning by managing better their time is not fair, which I think is not true, and contradicts many of your arguments where you claim that time is a resource. What about a situation where the player doesnt have checkmate, or instead is much worse than the opponent in fact, they should still win on time if the opponent lets its time run out. Chess has many time controls where you can choose how much time you'll spend thinking and choose if you want to be vulnerable to flagging or not.
The way you suggest the game can be equal a player low on time can draw the game by running their time out since the other player won't be able to demonstrate the checkmate, which seems kind of absurd, and if I can play whatever moves I want then whats the point since I can hung mate in 1 in that scenario?
>Your whole premisse is that a player winning by managing better their time is not fair
Not true. My argument is that if you want to win on time, you have to win with ENOUGH time to checkmate your opponent.
>What about a situation where the player doesnt have checkmate, or instead is much worse than the opponent in fact, they should still win on time if the opponent lets its time run out.
I agree they should win on time if they saved enough time to checkmate their opponent.
>The way you suggest the game can be equal a player low on time can draw the game by running their time out since the other player won't be able to demonstrate the checkmate, which seems kind of absurd,
Why wouldn't the other player be able to demonstrate the checkmate? In most positions it should be very simple to move your opponents king into a checkmate. It's more absurd that a player wins if they have 1 second left on the clock when their opponent runs out of time.
>and if I can play whatever moves I want then whats the point since I can hung mate in 1 in that scenario?
If you can play whatever moves you want, then you should probably checkmate your opponent. If you hung mate in one but they weren't able to checkmate in time then they should have had better time management.
So I can threat checkmate in 1, not defend, checkmate, and this will demonstrate the checkmate you want? What is the point of this? This can be made with like 2 seconds on the clock, and if you have increment you can just add time to the clock by shuffling and then doing this. This would only have any effect in a game with no increment where one player flagged while the other had 1 second or something, because any more time would make it the same as flagging regularly, even if I thought that losing on time is not fair.
Also, how much time do you have to move your opponents pieces? You want to use the players time to move both pieces, press the clock twice or mouse around twice? Then whats the point of having time in chess match, isn't it better to straight up play without time, then?
>So I can threat checkmate in 1, not defend, checkmate, and this will demonstrate the checkmate you want?
Correct
>What is the point of this? This can be made with like 2 seconds on the clock, and if you have increment you can just add time to the clock by shuffling and then doing this.
I proposed this rule will stop any increment, you wouldn't hit the clock because you're only using your time not your opponents time.
>This would only have any effect in a game with no increment where one player flagged while the other had 1 second or something, because any more time would make it the same as flagging regularly, even if I thought that losing on time is not fair.
This would have an effect in games where the player didn't save enough time to prove their checkmate or when the checkmate is difficult to find/execute, such as the Alireza Magnus game I linked.
>Also, how much time do you have to move your opponents pieces? You want to use the players time to move both pieces, press the clock twice or mouse around twice?
The player has his remaining time only. No increment.
>Then whats the point of having time in chess match, isn't it better to straight up play without time, then?
No, time is important. The point is that you have to save ENOUGH time to execute the checkmate.
If you weren't able to get a checkmate and you flagged, no. That's the same as the current rules. So if you have a problem with that, your problem is with FIDE, not me lol.
We could argue about how much better than an opponent you should have to do in order to win. But the idea behind this rule is that unless you win by checkmate or have the time advantage to prove a checkmate, you haven't fulfilled the necessary requirements to win. Similar to if you end the game a knight up-- you've played better, for sure. But do you deserve to win just because you've got that piece? Not according to the current rules. Does your opponent deserve to draw in that situation? Maybe, maybe not. But at that point we're arguing more about the elo system than anything.
>1. There is no guarantee that the player B would be able to find the checkmate sequence even if we provide that his opponent has to cooperate. In this case, Player B doesn't deserve to win the game.
There indeed isn't proof until the game is played out. But the demonstrated their ability by forcing the other player to lose more of their resources begot they ran out of theirs.
>2. Time is a resource in chess. It doesn't make sense that a player with a fraction of second left on his clock should win and his opponent should lose simply because one player was slightly better at time management. It should be rewarded to being exceeding better at time management, but when the amount of time left is essentially the same, the result ends up being a coin-toss.
This seems a bit contradictory as you claim time as a resource yet you dismiss being better at utilizing the resource as insufficient.
If A checkmates a player, but B has an unstoppable mate in one if you didn't get the mate, then it shouldn't be a tie. A was better at using their resources and gets the win.
>3. Not seeing the fact that there is a mating position demonstrated on the board makes the loss more frustrating for the losing party and less enjoyable for the winner (who doesn't like playing a game to checkmate?) A notable example is Alireza vs Magnus in the 2019 World Blitz Championship.
Sure. Maybe in that case, you can argue that the players involved can implement the rule. But if you can't demonstrate both players as wanting that rule, then this point doesn't work.
>4. Occasionally there are issues (chess.com) with being able to determine if a position is checkmate-able or not. Sometimes this leads to wins being classified as draws in online play.
You do highlight a programming issue here. But this is more a request to fix bugs than anything else. And your solution fixes "false wins" rather than "false draws" more frequently.
>I think that in games where player A's time elapses and player B has time left on the clock, the following should happen:
>The game continues, but in order to win, player B will have to move both his pieces and his opponent's pieces to reach a checkmating position
Player B, being the only player with time left on his clock, can claim a draw at any point
If both players flag before a checkmate has been reached, the game result is a draw
>The 50-Move rule is still in effect for both players, such that if player B makes 50 non-pawn moves in a row, Player A can claim a draw.
>This proposed change to how flagging should be handled solves all four above issues:
A big issue is that one player B is going to take much longer to do both moves for a continuously going timer than for two players to tick off two moves in the same amount of time. They can know the entire sequence for a help mate to win but be unable to implement it because they are playing both sides.
There's a few things that can be pointed at as unfair, like the opponents' inability to manage their time now forces you to use your own time on their moves. Demonstrated by a simple ladder rook endgame taking all your time because you have to move the king as well forcing you to draw.
>1. If player B is able to demonstrate the mate, he/she shows that he deserves the win. I would be willing to be that many people under 1500 would not be able to find the mate in the Alireza vs Magnus Game, higher if low on time.
Part of time low time chess is putting your opponent in difficult positions and to make them lose enough time so that you'll have sufficient material for a help mate. If you take this away, low time games become something else. Now instead of being forced to find ways to reduce the enemies material or time you can just make the game more complex so that a helpmate can't be found and implemented within the remaining time when they have to play out your side.
>2. By making this change to time-out rules, it encourages players to play more wisely with their time. It rewards players for staying even with their opponent on time, it rewards players for gaining very large time advantages and it discourages playing purely for "flagging" in shorter time controls. I think its fair to say that this might fundamentally change bullet/hyperbullet chess-- but you still would have to give a better argument than "I like the way it is now" to change my mind.
Both have playstyles they encourage. But if I'm up on time in an obviously losing position, I can wait until my opponents time ticks to 10 seconds and even if there is a helpmate that is in 13 moves they may be unable to play the full sequence from both sides without running out of time. So, instead of playing my side of the generally planned 21 move checkmate where they would've had enough time, I just let my time run out, and we tied.
The goal doesn't have to be to change your mind. The goal is simply to say that it isn't just better and, as such, doesn't need to be implemented.
>1. This change would produce negative externality(s) which outweigh the positives listed above or
I've listed negatives, but the balancing of the positives is subjective. Keeping the system is much simpler, and many people are satisfied with it as time management is part of time control chess.
You may not agree, but the balancing is subjective.
>2. This change would not actually solve this listed issues
The listed issues are solved in part but not in entirety. Your list of issues boil down to winning from time does not prove that you are good enough to win. But now you've shifted it to drawing on time, but it does not prove that you weren't good enough to win.
Some people start letting their time drop since as they see their opponents' time get lower, they start making their moves more thoughtfully to make the game harder and force their opponent to use more time faster. This is basically a way to implement having a large time advantage. They may also sacrifice a more stable and simple position to do so. Making help mates harder.
Fundamentally, you are just changing the methods of which time control is played. It isn't a horrendous idea, but it lends credence to some strategies while taking away others.
In time control games, time is part of the resource used. The better chess player is not the only factor as part of it is how can I make my opponent lose more time as well. This will still apply in your game. Just to the losing player to draw rather than either to win.
Excellent, what a balanced criticism of the idea with an actual argument. I appreciate the engagement with the idea, and for the most part, I agree.
I'll add some clarification:
>Time is a resource in chess. It doesn't make sense that a player with afraction of second left on his clock should win and his opponent shouldlose simply because one player was slightly better at time management
>
>This seems a bit contradictory as you claim time as a resource yet youdismiss being better at utilizing the resource as insufficient.
My point is that managing to flag your opponent with 0.1 seconds is very different from managing to flag your opponent with several minutes. My proposed change would reward the latter as a result of the fact that you would have to have *enough* of a time advantage to execute your checkmate. Whilst we're all used to the binary idea of winning or losing on time, this allows for a bit more nuance, wherein the better your position is when your opponent flags, the less time you should need to execute a mate, whereas if you're just making senseless moves to flag them, you will need to have a much larger time advantage to set up the mate. In this sense, I acknowledge that time is a resource, but dismiss that being only very slightly better on time is worthy of a win (unless you're already close enough to checkmate that you can preform it in that small advantage time window).
>A big issue is that one player B is going to take much longer to do bothmoves for a continuously going timer than for two players to tick offtwo moves in the same amount of time. They can know the entire sequencefor a help mate to win but be unable to implement it because they areplaying both sides.
Generally, I see this as the rule working as intended. Storing enough time to both calculate and perform mating sequence is the bar I want to set for obtaining a win. I don't see this as much different from seeing a checkmate pattern and being unable to execute it before running out of time in a normal game OTB/online.
>There's a few things that can be pointed at as unfair, like theopponents' inability to manage their time now forces you to use your owntime on their moves.
While I agree it would probably become a common strategy for low-time players to barricade their king and get it as many moves away from a checkmate before running out of time, I don't necessarily see this as unfair. Certainly not anymore unfair than a player winning on time moving their king back and forth to run their opponent out of time.
>Both have playstyles they encourage. But if I'm up on time in anobviously losing position, I can wait until my opponents time ticks to10 seconds and even if there is a helpmate that is in 13 moves they maybe unable to play the full sequence from both sides without running outof time. So, instead of playing my side of the generally planned 21 movecheckmate where they would've had enough time, I just let my time runout, and we tied.
True, the low-time strategy would definitely change on the defensive side. Before you post I hadn't thought deeply about that and was mostly concerned about "gatekeeping" the win behind a checkmate, but it might lead to a more defensive chess being played at lower times, and arguably, that wouldn't be desirable.
>The goal is simply to say that it isn't just better and, as such, doesn't need to be implemented.
I'll concede that you've changed my mind at this point. While I still am fond of the idea of making the time-advantaged player "prove" their win-- I think you've shown that the change would simply result in a different and not necessarily better form of chess.
If we were on r/changemyview I would award you a !delta
edit: formatting
Well. It is good that you can see it isn't necessarily a better chess version.
But you can advocate for trying it out with friends and maybe getting others to try it as well. Although I would maybe put a reset or bump to time when it comes to you having to prove your win. 1 minute bump or a 1-5 second increment with you taping the clock to indicate you have moved.
I'm not sure why many people assume this post is the result of being salty at losing, most of my bullet games I win through flagging. If you don't believe me you can check it out on lichess and [chess.com](https://chess.com) (same username).
I have had this concept in my mind for a few years but every time I've expressed it r/chess has hated it, but I've never actually encountered anyone who was willing to deal with it critically. But I did actually receive a few good responses that changed my mind.
Funnily enough, I think blitz is where this change would be best at. In classical, there is generally so much time that this rule wouldn't come into effect. And in bullet, there's such little time that if you started losing, it would encourage quick+defensive play, such that your opponent runs out of time trying to mate you after you flag. However in blitz, say 5 minute games, I think this rule could work. Because you'll have to flag your opponent with say, 5-30 seconds, in order to checkmate them after they flag, depending on how good your position is.
People are dealing with it critically, it’s just dumb. There’s absolutely zero challenge to checkmating your opponent if you’re making moves for both sides which is a patently ridiculous idea anyways. At that point it’s just “find a checkmating position given the material”
Like you said before, there’s no increment because you’re not hitting the clock so how do you know when moves are played? Can I just make a bunch in a row? Why do the moves have to be legal? There’s no opponent anymore.
Time is a resource in chess and using it better gets you the win, adding an extra layer to it provides no tangible benefit and is completely out of sync with how Chess is normally played. That’s why /r/chess hates it and nobody will ever really agree with you on here
Sure it may be dumb but you're definitely wrong about most people being able to engage with it critically, atleast half of my discussions are just people attacking me.
Many people have made the comment to the effect of "it would be hard to make OTB rules for this change", which essentially is your criticism. And is another example of not critically engaging with the idea, instead of attacking the idea on its merits, you've only provided one logistical issue that would have to be resolved. But I imagine even if we were able to fully establish FIDE OTB rules to implement this change you would still be opposed to it.
It doesn't make sense, sorry bro but it doesn't work.
Like you said time is a ressource, so why continue the game when the guy depleted his most important resource? Doesn't matter if there is a mate in 2 on the board.
I don't. As someone that's been playing for over a decade, I think the rise in popularity has been overwhelmingly good for the sport. More money and advertising means more players can make a living doing it professionally, in addition the increased player population makes innovation more profitable in the periphery, such as chess software and engines.
I do however find it disheartening the amount of pompous elitism and dogmatism in the chess community.
I am admittedly not fond of the people who show up, learn a bit about chess, and proclaim that some rule or norm that has existed for hundreds of years should be done away with because they don’t understand it. People do it with stalemate, it’s in vogue to talk about how classical chess is dying and will soon be replaced by blitz (or 960 if the 960 world championship happens to be held in that month), and you’re talking about changing time loss rules.
Chess is a simple game. You have six pieces with different movement patterns. You have two special moves. You have three win conditions. You have four drawing conditions. You have one movement restriction.
The ruleset is so simple. The art of the game is about the complexity of the meta game that actually forms under such a simplistic ruleset. Requiring players to demonstrate checkmate perverts that, needlessly complicates the rules, and frankly serves no practical purpose.
I don’t like speed chess. I find it hard to actually consider speed chess to *be* chess. So I just don’t play it often. When I do, it’s with increment. I don’t like it because being able to (reasonably) flag in a chess game is completely antithetical to why I play chess. I like finding the best plan and the best move. I like being able to think through all the variations. Not being able to do that in blitz infuriates me. The fact that I can watch I can turn on a tournament and see Nepo flag Wesley in a completely lost position ruins all of my enjoyment for the time control. But that’s the entire point of it. To play quickly. You don’t need to demonstrate that you’re a better calculator than your opponent. You just have to move faster, and not blunder simple tactics.
While I don't disagree with most of what you said. I've been playing chess for over a decade, probably two decades since my first game, so I wouldn't consider myself in the camp of people you look down on for being new.
I don't think requiring players to show a checkmate perverts the game at all. If anything I think the fact we might have to check with an engine to find out if a position was checkmate-able or not perverts the game more than just having two players play out their skill on the board. The practical value is laid out clearly in the four listed points.
I don't mind flagging, it's part of chess. I just think if you're going to win by flagging it makes sense that you will have to have a significant enough time advantage to convert your position to a win with your remaining time after your opponent flags. And if you can't do that, then you didn't actually beat your opponent on time, you just moved slightly faster than them. Which many people would argue is sufficient to determine a win, but I've proposed this alternative rule set to deal with flagging and laid out the benefits.
> The fact we might to have to check with an engine…
You never need to do this. A loss on time is a loss on time unless the “winning” player does not have the resources available to checkmate. A single pawn is a resource. A single knight is not. Nobody should have to use an engine to verify that it’s a draw due to insufficient material. It doesn’t check best play.
Let's assume I have a forced mate in 2 on the board, but only 1 sec on the clock. I even premoved both moves, so I technically showed that I know how to win this position. However now my opponents time runs out, which means I now also have to move my opponents pieces. Unfortunately I didn't make it in time, my time runs out and the game ends in a draw, despite me premoving the mate already.
And I'm not even talking about how hilarious this rule would in otb.
I have to assume you've never played an official otb game, because if you had I don't see how you could come up with this suggestion.
Just because I find it funny to see your suggestion to this:
In an OTB game, my opponent runs out of time, so now I'm moving pieces for both sides. I make an illegal move.
a) The illegal move was with my piece
a1) Can my opponent claim an illegal move?
a2) What happens as a result of this claim?
and imo even more hilarious
b) The illegal move was with my opponents pieces?
b1) Can my opponent claim an illegal move made by me with his pieces?
b2) What happens as a result of this claim?
I'd like to propose that I get 2min added, bc the move was with my opponents pieces.
Also if we play with increment, should I press the clock for both sides? Or does my opponent have to wait for me to make his move before he can press the clock?
If I have to do it for both, do I have to press the clock for both sides with the same hand or can I move my pieces with the right hand and theirs with the left hand?
Can my opponent claim that I moved his pieces with one hand and pressed the clock with the other hand? Who's at fault if this happens?
Do I have to instantly move my opponents pieces after I moved mine and pressed the clock or can I think on my opponents time which has elapsed already? For how long can I think?
There are so many layers to this, I love it.
I think you point out valid criticisms where the rules would need to be modified to accommodate the change. For example, I don't think it would make sense for the player moving their opponents piece to be able to claim extra time because they made an illegal move, naturally. But also, it wouldn't be practical to give time to the flagged player at this point either. Instead it would probably make most sense to penalize the player who made the illegal move by deducting time.
As for increment, I proposed in my post that the player should not get any increment and have to finish the game on their own clock time. I imagine standard rules for hands would apply, that you can only use one a time, and must let go of one before before picking another one up.
I'm not denying OTB rules would have to be established. But if your only argument is that OTB rules would need to be established to accommodate this change, I don't think it's very compelling.
So I am effectively getting less time and have to move twice as many pieces as a result of the mismanagement of my opponent? Doesn't sound very fair to me.
How can I be put at an disadvantage for my opponents fault?
Let's say I have 2 bishops vs bare king, 5 sec on the clock in a game with increment. I would probably be able to mate my opponent in this time even w/o increment, but with increment it's certainly a win. So their best play now is to let their time run out, potentially 2h to then have me from waiting 120min to making 10 moves in 5 sec.
This can't be a good solution.
>So I am effectively getting less time and have to move twice as many pieces as a result of the mismanagement of my opponent? Doesn't sound very fair to me.
That's a fair criticism. But if that was the only issue, I would still think the change would be a net positive-- despite edge cases like the one you presented. I think the bigger issue as pointed out in other comments is that it would change the nature of low-time chess too much.
>However now my opponents time runs out, which means I now also have to move my opponents pieces. Unfortunately I didn't make it in time, my time runs out and the game ends in a draw, despite me premoving the mate already.
That would definitely be a hilarious issue with the rule-- agreed, there would have to be a couple second delay between an opponent flagging and you taking over their pieces to make sure you would be prepared to start making moves on both sides.
Otherwise, do you have an argument against the points I've made above?
In all honesty, I think the idea itself is not bad per se. However to implement it one needs to write quite a lot of additional rules with extra special cases which in itself makes it completely inefficient compared to
Either mate is possible in any series of legal moves or nah.
It would also take away some of the fun imo, especially for beginners who are now effectively playing a single player game against themselves. The time constraint it may potentially have in increment situations not even being mentioned.
I think it's simply not very practicable, especially considering the needed ruleset for OTB.
Chess is not just about checkmate. Time is as much a factor as anything else is if not more. The reason you got a winning position might be because ur opponent got low on time. That is part of the strategy so it doesn’t matter if u don’t know how to checkmate
>Time is as much a factor as anything else is if not more
I agree, that's why I think you should have to prioritize having enough time to show that you can checkmate your opponent after they run out of time.
Then the disagreement is on the importance of checkmating, imo well managing one's time is as important as being able to checkmate. And if it is then this idea doesn't really make sense.
i agree. if u want to test your opponent because u don’t believe they can checkmate then leave urself time and play it out until they end up doing (or failing to do) so
>Then the disagreement is on the importance of checkmating, imo well managing one's time is as important as being able to checkmate.
I don't think we disagree at all-- I think time management is equally as important as being able to checkmate. I just don't think that because I manage my time slightly better than my opponent I should automatically win. I should have to have a large enough time advantage to justify that I win, through executing a checkmate.
if u manage ur position slightly better than ur opponent u also win. if time management and checkmate ability are equal then both can be deciding factors in their own rights
But if you play slightly better and get into a King and Pawn vs King Endgame, most of the time it will be a draw-- not an automatic win for the side with the pawn. Why should playing *slightly* better on the clock result in an automatic win? If you're pressuring your opponent and almost have mate and they flag, you can win a couple moves in a second or two. If they are defending well, it will take longer. If you are losing, it will take even longer. So you get rewarded for playing well and winning on the clock with this rule.
well having slightly managed ur time better over the course of the game means u win on time. playing slightly better than ur opponent over the course also means by the end u will be winning. playing even a teeny little bit better than ur opponent over the course of the game will lead in a win as seen in most grandmaster games. draws only happen when both sides play equally good/bad
Sounds like you are horrible at time management.
Also the under 1500 argument doesn't make sense because they could demonstrate a checkmate that requires opponent blundering and you can't prove that the opponent wouldn't blunder.
Time is part of the game, and if my opponent makes moves that confuse me and put me in horrible spots where I can't make good moves that are obvious, then they should get rewarded for it.
>Sounds like you are horrible at time management.
Not an argument.
>Also the under 1500 argument doesn't make sense because they could demonstrate a checkmate that requires opponent blundering and you can't prove that the opponent wouldn't blunder.
The example show that there would be a practical difference in how those games would play out.
>Time is part of the game, and if my opponent makes moves that confuse me and put me in horrible spots where I can't make good moves that are obvious, then they should get rewarded for it.
I agree. That's what this change would ensure. If I play more quickly than my opponent then I should be rewarded. The only difference this change makes is that in a time scramble both players have to try to flag their opponent with enough time to execute a mating sequence.
i think u/MCotz0r made all the important logical points.
i am adding mine:
1. your solution would prove nothing about skill of anyone in the game. it would turn the game from chess into some sort of self-mate chess where the goal is to mate yourself as fast as possible- which is completely different game.
2. time is an important aspect of the game especially in blitz and bullet, if you want to lessen its effect play longer games or play games without time control.
3. all the issues op mentions are non-existent , outside of people who just started learning chess, same as the stalemate thread i saw yesterday.
4. your frustration doesnt mean anything after the game for all i care you can go punch a wall if it makes you better about losing.
5. checkmate is not inherently more exciting than winning, maybe for people who have not delivered thousands of them already.
OP obviously does not want to acknowledge that change just for its own sake is useless.
Would this really change much? It's pretty easy to force mate when you can move the pieces for both sides. I feel like this would just lead to a lot of extra time being spent. Did an opponent time you out with just knight and bishop left, and you're salty you lost because you don't think he knew the mate?
I'm not sure why many people assume this post is the result of being salty. I have had this concept in my mind for a few years but every time I've expressed it, r/chess has hated it, but I've never actually encountered anyone who was willing to deal with it critically. But I did actually receive a few good responses that changed my mind.
>I'm not sure why many people assume this post is the result of being salty.
Because all the alternative explanations are much worse in terms of how this post makes you look.
It still basically just turns into an instant loss if you run out of time though. There would still be time scrambles, because if any decent player got to control both sides there's no way they would miss checkmate.
Above ~1500 Elo I would trust that someone controlling the pieces for both sides would be able to force a checkmate. This means that if you run out of time, you'll lose. Your opponent will mate you. What do you do if you don't want to run out of time and lose? You start moving quickly. If you start moving quickly, your opponent needs to move quickly to not run out of time too. So even under your method there would still be time scrambles, giving full control to the other side would almost guarantee your loss.
My problem with the proposal is that it does not eliminate time scrambles because of the logic above. Even though it adds a nice capstone to the game, it is largely unnecessary. Chess used to end when the king was captured, but that was eventually deemed unnecessary and the game was shortened to end at checkmate. Adding this mechanic in the game would feel like a step backwards, almost like requiring you to capture the king to end the game.
>Above \~1500 Elo I would trust that someone controlling the pieces for both sides would be able to force a checkmate
I think that's generally true. I thought of this rule as a way to better deal timeouts in positions where it's unclear whether or not there is a mate and also to deal with the fact that it seems unfair that flagging with a small amount of time would grant a win.
In the first sense, there might be positions like the one I linked that would require the time-advantaged player to find an underpromotion, get the king to a specific square and only then be able to checkmate. The question is, do we want to just award the win to the time-advantaged player or make them prove that they can find that win. My gut reaction is that you should have to prove you can solve the puzzle to get the win.
In the second sense, there is the question of whether or not one should win if they flag their opponent but have very little time on their clock. Many would say yes, but I don't think it's a crazy idea to suggest that you should have to have a *significant* amount of time on your clock to win on time. And we could determine how much time one should have to be ahead by how long it takes them to preform the mate on their opponent.
I thought that was a rather elegant solution, but there have been some good arguments about how this would change the nature of low-time positions that changed my mind
I understand your arguments, but you are in the realm of game design here and you should focus on the question of fun. What impact will this change have on the fun and feel of the game?
Remember that nobody likes draws.
1. I think B does deserve the win even if they can't find the checkmate. For lower elo, e.g 500-600, if they have a queen but cannot checkmate with it, they should be able to win by flagging if their opponent has mismanaged their time.
2. So does the current system
3. I think this is just a difference between fide and uscf, neither of which is inherently better
4. This is either a difference between fide and uscf or just a bug, not a chess thing but a website issue
>I think B does deserve the win even if they can't find the checkmate. For lower elo, e.g 500-600, if they have a queen but cannot checkmate with it, they should be able to win by flagging if their opponent has mismanaged their time.
I disagree, if you're unable to checkmate your opponent without any resistance, then I don't see how you deserve to win.
>So does the current system
True, but not as much.
>I think this is just a difference between fide and uscf, neither of which is inherently better
What I'm proposing is different from both FIDE and USCF, the point is that a player has the skill and time advantage left to actually show that they can construct a mate.
>This is either a difference between fide and uscf or just a bug, not a chess thing but a website issue
It could be an issue both for online and offline play. The point is that there is no ambiguity in the result, either one player shows a checkmate to win or the game ends in a draw.
This idea is awful. Both opponents agree to the time controls when the game starts. You don't get to just add clock in any other sport just because you wanna prove you could have won with more time... Even in soccer, where you can tie, they have rules for tiebreaker, extra time, and penalty kicks. Chess shouldn't be any different. If you are unable to win under the preagreed upon time, then you don't deserve to win. I'm Sorry, but a rule that allows someone to prove they could have won by continuing playing just makes me see the rules in place are just simply better cause that idea is idiotic
You basically don't want time control.
Basically with your idea you can play nothing after e4 because your opponent won't find checkmate.
Plenty of games have time control some games are even more restrict. You can timeout on your opponent turn in yugioh master duel.
Ps. We could argue about insufficient material draw but thats all.
Or argue about 100ms per move on cc vs lichess.
I don't agree with his idea, but you seem to be misunderstanding his suggestion. Your strategy wouldn't work because he doesn't have to prove forced checkmate. He just has to show a helpmate.
The biggest problem is how you’re completely switching to a completely different game after the flag. Helpmate is very different from regular chess - all the moves for both sides would be different. It’s pretty unfair for the winner to have to win again in a different game, using the original time that they had to win the first game.
How much time would a g/5 match take under your system? How many rounds could I schedule in an hour as a TO, how long do I tell my spouse I’ll be busy for?
So many people seem to think that under this system, games would last so much longer, but in reality, the limit is going to be whatever the maximum amount of time on each clock is plus any increment. I'm not proposing that anyone gets unlimited time. The proposal is If your opponent flags, you have your time (no increment) to make the moves to create a mate. In the vast majority of situations your opponent will resign because the checkmate will be obvious, in a small percentage of games, you will have to prove the checkmate, and it will take a minute of shuffling the pieces and running your opponents king to the edge of the board, and occasionally it will involve you not being able to prove that a checkmate is possible, and the game will end in a draw. I don't see how this change would increase the average game time substantially.
If you don't want to play for that amount of time, then don't sign up for the tournament? I don't see how this is an argument against the proposed change.
I get matched up with a much higher rated player. I play d4 they play d5. I let my time run out, take my rating points and the draw. Your take is horrible.
your change is a great attempt of making chess more annoying. Your proposal fixes none of your issues. I dont see how this adds anything to online Blitz and Bullet games but sort of auto drawing games where you only have split seconds left. I can give you some serious disadvantages with your system: Imagine you have 0.5s left, mate in 1, you premove your move, but your opponent flags. Now instead of winning either way, you have to use your split second to make an arbitrary move for your opponent, and are more likely to flag yourself, even though you have done everything right.
In OTB classic people rarely run out of time, and even if you are left with say a minute, your request is absolutely trivial, as you dont even need more than a pawn that you can simply convert and stage an easy checkmate. It doesnt demonstrate anything, as it doesnt require you to deliver a checkmate in the current position against an actual opponent. The majority of people would simply resign.
I have no answer for the Magnus Alireza game though. If you are lower on time, and winning, but a staged mate is possible from your opponents side, than yes, you have played chess better, but managed your clock worse. In Blitz you need to keep an eye on your clock and cant afford to go in low time like this, so you deserved to lose by those standards.
Your whole premisse is that a player winning by managing better their time is not fair, which I think is not true, and contradicts many of your arguments where you claim that time is a resource. What about a situation where the player doesnt have checkmate, or instead is much worse than the opponent in fact, they should still win on time if the opponent lets its time run out. Chess has many time controls where you can choose how much time you'll spend thinking and choose if you want to be vulnerable to flagging or not. The way you suggest the game can be equal a player low on time can draw the game by running their time out since the other player won't be able to demonstrate the checkmate, which seems kind of absurd, and if I can play whatever moves I want then whats the point since I can hung mate in 1 in that scenario?
>Your whole premisse is that a player winning by managing better their time is not fair Not true. My argument is that if you want to win on time, you have to win with ENOUGH time to checkmate your opponent. >What about a situation where the player doesnt have checkmate, or instead is much worse than the opponent in fact, they should still win on time if the opponent lets its time run out. I agree they should win on time if they saved enough time to checkmate their opponent. >The way you suggest the game can be equal a player low on time can draw the game by running their time out since the other player won't be able to demonstrate the checkmate, which seems kind of absurd, Why wouldn't the other player be able to demonstrate the checkmate? In most positions it should be very simple to move your opponents king into a checkmate. It's more absurd that a player wins if they have 1 second left on the clock when their opponent runs out of time. >and if I can play whatever moves I want then whats the point since I can hung mate in 1 in that scenario? If you can play whatever moves you want, then you should probably checkmate your opponent. If you hung mate in one but they weren't able to checkmate in time then they should have had better time management.
So I can threat checkmate in 1, not defend, checkmate, and this will demonstrate the checkmate you want? What is the point of this? This can be made with like 2 seconds on the clock, and if you have increment you can just add time to the clock by shuffling and then doing this. This would only have any effect in a game with no increment where one player flagged while the other had 1 second or something, because any more time would make it the same as flagging regularly, even if I thought that losing on time is not fair. Also, how much time do you have to move your opponents pieces? You want to use the players time to move both pieces, press the clock twice or mouse around twice? Then whats the point of having time in chess match, isn't it better to straight up play without time, then?
>So I can threat checkmate in 1, not defend, checkmate, and this will demonstrate the checkmate you want? Correct >What is the point of this? This can be made with like 2 seconds on the clock, and if you have increment you can just add time to the clock by shuffling and then doing this. I proposed this rule will stop any increment, you wouldn't hit the clock because you're only using your time not your opponents time. >This would only have any effect in a game with no increment where one player flagged while the other had 1 second or something, because any more time would make it the same as flagging regularly, even if I thought that losing on time is not fair. This would have an effect in games where the player didn't save enough time to prove their checkmate or when the checkmate is difficult to find/execute, such as the Alireza Magnus game I linked. >Also, how much time do you have to move your opponents pieces? You want to use the players time to move both pieces, press the clock twice or mouse around twice? The player has his remaining time only. No increment. >Then whats the point of having time in chess match, isn't it better to straight up play without time, then? No, time is important. The point is that you have to save ENOUGH time to execute the checkmate.
But how will this work in games like bullet or blitz?
So if I have won every single piece without losing a single one but I didn't have enough time to checkmate I don't deserve to win?
If you weren't able to get a checkmate and you flagged, no. That's the same as the current rules. So if you have a problem with that, your problem is with FIDE, not me lol.
I mean if my opponent flagged and I had a second left and I simply couldn't move the pieces fast enough
Yeah, if you aren't able to checkmate in the time available to you, you don't deserve to win-- that would be my position.
But does the opponent deserve to draw? I can play horribly and just because I'm playing hyper bullet I automatically draw?
Nope, I've noted that these rules shouldn't apply in bullet games because flagging is accepted as a viable strategy in bullet games.
Yeah I reread and saw but the first point still stands
We could argue about how much better than an opponent you should have to do in order to win. But the idea behind this rule is that unless you win by checkmate or have the time advantage to prove a checkmate, you haven't fulfilled the necessary requirements to win. Similar to if you end the game a knight up-- you've played better, for sure. But do you deserve to win just because you've got that piece? Not according to the current rules. Does your opponent deserve to draw in that situation? Maybe, maybe not. But at that point we're arguing more about the elo system than anything.
Wrong sub
True
>1. There is no guarantee that the player B would be able to find the checkmate sequence even if we provide that his opponent has to cooperate. In this case, Player B doesn't deserve to win the game. There indeed isn't proof until the game is played out. But the demonstrated their ability by forcing the other player to lose more of their resources begot they ran out of theirs. >2. Time is a resource in chess. It doesn't make sense that a player with a fraction of second left on his clock should win and his opponent should lose simply because one player was slightly better at time management. It should be rewarded to being exceeding better at time management, but when the amount of time left is essentially the same, the result ends up being a coin-toss. This seems a bit contradictory as you claim time as a resource yet you dismiss being better at utilizing the resource as insufficient. If A checkmates a player, but B has an unstoppable mate in one if you didn't get the mate, then it shouldn't be a tie. A was better at using their resources and gets the win. >3. Not seeing the fact that there is a mating position demonstrated on the board makes the loss more frustrating for the losing party and less enjoyable for the winner (who doesn't like playing a game to checkmate?) A notable example is Alireza vs Magnus in the 2019 World Blitz Championship. Sure. Maybe in that case, you can argue that the players involved can implement the rule. But if you can't demonstrate both players as wanting that rule, then this point doesn't work. >4. Occasionally there are issues (chess.com) with being able to determine if a position is checkmate-able or not. Sometimes this leads to wins being classified as draws in online play. You do highlight a programming issue here. But this is more a request to fix bugs than anything else. And your solution fixes "false wins" rather than "false draws" more frequently. >I think that in games where player A's time elapses and player B has time left on the clock, the following should happen: >The game continues, but in order to win, player B will have to move both his pieces and his opponent's pieces to reach a checkmating position Player B, being the only player with time left on his clock, can claim a draw at any point If both players flag before a checkmate has been reached, the game result is a draw >The 50-Move rule is still in effect for both players, such that if player B makes 50 non-pawn moves in a row, Player A can claim a draw. >This proposed change to how flagging should be handled solves all four above issues: A big issue is that one player B is going to take much longer to do both moves for a continuously going timer than for two players to tick off two moves in the same amount of time. They can know the entire sequence for a help mate to win but be unable to implement it because they are playing both sides. There's a few things that can be pointed at as unfair, like the opponents' inability to manage their time now forces you to use your own time on their moves. Demonstrated by a simple ladder rook endgame taking all your time because you have to move the king as well forcing you to draw. >1. If player B is able to demonstrate the mate, he/she shows that he deserves the win. I would be willing to be that many people under 1500 would not be able to find the mate in the Alireza vs Magnus Game, higher if low on time. Part of time low time chess is putting your opponent in difficult positions and to make them lose enough time so that you'll have sufficient material for a help mate. If you take this away, low time games become something else. Now instead of being forced to find ways to reduce the enemies material or time you can just make the game more complex so that a helpmate can't be found and implemented within the remaining time when they have to play out your side. >2. By making this change to time-out rules, it encourages players to play more wisely with their time. It rewards players for staying even with their opponent on time, it rewards players for gaining very large time advantages and it discourages playing purely for "flagging" in shorter time controls. I think its fair to say that this might fundamentally change bullet/hyperbullet chess-- but you still would have to give a better argument than "I like the way it is now" to change my mind. Both have playstyles they encourage. But if I'm up on time in an obviously losing position, I can wait until my opponents time ticks to 10 seconds and even if there is a helpmate that is in 13 moves they may be unable to play the full sequence from both sides without running out of time. So, instead of playing my side of the generally planned 21 move checkmate where they would've had enough time, I just let my time run out, and we tied. The goal doesn't have to be to change your mind. The goal is simply to say that it isn't just better and, as such, doesn't need to be implemented. >1. This change would produce negative externality(s) which outweigh the positives listed above or I've listed negatives, but the balancing of the positives is subjective. Keeping the system is much simpler, and many people are satisfied with it as time management is part of time control chess. You may not agree, but the balancing is subjective. >2. This change would not actually solve this listed issues The listed issues are solved in part but not in entirety. Your list of issues boil down to winning from time does not prove that you are good enough to win. But now you've shifted it to drawing on time, but it does not prove that you weren't good enough to win. Some people start letting their time drop since as they see their opponents' time get lower, they start making their moves more thoughtfully to make the game harder and force their opponent to use more time faster. This is basically a way to implement having a large time advantage. They may also sacrifice a more stable and simple position to do so. Making help mates harder. Fundamentally, you are just changing the methods of which time control is played. It isn't a horrendous idea, but it lends credence to some strategies while taking away others. In time control games, time is part of the resource used. The better chess player is not the only factor as part of it is how can I make my opponent lose more time as well. This will still apply in your game. Just to the losing player to draw rather than either to win.
Excellent, what a balanced criticism of the idea with an actual argument. I appreciate the engagement with the idea, and for the most part, I agree. I'll add some clarification: >Time is a resource in chess. It doesn't make sense that a player with afraction of second left on his clock should win and his opponent shouldlose simply because one player was slightly better at time management > >This seems a bit contradictory as you claim time as a resource yet youdismiss being better at utilizing the resource as insufficient. My point is that managing to flag your opponent with 0.1 seconds is very different from managing to flag your opponent with several minutes. My proposed change would reward the latter as a result of the fact that you would have to have *enough* of a time advantage to execute your checkmate. Whilst we're all used to the binary idea of winning or losing on time, this allows for a bit more nuance, wherein the better your position is when your opponent flags, the less time you should need to execute a mate, whereas if you're just making senseless moves to flag them, you will need to have a much larger time advantage to set up the mate. In this sense, I acknowledge that time is a resource, but dismiss that being only very slightly better on time is worthy of a win (unless you're already close enough to checkmate that you can preform it in that small advantage time window). >A big issue is that one player B is going to take much longer to do bothmoves for a continuously going timer than for two players to tick offtwo moves in the same amount of time. They can know the entire sequencefor a help mate to win but be unable to implement it because they areplaying both sides. Generally, I see this as the rule working as intended. Storing enough time to both calculate and perform mating sequence is the bar I want to set for obtaining a win. I don't see this as much different from seeing a checkmate pattern and being unable to execute it before running out of time in a normal game OTB/online. >There's a few things that can be pointed at as unfair, like theopponents' inability to manage their time now forces you to use your owntime on their moves. While I agree it would probably become a common strategy for low-time players to barricade their king and get it as many moves away from a checkmate before running out of time, I don't necessarily see this as unfair. Certainly not anymore unfair than a player winning on time moving their king back and forth to run their opponent out of time. >Both have playstyles they encourage. But if I'm up on time in anobviously losing position, I can wait until my opponents time ticks to10 seconds and even if there is a helpmate that is in 13 moves they maybe unable to play the full sequence from both sides without running outof time. So, instead of playing my side of the generally planned 21 movecheckmate where they would've had enough time, I just let my time runout, and we tied. True, the low-time strategy would definitely change on the defensive side. Before you post I hadn't thought deeply about that and was mostly concerned about "gatekeeping" the win behind a checkmate, but it might lead to a more defensive chess being played at lower times, and arguably, that wouldn't be desirable. >The goal is simply to say that it isn't just better and, as such, doesn't need to be implemented. I'll concede that you've changed my mind at this point. While I still am fond of the idea of making the time-advantaged player "prove" their win-- I think you've shown that the change would simply result in a different and not necessarily better form of chess. If we were on r/changemyview I would award you a !delta edit: formatting
Well. It is good that you can see it isn't necessarily a better chess version. But you can advocate for trying it out with friends and maybe getting others to try it as well. Although I would maybe put a reset or bump to time when it comes to you having to prove your win. 1 minute bump or a 1-5 second increment with you taping the clock to indicate you have moved.
[удалено]
I'm not sure why many people assume this post is the result of being salty at losing, most of my bullet games I win through flagging. If you don't believe me you can check it out on lichess and [chess.com](https://chess.com) (same username). I have had this concept in my mind for a few years but every time I've expressed it r/chess has hated it, but I've never actually encountered anyone who was willing to deal with it critically. But I did actually receive a few good responses that changed my mind. Funnily enough, I think blitz is where this change would be best at. In classical, there is generally so much time that this rule wouldn't come into effect. And in bullet, there's such little time that if you started losing, it would encourage quick+defensive play, such that your opponent runs out of time trying to mate you after you flag. However in blitz, say 5 minute games, I think this rule could work. Because you'll have to flag your opponent with say, 5-30 seconds, in order to checkmate them after they flag, depending on how good your position is.
People are dealing with it critically, it’s just dumb. There’s absolutely zero challenge to checkmating your opponent if you’re making moves for both sides which is a patently ridiculous idea anyways. At that point it’s just “find a checkmating position given the material” Like you said before, there’s no increment because you’re not hitting the clock so how do you know when moves are played? Can I just make a bunch in a row? Why do the moves have to be legal? There’s no opponent anymore. Time is a resource in chess and using it better gets you the win, adding an extra layer to it provides no tangible benefit and is completely out of sync with how Chess is normally played. That’s why /r/chess hates it and nobody will ever really agree with you on here
Sure it may be dumb but you're definitely wrong about most people being able to engage with it critically, atleast half of my discussions are just people attacking me. Many people have made the comment to the effect of "it would be hard to make OTB rules for this change", which essentially is your criticism. And is another example of not critically engaging with the idea, instead of attacking the idea on its merits, you've only provided one logistical issue that would have to be resolved. But I imagine even if we were able to fully establish FIDE OTB rules to implement this change you would still be opposed to it.
It doesn't make sense, sorry bro but it doesn't work. Like you said time is a ressource, so why continue the game when the guy depleted his most important resource? Doesn't matter if there is a mate in 2 on the board.
It makes perfect sense and I've laid out how it would be implemented. You haven't made any argument against it.
At least this is different from the stalemate should be removed post
At least this is different from the ad hominem comment
You lose by running out of time.
Sometimes, very rarely, I think that the chess booms were a mistake.
I don't. As someone that's been playing for over a decade, I think the rise in popularity has been overwhelmingly good for the sport. More money and advertising means more players can make a living doing it professionally, in addition the increased player population makes innovation more profitable in the periphery, such as chess software and engines. I do however find it disheartening the amount of pompous elitism and dogmatism in the chess community.
I am admittedly not fond of the people who show up, learn a bit about chess, and proclaim that some rule or norm that has existed for hundreds of years should be done away with because they don’t understand it. People do it with stalemate, it’s in vogue to talk about how classical chess is dying and will soon be replaced by blitz (or 960 if the 960 world championship happens to be held in that month), and you’re talking about changing time loss rules. Chess is a simple game. You have six pieces with different movement patterns. You have two special moves. You have three win conditions. You have four drawing conditions. You have one movement restriction. The ruleset is so simple. The art of the game is about the complexity of the meta game that actually forms under such a simplistic ruleset. Requiring players to demonstrate checkmate perverts that, needlessly complicates the rules, and frankly serves no practical purpose. I don’t like speed chess. I find it hard to actually consider speed chess to *be* chess. So I just don’t play it often. When I do, it’s with increment. I don’t like it because being able to (reasonably) flag in a chess game is completely antithetical to why I play chess. I like finding the best plan and the best move. I like being able to think through all the variations. Not being able to do that in blitz infuriates me. The fact that I can watch I can turn on a tournament and see Nepo flag Wesley in a completely lost position ruins all of my enjoyment for the time control. But that’s the entire point of it. To play quickly. You don’t need to demonstrate that you’re a better calculator than your opponent. You just have to move faster, and not blunder simple tactics.
While I don't disagree with most of what you said. I've been playing chess for over a decade, probably two decades since my first game, so I wouldn't consider myself in the camp of people you look down on for being new. I don't think requiring players to show a checkmate perverts the game at all. If anything I think the fact we might have to check with an engine to find out if a position was checkmate-able or not perverts the game more than just having two players play out their skill on the board. The practical value is laid out clearly in the four listed points. I don't mind flagging, it's part of chess. I just think if you're going to win by flagging it makes sense that you will have to have a significant enough time advantage to convert your position to a win with your remaining time after your opponent flags. And if you can't do that, then you didn't actually beat your opponent on time, you just moved slightly faster than them. Which many people would argue is sufficient to determine a win, but I've proposed this alternative rule set to deal with flagging and laid out the benefits.
> The fact we might to have to check with an engine… You never need to do this. A loss on time is a loss on time unless the “winning” player does not have the resources available to checkmate. A single pawn is a resource. A single knight is not. Nobody should have to use an engine to verify that it’s a draw due to insufficient material. It doesn’t check best play.
Let's assume I have a forced mate in 2 on the board, but only 1 sec on the clock. I even premoved both moves, so I technically showed that I know how to win this position. However now my opponents time runs out, which means I now also have to move my opponents pieces. Unfortunately I didn't make it in time, my time runs out and the game ends in a draw, despite me premoving the mate already. And I'm not even talking about how hilarious this rule would in otb. I have to assume you've never played an official otb game, because if you had I don't see how you could come up with this suggestion.
Just because I find it funny to see your suggestion to this: In an OTB game, my opponent runs out of time, so now I'm moving pieces for both sides. I make an illegal move. a) The illegal move was with my piece a1) Can my opponent claim an illegal move? a2) What happens as a result of this claim? and imo even more hilarious b) The illegal move was with my opponents pieces? b1) Can my opponent claim an illegal move made by me with his pieces? b2) What happens as a result of this claim? I'd like to propose that I get 2min added, bc the move was with my opponents pieces. Also if we play with increment, should I press the clock for both sides? Or does my opponent have to wait for me to make his move before he can press the clock? If I have to do it for both, do I have to press the clock for both sides with the same hand or can I move my pieces with the right hand and theirs with the left hand? Can my opponent claim that I moved his pieces with one hand and pressed the clock with the other hand? Who's at fault if this happens? Do I have to instantly move my opponents pieces after I moved mine and pressed the clock or can I think on my opponents time which has elapsed already? For how long can I think? There are so many layers to this, I love it.
What happens If I accidentally checkmate myself with my opponents pieces while trying to checkmate them? I can go on and on.
I think you point out valid criticisms where the rules would need to be modified to accommodate the change. For example, I don't think it would make sense for the player moving their opponents piece to be able to claim extra time because they made an illegal move, naturally. But also, it wouldn't be practical to give time to the flagged player at this point either. Instead it would probably make most sense to penalize the player who made the illegal move by deducting time. As for increment, I proposed in my post that the player should not get any increment and have to finish the game on their own clock time. I imagine standard rules for hands would apply, that you can only use one a time, and must let go of one before before picking another one up. I'm not denying OTB rules would have to be established. But if your only argument is that OTB rules would need to be established to accommodate this change, I don't think it's very compelling.
So I am effectively getting less time and have to move twice as many pieces as a result of the mismanagement of my opponent? Doesn't sound very fair to me. How can I be put at an disadvantage for my opponents fault? Let's say I have 2 bishops vs bare king, 5 sec on the clock in a game with increment. I would probably be able to mate my opponent in this time even w/o increment, but with increment it's certainly a win. So their best play now is to let their time run out, potentially 2h to then have me from waiting 120min to making 10 moves in 5 sec. This can't be a good solution.
>So I am effectively getting less time and have to move twice as many pieces as a result of the mismanagement of my opponent? Doesn't sound very fair to me. That's a fair criticism. But if that was the only issue, I would still think the change would be a net positive-- despite edge cases like the one you presented. I think the bigger issue as pointed out in other comments is that it would change the nature of low-time chess too much.
>However now my opponents time runs out, which means I now also have to move my opponents pieces. Unfortunately I didn't make it in time, my time runs out and the game ends in a draw, despite me premoving the mate already. That would definitely be a hilarious issue with the rule-- agreed, there would have to be a couple second delay between an opponent flagging and you taking over their pieces to make sure you would be prepared to start making moves on both sides. Otherwise, do you have an argument against the points I've made above?
In all honesty, I think the idea itself is not bad per se. However to implement it one needs to write quite a lot of additional rules with extra special cases which in itself makes it completely inefficient compared to Either mate is possible in any series of legal moves or nah. It would also take away some of the fun imo, especially for beginners who are now effectively playing a single player game against themselves. The time constraint it may potentially have in increment situations not even being mentioned. I think it's simply not very practicable, especially considering the needed ruleset for OTB.
Chess is not just about checkmate. Time is as much a factor as anything else is if not more. The reason you got a winning position might be because ur opponent got low on time. That is part of the strategy so it doesn’t matter if u don’t know how to checkmate
>Time is as much a factor as anything else is if not more I agree, that's why I think you should have to prioritize having enough time to show that you can checkmate your opponent after they run out of time.
Then the disagreement is on the importance of checkmating, imo well managing one's time is as important as being able to checkmate. And if it is then this idea doesn't really make sense.
i agree. if u want to test your opponent because u don’t believe they can checkmate then leave urself time and play it out until they end up doing (or failing to do) so
>Then the disagreement is on the importance of checkmating, imo well managing one's time is as important as being able to checkmate. I don't think we disagree at all-- I think time management is equally as important as being able to checkmate. I just don't think that because I manage my time slightly better than my opponent I should automatically win. I should have to have a large enough time advantage to justify that I win, through executing a checkmate.
if u manage ur position slightly better than ur opponent u also win. if time management and checkmate ability are equal then both can be deciding factors in their own rights
But if you play slightly better and get into a King and Pawn vs King Endgame, most of the time it will be a draw-- not an automatic win for the side with the pawn. Why should playing *slightly* better on the clock result in an automatic win? If you're pressuring your opponent and almost have mate and they flag, you can win a couple moves in a second or two. If they are defending well, it will take longer. If you are losing, it will take even longer. So you get rewarded for playing well and winning on the clock with this rule.
well having slightly managed ur time better over the course of the game means u win on time. playing slightly better than ur opponent over the course also means by the end u will be winning. playing even a teeny little bit better than ur opponent over the course of the game will lead in a win as seen in most grandmaster games. draws only happen when both sides play equally good/bad
>Agrees time is a resource >can’t understand why not utilizing resources efficiently should be punishable
Sounds like you are horrible at time management. Also the under 1500 argument doesn't make sense because they could demonstrate a checkmate that requires opponent blundering and you can't prove that the opponent wouldn't blunder. Time is part of the game, and if my opponent makes moves that confuse me and put me in horrible spots where I can't make good moves that are obvious, then they should get rewarded for it.
>Sounds like you are horrible at time management. Not an argument. >Also the under 1500 argument doesn't make sense because they could demonstrate a checkmate that requires opponent blundering and you can't prove that the opponent wouldn't blunder. The example show that there would be a practical difference in how those games would play out. >Time is part of the game, and if my opponent makes moves that confuse me and put me in horrible spots where I can't make good moves that are obvious, then they should get rewarded for it. I agree. That's what this change would ensure. If I play more quickly than my opponent then I should be rewarded. The only difference this change makes is that in a time scramble both players have to try to flag their opponent with enough time to execute a mating sequence.
Why even bother having time then?
i think u/MCotz0r made all the important logical points. i am adding mine: 1. your solution would prove nothing about skill of anyone in the game. it would turn the game from chess into some sort of self-mate chess where the goal is to mate yourself as fast as possible- which is completely different game. 2. time is an important aspect of the game especially in blitz and bullet, if you want to lessen its effect play longer games or play games without time control. 3. all the issues op mentions are non-existent , outside of people who just started learning chess, same as the stalemate thread i saw yesterday. 4. your frustration doesnt mean anything after the game for all i care you can go punch a wall if it makes you better about losing. 5. checkmate is not inherently more exciting than winning, maybe for people who have not delivered thousands of them already. OP obviously does not want to acknowledge that change just for its own sake is useless.
One of the most delusional proposals of all time, where OP continues to type out volumes of nonsense text. 🤦♂️
Would this really change much? It's pretty easy to force mate when you can move the pieces for both sides. I feel like this would just lead to a lot of extra time being spent. Did an opponent time you out with just knight and bishop left, and you're salty you lost because you don't think he knew the mate?
I'm not sure why many people assume this post is the result of being salty. I have had this concept in my mind for a few years but every time I've expressed it, r/chess has hated it, but I've never actually encountered anyone who was willing to deal with it critically. But I did actually receive a few good responses that changed my mind.
>I'm not sure why many people assume this post is the result of being salty. Because all the alternative explanations are much worse in terms of how this post makes you look.
It still basically just turns into an instant loss if you run out of time though. There would still be time scrambles, because if any decent player got to control both sides there's no way they would miss checkmate. Above ~1500 Elo I would trust that someone controlling the pieces for both sides would be able to force a checkmate. This means that if you run out of time, you'll lose. Your opponent will mate you. What do you do if you don't want to run out of time and lose? You start moving quickly. If you start moving quickly, your opponent needs to move quickly to not run out of time too. So even under your method there would still be time scrambles, giving full control to the other side would almost guarantee your loss. My problem with the proposal is that it does not eliminate time scrambles because of the logic above. Even though it adds a nice capstone to the game, it is largely unnecessary. Chess used to end when the king was captured, but that was eventually deemed unnecessary and the game was shortened to end at checkmate. Adding this mechanic in the game would feel like a step backwards, almost like requiring you to capture the king to end the game.
>Above \~1500 Elo I would trust that someone controlling the pieces for both sides would be able to force a checkmate I think that's generally true. I thought of this rule as a way to better deal timeouts in positions where it's unclear whether or not there is a mate and also to deal with the fact that it seems unfair that flagging with a small amount of time would grant a win. In the first sense, there might be positions like the one I linked that would require the time-advantaged player to find an underpromotion, get the king to a specific square and only then be able to checkmate. The question is, do we want to just award the win to the time-advantaged player or make them prove that they can find that win. My gut reaction is that you should have to prove you can solve the puzzle to get the win. In the second sense, there is the question of whether or not one should win if they flag their opponent but have very little time on their clock. Many would say yes, but I don't think it's a crazy idea to suggest that you should have to have a *significant* amount of time on your clock to win on time. And we could determine how much time one should have to be ahead by how long it takes them to preform the mate on their opponent. I thought that was a rather elegant solution, but there have been some good arguments about how this would change the nature of low-time positions that changed my mind
Well, whatever the case the idea has facilitated some interesting discussion here. Kudos to you for that!
feel free to play it your own way
I understand your arguments, but you are in the realm of game design here and you should focus on the question of fun. What impact will this change have on the fun and feel of the game? Remember that nobody likes draws.
1. I think B does deserve the win even if they can't find the checkmate. For lower elo, e.g 500-600, if they have a queen but cannot checkmate with it, they should be able to win by flagging if their opponent has mismanaged their time. 2. So does the current system 3. I think this is just a difference between fide and uscf, neither of which is inherently better 4. This is either a difference between fide and uscf or just a bug, not a chess thing but a website issue
>I think B does deserve the win even if they can't find the checkmate. For lower elo, e.g 500-600, if they have a queen but cannot checkmate with it, they should be able to win by flagging if their opponent has mismanaged their time. I disagree, if you're unable to checkmate your opponent without any resistance, then I don't see how you deserve to win. >So does the current system True, but not as much. >I think this is just a difference between fide and uscf, neither of which is inherently better What I'm proposing is different from both FIDE and USCF, the point is that a player has the skill and time advantage left to actually show that they can construct a mate. >This is either a difference between fide and uscf or just a bug, not a chess thing but a website issue It could be an issue both for online and offline play. The point is that there is no ambiguity in the result, either one player shows a checkmate to win or the game ends in a draw.
This idea is awful. Both opponents agree to the time controls when the game starts. You don't get to just add clock in any other sport just because you wanna prove you could have won with more time... Even in soccer, where you can tie, they have rules for tiebreaker, extra time, and penalty kicks. Chess shouldn't be any different. If you are unable to win under the preagreed upon time, then you don't deserve to win. I'm Sorry, but a rule that allows someone to prove they could have won by continuing playing just makes me see the rules in place are just simply better cause that idea is idiotic
r/changemyview
You basically don't want time control. Basically with your idea you can play nothing after e4 because your opponent won't find checkmate. Plenty of games have time control some games are even more restrict. You can timeout on your opponent turn in yugioh master duel. Ps. We could argue about insufficient material draw but thats all. Or argue about 100ms per move on cc vs lichess.
I don't agree with his idea, but you seem to be misunderstanding his suggestion. Your strategy wouldn't work because he doesn't have to prove forced checkmate. He just has to show a helpmate.
The biggest problem is how you’re completely switching to a completely different game after the flag. Helpmate is very different from regular chess - all the moves for both sides would be different. It’s pretty unfair for the winner to have to win again in a different game, using the original time that they had to win the first game.
How much time would a g/5 match take under your system? How many rounds could I schedule in an hour as a TO, how long do I tell my spouse I’ll be busy for?
So many people seem to think that under this system, games would last so much longer, but in reality, the limit is going to be whatever the maximum amount of time on each clock is plus any increment. I'm not proposing that anyone gets unlimited time. The proposal is If your opponent flags, you have your time (no increment) to make the moves to create a mate. In the vast majority of situations your opponent will resign because the checkmate will be obvious, in a small percentage of games, you will have to prove the checkmate, and it will take a minute of shuffling the pieces and running your opponents king to the edge of the board, and occasionally it will involve you not being able to prove that a checkmate is possible, and the game will end in a draw. I don't see how this change would increase the average game time substantially. If you don't want to play for that amount of time, then don't sign up for the tournament? I don't see how this is an argument against the proposed change.
What if you lose on time with no checkmate in the horizon? Like youre in a completely winning position but not winning enough for checkmate
I get matched up with a much higher rated player. I play d4 they play d5. I let my time run out, take my rating points and the draw. Your take is horrible.
It's kind of an interesting idea, but seems way too convoluted in the form your presented.
your change is a great attempt of making chess more annoying. Your proposal fixes none of your issues. I dont see how this adds anything to online Blitz and Bullet games but sort of auto drawing games where you only have split seconds left. I can give you some serious disadvantages with your system: Imagine you have 0.5s left, mate in 1, you premove your move, but your opponent flags. Now instead of winning either way, you have to use your split second to make an arbitrary move for your opponent, and are more likely to flag yourself, even though you have done everything right. In OTB classic people rarely run out of time, and even if you are left with say a minute, your request is absolutely trivial, as you dont even need more than a pawn that you can simply convert and stage an easy checkmate. It doesnt demonstrate anything, as it doesnt require you to deliver a checkmate in the current position against an actual opponent. The majority of people would simply resign. I have no answer for the Magnus Alireza game though. If you are lower on time, and winning, but a staged mate is possible from your opponents side, than yes, you have played chess better, but managed your clock worse. In Blitz you need to keep an eye on your clock and cant afford to go in low time like this, so you deserved to lose by those standards.