It's not my move. It's his move.
Why did I draw and not win by time loss?
Sort:
When you have no chance of winning and your opponent runs out of time, It's a draw
Is this true in OTB matches as well? My high school team plays other schools using clocks, and we have had this happen.
Everyone (meaning all the coaches) seems to be of the same opinion: Checkmate your opponent before your time runs out, or you lose.
I have had players with a lone king be declared the winner when their opponent's flag fell before they could deliver checkmate.
Well, I googled FIDE's rules... Check it out, it was not very clear for me, in this particular situation. It says there that if "every possible legal move" can't mate, it is a draw. But it doesn't clear if it must be both players...
https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article
It does seem to make sense that a player with a lone king can lose or draw, but not win. Being declared the winner because your opponent was unable to mate in the allotted time could seem to be a miscarriage.
However, it also makes sense that you must checkmate your opponent in the allotted time, or you lose.
My personal preference is the 2nd option. You must checkmate your opponent in the allotted time, regardless of his ability to checkmate you.
If he has the skill to drag out the time, and avoid checkmate, he should win. If I lack the skill to checkmate in the allotted time, I should lose.
Anyone know for certain what the OTB rules are?
Consider a player with king and pawn against solo king who had only time for a single move to promote his pawn before flagging and no time to force mate. It would be strange if a draw were to result from him underpromoting to bishop or knight, but that he would lose if promoting to rook or queen.
Yes, this rule does exist in OTB. If a player runs out of time and the other cannot force checkmate, the game is a draw.
I've seen games where players each have several pawns that are locked up, and each player has a bishop of opposite color from opponent's bishop. Any misstep will cost the game, so both play carefully, not wanting to make that mistake.
What's the right decision here? Agree to a draw? What if one player has more time, and decides to decline the draw offer, and starts to make pointless moves as fast as possible to run the clock out, and win?
It's not technically a drawn position because both have pawns on the board. But neither is making progress toward winning. One player sees a chance to steal a win because he has more time, and can run the clock out.
FIDE World Chess Federation has this to say in the handbook at the end in the appendices:
(G.6 seems relevant)
|
Appendix G. Quickplay Finishes |
|
| G.1 |
A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the remaining moves must be completed in a finite time. |
| G.2 |
Before the start of an event it shall be announced whether this Appendix shall apply or not. |
| G.3. |
This Appendix shall only apply to standard play and rapidplay games without increment and not to blitz games. |
| G.4 | If the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may request that a time delay or cumulative time of an extra five seconds be introduced for both players, if possible. This constitutes the offer of a draw. If refused, and the arbiter agrees to the request, the clocks shall then be set with the extra time; the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue. |
| G.5 |
If Article G.4 does not apply and the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the chessclock (see Article 6.12 b). He may claim on the basis that his opponent cannot win by normal means, and/or that his opponent has been making no effort to win by normal means
|
| G.6 |
The following shall apply when the competition is not supervised by an arbiter:
|
May 1, 2016
0
#11
Salonides
Appendix G is applicable in the situation that you describe, but its use is optional. Appendix G (and USCF's 14.H) are pretty much obsolete. Most tournaments these days implement either time increments or delays. In the situation you describe, both players end up making aimless moves until the 50-move rule applies.
Apr 17, 2020
0
#12
Salonides wrote:
Anyone know for certain what the OTB rules are?
Different national federations use slightly different rules interpretations.
As stated, the official FIDE (that's the WORLD chess federation) rules are that if your opponent runs out of time you score a win if you CAN checkmate your opponent by some sequence of legal moves, or a draw if you CANNOT checkmate your opponent by some sequence of legal moves.
Here are the corresponding USCF (United States Chess Federation) rules:
14E. Insufficient material to win on time. The game is drawn even when a player exceeds the time limit if one of the following conditions exists as of the most recently determined legal move (effective 1-1-19) See also 15H, Reporting of results:
TD TIP: Remember a 14E draw claim is first a draw offer (Rule 14, The Drawn Game).
14E1. Lone king. Opponent has only a lone king.
14E2. King and bishop or king and knight. Opponent has only king and bishop or king and knight, and does not have a forced win.
14E3. King and two knights. Opponent has only king and two knights, the player has no pawns, and opponent does not have a forced win.
Apr 17, 2020
0
#13
bernatbosch7 wrote:
Stalemate is a draw in classical chess yet there are other chess variants both historical and modern where stalemate is not a draw.
Very early versions of Chess declare the player causing stalemate the winner and even today there are callings to return to that rule.
In a real life war, when a king cannot move because he is stalemate, the opponent kills him with no mercy and so should it be done in the case of a chess play too: the real life in the board.
If it were up to me, the rules would be different, because it seems clearly unfair to me that when a thousand swords are against a solitary king, that is not called a technical victory. There is no reasonable reason, beyond maintaining a tradition that leads to absurd results, why the rules could not be changed to understand that if one player cannot move without committing suicide, that does not prevent movement to the other. Then in this case it should be considered that the threatened player must remain still due to moral imperative but then the attacking player can move and kill him, since he is not impeded.
The question is not what are the rules, here, but are the rules fair or not. And for me, its cristal clear they are not.
There are also other variations where the stalemating player loses. IMHO, the draw is the fairest outcome, based on the other rules, and FIDE agrees 
bernatbosch7 wrote:
I do not agree with these rules, but if so must be done, so will be done. If the rules make you do 10 more moves and dance salsa before to kill the solitary king, so you will. I only say that if a player stays with 10 pieces and the other player has the king alone, for me there is no doubt who played better and who is the winner. I do not need any rule to know it.
If you were the better player you would have managed your time better.
Can anyone shed any light on this situation?
I was playing a game recently on another site. (this has happened before on various sites...not sure about here.)
I was losing, but my opponent was under time pressure. I had around 4:00 left on my clock; opponent was under 30 sec.
We each had a couple pawns, he was advancing. I lost all my pawns; he queened.
He should have been able to finish me off, but he didn't. He ran out of time.
I expected to get a win, but instead I was informed that the game was a draw.
Now why is that?
Position shows my last move. he ran out of time before he could move. I checked for repetition.
Nope.
Any ideas?
Thanks!