Post by petejwatts on Aug 8, 2009 19:53:22 GMT -5
Most Blitz chess games are "sudden death" - a flat time is made available for all your moves and if your flag falls without a result on the board then, unless your opponent has a bare king, you lose.
Alas amateurs almost never resign or agree draws (even if on the weaker side) and will play on ad nauseum, especially if there is a chance they can win on time. Unfortunately this is within the rules, so learn to accept it if it bugs you, and do whatever it takes to get the right result. It does however result in absurdities that are the root of many disagreements that this attitude makes difficult to resolve, not all of them involving me.
For example:. Most players will agree a draw when both players have just a rook or queen each and are just pushing them around the board, even though one player must eventually win on time (though I have seen some headcases insist on playing on in such situations). While most will not contemplate this farce, they will nevertheless play on in equally drawn positions (such as most opposite colored bishop equal pawn endgames) and also not recognise the obvious implications of agreeing these equal force draws.
These absurdities are almost entirely the result of playing "sudden death" blitz games, where a flag will always eventually fall no matter how fast you play, and the rules almost always award a win to the other player no matter how hopeless their postion (except when they have a bare king). This is the main reason why I prefer either the Fischer or Bronstein timing methods (where additional time is made available for every move), where a players flag will never fall if he plays fast enough and he is gauranteed at least a few seconds for every move, as this *ought* to produce more resignations and draw agreements. In practice it doesnt much, but that doesnt matter much because the correct result usually occurs anyway. Imho chess games ought preferably to be decided on the board rather than the clock, especially not the kind of absurd results I am now going to talk about. For this and other reasons these timing methods also eliminate the many arguments that occur in sudden death games. Generally they only ever produce one kind of argument, everybody except me argues they dont want to play it.
So what are these absurdities?
Well two players left with just a rook each will usually agree to a draw, even though one must eventually win on time just pushing wood around. So far so sensible. Now what happens if the player with less time has additional material - say a pawn?
In my experience the player with just the rook *wont* agree a draw in this position if he is ahead on time. He will try to play on to claim the win on time, insisting he has a right to do so. Unfortunately by the modern rules he does - but then, in that case, he ought to be allowed to play on when both players have just rooks. Again he is allowed to do so and some people do, but most sane individuals reject this absurdity and agree the draw. But in that case, he should logically also agree the draw when the other player has a pawn as well. Otherwise that player is being penalised for having extra, and possibly winning, material!
It could be argued that that's the game - ok the stronger force may lose the game on time by having the draw refused but has the compensation of possibly winning it on the board. However, the position could be technically drawn anyway, so there is no compensation - he cannot win and the position is as drawn as just a rook each - so if a draw is agreed for the latter, why not the former? There is no escaping it - if rook v rook is always agreed as a draw then either a player who also has a pawn (or othe material) ought be able to claim a draw as well if he wishes, or a logical absurdity arises where a player may be penalised for a stronger position and is motivated to deliberately *give up* the extra material for nothing and his opponent refuse to take it! This is just the simplest example - all kinds of material differences, large and small, can occur. I have seen the same player try to get the win on time when he has the weaker force, and also claim the draw when he has the superior force and not only that, but *after* his flag fell - in other words, he wanted it both ways - both the chance to get the mate and also insurance against losing on time.
Somehow this is not the kind of chess Staunton, whose memorial is being played now, I think would like to have seen appear.
There is no easy solution to this problem - except one. Use a timing method like Fischer or Bronstein (where a minimum amount of time is alway available for every move) so that a player's flag will never fall so long as he plays fast enough, so that the result will usually be on the board on not on the clock. While in my experience this doesnt tend to produce more resignations or draw agreements per se, that doesnt tend to matter much as when the game is played out the same result is achieved anyway. when this fact eventually dawns on people, perhaps they will start resigning and agreeing draws when appropriate.
Unfortunately hardly anyone agrees with me over this, so I am usually playing sudden death on someone else's board or Bronstein on my own board with all the other players complaining about it. So it goes. This would be fair enough except for the fact that other people start falling out when the kind of absurdity I have highlighted here actually occurs - plus other arguments that only tend to occur when sudden death is used.
Bronstein is rarely used anymore but Fischer is almost standard in high-level tournaments and is popular on the internet as well. Alas it doesnt seem to be making much progress into the world of Holland Park chess, and the rousing sound of operatic voices from the openair theatre on summer evenings will continue to be drowned out by the raised voices of hysteric chess players for some years yet.
Update: As I predicted, yesterday in the park my voice was raised somewhat over this very issue. My bad - though I did end u[ laughing over it. I eventually agreed to change the clock back over to the wretched Sudden Death mode, but I'm not sure I should have done. I decided to operate on the dubious principal that good relations are better than good chess, especially as arguments avoided now imho may produce a lot more later by those who I yielded to with each other!
Alas amateurs almost never resign or agree draws (even if on the weaker side) and will play on ad nauseum, especially if there is a chance they can win on time. Unfortunately this is within the rules, so learn to accept it if it bugs you, and do whatever it takes to get the right result. It does however result in absurdities that are the root of many disagreements that this attitude makes difficult to resolve, not all of them involving me.
For example:. Most players will agree a draw when both players have just a rook or queen each and are just pushing them around the board, even though one player must eventually win on time (though I have seen some headcases insist on playing on in such situations). While most will not contemplate this farce, they will nevertheless play on in equally drawn positions (such as most opposite colored bishop equal pawn endgames) and also not recognise the obvious implications of agreeing these equal force draws.
These absurdities are almost entirely the result of playing "sudden death" blitz games, where a flag will always eventually fall no matter how fast you play, and the rules almost always award a win to the other player no matter how hopeless their postion (except when they have a bare king). This is the main reason why I prefer either the Fischer or Bronstein timing methods (where additional time is made available for every move), where a players flag will never fall if he plays fast enough and he is gauranteed at least a few seconds for every move, as this *ought* to produce more resignations and draw agreements. In practice it doesnt much, but that doesnt matter much because the correct result usually occurs anyway. Imho chess games ought preferably to be decided on the board rather than the clock, especially not the kind of absurd results I am now going to talk about. For this and other reasons these timing methods also eliminate the many arguments that occur in sudden death games. Generally they only ever produce one kind of argument, everybody except me argues they dont want to play it.
So what are these absurdities?
Well two players left with just a rook each will usually agree to a draw, even though one must eventually win on time just pushing wood around. So far so sensible. Now what happens if the player with less time has additional material - say a pawn?
In my experience the player with just the rook *wont* agree a draw in this position if he is ahead on time. He will try to play on to claim the win on time, insisting he has a right to do so. Unfortunately by the modern rules he does - but then, in that case, he ought to be allowed to play on when both players have just rooks. Again he is allowed to do so and some people do, but most sane individuals reject this absurdity and agree the draw. But in that case, he should logically also agree the draw when the other player has a pawn as well. Otherwise that player is being penalised for having extra, and possibly winning, material!
It could be argued that that's the game - ok the stronger force may lose the game on time by having the draw refused but has the compensation of possibly winning it on the board. However, the position could be technically drawn anyway, so there is no compensation - he cannot win and the position is as drawn as just a rook each - so if a draw is agreed for the latter, why not the former? There is no escaping it - if rook v rook is always agreed as a draw then either a player who also has a pawn (or othe material) ought be able to claim a draw as well if he wishes, or a logical absurdity arises where a player may be penalised for a stronger position and is motivated to deliberately *give up* the extra material for nothing and his opponent refuse to take it! This is just the simplest example - all kinds of material differences, large and small, can occur. I have seen the same player try to get the win on time when he has the weaker force, and also claim the draw when he has the superior force and not only that, but *after* his flag fell - in other words, he wanted it both ways - both the chance to get the mate and also insurance against losing on time.
Somehow this is not the kind of chess Staunton, whose memorial is being played now, I think would like to have seen appear.
There is no easy solution to this problem - except one. Use a timing method like Fischer or Bronstein (where a minimum amount of time is alway available for every move) so that a player's flag will never fall so long as he plays fast enough, so that the result will usually be on the board on not on the clock. While in my experience this doesnt tend to produce more resignations or draw agreements per se, that doesnt tend to matter much as when the game is played out the same result is achieved anyway. when this fact eventually dawns on people, perhaps they will start resigning and agreeing draws when appropriate.
Unfortunately hardly anyone agrees with me over this, so I am usually playing sudden death on someone else's board or Bronstein on my own board with all the other players complaining about it. So it goes. This would be fair enough except for the fact that other people start falling out when the kind of absurdity I have highlighted here actually occurs - plus other arguments that only tend to occur when sudden death is used.
Bronstein is rarely used anymore but Fischer is almost standard in high-level tournaments and is popular on the internet as well. Alas it doesnt seem to be making much progress into the world of Holland Park chess, and the rousing sound of operatic voices from the openair theatre on summer evenings will continue to be drowned out by the raised voices of hysteric chess players for some years yet.
Update: As I predicted, yesterday in the park my voice was raised somewhat over this very issue. My bad - though I did end u[ laughing over it. I eventually agreed to change the clock back over to the wretched Sudden Death mode, but I'm not sure I should have done. I decided to operate on the dubious principal that good relations are better than good chess, especially as arguments avoided now imho may produce a lot more later by those who I yielded to with each other!
