10376 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
You're lucky if we don't report you for sandbagging.
If they call you a child, yeah.
If your opponent hadn't utilised so much of his time, he may well have made inferior moves and lost earlier.
I play a lot of speed chess on ICC. I would have to say if you are asking about your situation in speed chess, then it's probably fine to flag your opponent in dead drawn positions. I personally will offer a draw on the "winning" side of these when there is a lot of time left. (e.g. If I have 45 seconds left and he has 30. I just don't want to blitz off a hundred moves.) That's personal preference I guess.
On the flip side, I was on the losing end of one of these recently and I had no chance and I could see that he was going to continue so I just resigned. Afterwards, my opponent asked why I didn't offer a draw which he said he would have accepted. I believe him, I would rather just resign i guess and start a new game. If I'm offered a draw, btw, I will usually take it unless they are down to like 3 seconds.
No. It is illegal to play for a win in this economy.
It's a game. The object is to win. If you win on time, it counts. Both players know the rules before the game begins.
So I have no problem with somebody winning on time. If I'm losing badly but I see a shot to win on time, I'll take it, and if my opponent did the same I wouldn't begrudge him the victory.
I don't even get the issue here.
In fact, as somebody else pointed out, if my opponent hadn't taken so much time to make his moves in the first place there's a good chance we might not be in a dead draw position to begin with-so why not take advantage of the clock?
Imagine Bobby Fischer (or any other grandmaster) playing a 10 minute game at a chess club. Fischer has three minutes left on his clock. His opponent has two minutes left. Fischer has one bishop and one pawn. His opponent has one bishop. The bishops are on opposite colors and the two grandmasters know it's a completely dead draw. Does Fischer move his king randomly all over the board for two minutes to win on time, or does he offer a draw?
Of course grandmasters, masters, and everyone else who isn't an idiot would offer a draw. Fischer was a gentleman at the chessboard. Not in a million years would he have childishly wasted his time and his opponents time moving his king to different positions for two minutes to avoid the draw by repetition rule.
On this website there a strong mature players who would do the same thing Fischer would have done. Also on this website there are childish amateurs who think it's fun to move a king all over the board while they could be playing a real chess game.
I'd say it is OK since if it's a threefold repetition your opponent has the possibility to claim the draw. If he doesn't know this, it's his fault.
@original poster -- Unfortunately, you started this thread looking for people to commiserate with you, but instead managed to make yourself the target of the same class of people who annoy you over the board.
Objectively, they are entirely correct -- speed chess is not "real" chess, it is another entity unto itself. Therefore, it is entirely legal to use (abuse?) the clock in the ways they recommend.
These are the same people who will, with only a K+P, move their king in circles rather than resign, hoping to run you out of time before you can mate them with your overwhelming material advantage (e.g. Q, Q+R, whatever)
Realize they are not interested in chess exactitude nor playing good moves, only about tricks and traps meant to waste time on your clock, to inflate, in a "real" chess sense, their ratings.
What can you, in your frustration, do? What I recommend is simply -- play with an increment or play long games (preferably with increment). In this way, it will be very difficult for you to lose on time in obviously won or drawn positions and you need not encounter this class of player.
You sound like the kind of guy who is more interested in improving your chess than getting in a chest-beating contest over who can move his mouse faster in a 3 0 game. Therefore, leave the K circles, time-gaining sacs, and other nonsense to these "speed masters" and commit only to playing games with decent time limits and good increments.
I recently was playing an FM in blitz. We played a very complicated game in an opening I was more familiar with. He had to take some time to work out the complications, and I ended up in a rook versus rook endgame with a 20-second lead to his remaining 5 seconds. I decided to avoid trading and check his king as fast as I could to run him out of time. It worked, and I got the full point. Now since this was blitz, my argument is I earned the win by managing my time better before the ending came up. The key point is that this is blitz, and often players will gambit everything they have to run you out of time in the process. If what they did gives them more time than you in a lost or equal position, that is your failure if you lose on time.
What people like the OP often choose to forget is their initial agreement to the time control in the first place. When you start a game at 3 or 5 or whatever without an increment, you are in effect saying "I agree the clock will rule me as lost if I run out of time making my moves no matter what the position on the board". It's not the other player's fault you agreed to these terms, it's your own fault and you ethically should not complain about it.
The simple solution is play with an increment or longer default time. The clock has been just as much about chess skill as playing the right moves on the board for something like 200 years now. It absolutely amazes me the people still don't understand that about chess. I think it's a by-product of casual players that only had a chess set with no clock as part of their game collections. Then when they start playing for ratings, they are confounded by the clock-tactics stronger players have incorporated into their style.
I'm fine with those people who try to win when they have a slight advantage and win on time, but I can't stand those who try to win on time from a completely lost position. They'll even sacrifice pieces just to check you so your premoves don't work, and they'll decline draws because they realize you can't win in the time alloted, even when they're down pieces. It might just be me, but I don't think this is sportsmanlike, and these players have lost my respect, and usually I block them. But playing for a win on time when up a pawn is okay, you wouldn't want to accept a draw simply to be sportsmanlike if you have any chance of winning.
I don't think people disagree that clock management is a chess skill. Even in serious, long OTB tournament games, one must manage his clock.
However, what is not a "chess" skill is the unsavory method of playing trick moves/checks/sacs to win on time in a lost position, or moving your K in circles in an otherwise hopeless position, etc. This may be a "speed chess" skill but doesn't make you a strong (real) chess player.
So I disagree with the implication that clock-tactics are part of a "stronger player's" game. I've played plenty of guys who were quite weak in long games, but thought they were "strong players" because they could move their Ks in circles in speed chess and get trick wins on time when their position was completely lost. Inevitably after losing a few times in long games, they complained something to the effect that "long games are too boring, let's play 3 0 and see who's the real man", whereupon I have generally declined as I DON'T consider that kind of "chess" worthwhile in the least.
As streetfighter mentioned, these are usually the same "tards" who spam you after games when you win, claiming it didn't count, claiming you're chicken unless you play another (even if you play them 10 times and they lose 10 times, they will still make this claim).
I DO agree that the OP NEED NOT play such games and that the exact approach he should take is to play games with increment or long games and avoid the speed junkies and other hacks.
I think it's important to note, that Blitz chess isn't pure chess, it's Blitz chess.. Just like chess 960 isn't chess.. It's chess 960.. For that matter, Tournament chess with Classic time controls isn't pure chess either.. It's Tournament Chess. I don't mean this in a derogatory manner.. In my opinion they have just as much value.. But when you alter the rules, however slight, you're playing a different game.. One that may be extremely similiar and entirely based on chess.. But it's not just chess anymore..
Therefor I agree with what seems to be the majority here. If you play a game with any sort of time controls, you're adding that as a rule to the game and as such it is meant to be taken advantage of.
In my opinion, practically speaking, correspondence chess is the only pure chess. One might say a casual game follows the same rules, but for practical purposes there is an undeclared time control.. Your opponent isn't likely to wait 3 days for your next move.
Again, so as to be certain I don't offend anyone.. I don't mean anything derogatory by saying blitz isn't pure chess, it's just not the same game. One shouldn't play it and expect pure chess.
Except you're forgetting one important aspect:
Their tricks & tactics with the clock only worked because you failed to move as fast as they did. You can't agree to play blitz chess and then complain about the format without sounding unreasonable. Think about it logically: We're not arguing the merits of whether or not according to you blitz chess is 'real' chess skill. The point we're trying to get accross is that you can't complain about it and yet at the same time continue to play it.
Let me reiterate for the 3rd time: If you don't like the clock tactics in blitz games, play a slower time control.
This thread isn't about "Is blitz chess 'real' chess?"; it's about "I don't like the clock tactics in blitz chess, but I continue to play it and get frustrated".
I think what might be helpful to a lot of people is to create chess derivitive based on blitz that plays more like what many people seem to want.
While I do think rules and time controls are meant to be observed and taken advantage of when appropriate. I also understand the frustration of players who either want to play a quick, but rather normal game of chess, or those who want to test their quick tactical abilities.
Perhaps creating a subset of Blitz where one isn't allowed to go more than 20 moves without moving a pawn or capturing a piece without forfeiting the game, would be appropriate.. Or maybe a different rule set that might have a similiar effect.. I'm honestly not sure how it could be done in practical terms as I haven't given it much thought, nor am I familiar with many of the derivitives currently available.. But I'm sure a derivitive could be created if one does not already exist. There does seem to be a desire for it.
I don't think it should replace Blitz though.. A lot of people like blitz as it stands.
That would remove the winning chances of, for example K & 2 Bishops vs King in a lot of situations.
Umm, please read my posts more carefully. You will see that I tell OP to play games with increment and long games. You will also see me say that I generally refuse to play such games. Therefore, I am not complaining about such speed chess and continuing to play it.
Rather, I am complaining about the "scoundrels" and "speed-tards" and offering advice on how to avoid them to the OP.
Other aspects of my posts were just responses to various assertions about "stronger chess players" and my disagreement with the definitions.
That's what it boils down to really. You have people here that don't seem to like how blitz chess makes the clock just as important a way to win as finding a checkmate. Take shepi's post for example. He doesn't like how some people shape their blitz play entirely around the clock. He thinks it's rude or underhanded, yet that is a perfectly legit way to play blitz chess. Let's break it down into the simplest form:
In Blitz/Bullet chess, there are three equally important ways to win:
1. Delivering checkmate.
2. The opponent resigns or forfeits.
3. The opponent runs out of time.
Some people shape their strategy around winning on time, others take more time in the hopes of delivering checkmate. To state that one strategy is more respectful than another is purely subjective and doesn't understand the importance of the clock in blitz chess. Taking more time to reach a better position than your opponent was your own decision to accept the risk that you might still lose on time. You therefor have no moral right to then complain that you lost on time in a winning or equal position. This is the give-and-take of speed chess. No matter how much people want to label certain strategies as rude or underhanded, it simply doesn't get around the simple fact that they lost because of their own risk-taking on time management. That is speed chess at its most essential elements.
My luckiest game. And puzzle for you
by ViktorHNielsen a few minutes ago
12/4/2013 - Immunity
by pa_kamini 3 minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by badger_song 4 minutes ago
0-2224 in less than three years
by waffllemaster 5 minutes ago
1st choice in a Chess Program @Amazon
by btickler 17 minutes ago
If You were Doing Life Which 5 Books Would You Keep To Make Your game Strong?
by Hubert-D 19 minutes ago
12/5/2013 - Too Many Attackers, Too Little Defenders
by pa_kamini 26 minutes ago
11/25/2013 - Deadly Decoy
by suhas_parmar 29 minutes ago
Pls. help identify Fide countries
by Christmas_Is_Awesome 30 minutes ago
Chess960 is Broken on chess.com
by thechosen0ne 30 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!