16331 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!
That's as far as I read a retort that starts with that. If you have no respect for differing opinions to start a reply with that, I'm not going to read beyond it. It's a waste of my time at this point.
Anyone who thinks that noble grandmasters do not blitz out lost/drawn positions to win on time hasn't watched very many GM games. It happens all the time. While I myself often do offer draws when my only hope of winning is painfully cramping my mouse hand with haste, I do not begrudge anyone who plays according to the rules, which do allow winning on the clock. Chess has enough rules without players running around making up new ones. My advice: play according to the rules, and be a good sport.
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.
Read your post more closely? Your post contains all kinds of out of line, unfair assertions about the motivations and behaviors of speed chess players. In fact, it is so out of order that it should be deleted rather than read more closely. Your assertions that speed chess players are weak in long games (Nakamura uses every trick in the book playing speed chess including some that nearly offend me and is hardly weak at long games), are "tards", spam you after you win, etc. are silly. In fact, your whole post was silly and Firebrand responded to you overly respectfully.
In other words, you state X, I state !X (or ~X), and because I disagree with what you say, everything I say is silly
Further, according to you, my remarks are "offensive", while your calling my posts "silly" etc. is okay. That, my "friend", is silly.
This whole discussion is pointless. I didn't say all speed players are weak, first of all. That was your own flawed interpretation.I merely stated that using clock tricks does not mean you are a stronger real/pure chess player, with which I am sure you will agree. I mentioned the speed-tards (or scoundrels if you prefer) as a counterexample.
Firebrand's response indicated he had not even read my posts with any detail -- that much was clear. Otherwise, why "reiterate for a 3rd time" that you "I have no right to complain and continue to play blitz" when I stated multiple times that the correct solution is NOT to play 3 0 or 5 0 games, but rather pick a time control where the chess is less nonsensical?
How is it that his post completely ignoring the gist of my own is somehow "respectful", but mine pointing out that essentially his post does not pertain to me is not?
I'll even go a step further-even if my opponent outnumbers me badly in material I'll STILL try and win on time if possible.
I mean, seriously. You're not moving "childishly" around the board, you're trying to win a chess game by taking advantage of the clock-and so what? It's as legitimate a way to win as any other. Watch the time, it's important.
I completely agree. Sportsmanship means accepting your losses gracefully, not giving up games because you think winning in one way is more "legitimate" than winning another way. And be polite-don't be a jerk before, during, or after the game, and don't cheat.
@joeydvivre, In fact you say that my posts are somehow "offensive" while at all points you ridicule others like the OP in this thread as being silly and that their viewpoints "defy belief" just because they have a different viewpoint.
What makes your viewpoint so valuable that you can belittle the OP, for example, without it being "offensive"?
IMy brother played in a chess league once in high school where if you lost on time but you were up in material the game was declared a draw.
I like that system. The only major flaw is that it doesn't count for positional advantage, but nothing is going to please everybody I suppose.
But that said-if that rule is NOT in place, and it is not in place on chess.com, then I have no trouble trying to win on time if the situation arises.
Of course, I don't COUNT on it. That would be silly because if you move too quickly you'll just be checkmated or put into an impossible position when your opponent still has too much time left for you to reasonably run out the clock. But if the opportunity arises for me to win that way, I'll absolutely take it.
if you lost on time but you were up in material the game was declared a draw.
I like that system.
So if you are up a queen and your oppenent is about to checkmate you, you can just wait for your clock running down and get a draw? Super system!
True. Never really ocurred to me. I don't think it really ocurred to anybody else either, it was a casual league.
Hey, it wasn't my league. My brother played in it.
Hey, it wasn't my league. My brother played in it.
Just wanted to point out a minor flaw.
Logically there is not valid point when it comes to time management in speed chess. If your opponent arrived at the dead-drawn position faster than you did, then he can beat you time. You accepted that risk when you took more time than he did in the first place. That's speed chess.
Take the "w" any way you can get it, short of cheating...
My favorite one is, "not to be rude but..."
"one thing that wasn't mentioned about the OP's situation is that there's also the 50 move rule. If the bishops are playing ring-around-the-rosey certainly you could get off 50 moves in a short amount of time."
In a dead draw position that's boring and childish. I would rather play a real chess game than show off how fast I can move my king or opposite color bishop randomly. That's why a normal person, instead of wasting two minutes acting like an idiot, would just admit the position is a dead draw, offer a draw, and be done with it. It's not like there's big money at stake.
I'm astonished that anyone would find it OK to "win" by making moves in a completely drawn position. That some people do think it's OK is good reason to play with time-delay.
You're playing a game of chess. Once you reach a completely drawn position, the playing of the game, as a sporting contest, is over. If you regard the game as something other than a sporting contest, I think you need to take a look at your attitude toward the playing of chess.
You realise that the clock is also an element of the sporting contest?
It's OK to play not to lose (imo). And, there's such a thing as drawing a drawn position.
If your opponent's unable to do so before they've used up all their time, I for one will not be shedding tears over them (and so perhaps they'll be more likely to do better next time from the lesson learned in the current game).
ps. We're not doing our opponents any favours by giving them 'freebies'.
I think Nakamura declined a draw in Tal memorial on Saturday when he had a K+N vs K+P.
A related question, for those defending the behaviour OP described with the argument "it is within the rules":
Is it ok to deliberately make an illegal move when very short on time in a tricky position? Opponent calling a judge to get his bonus X minutes gives a few extra minutes to think. This is also "within the rules".
Personally I find the latter behaviour cheating (but moving to Taiwan has taught me many new ... "ways" to handle difficult situations). Somehow playing on in a dead draw position feels more unethical than playing on opponents time in a dead lost position... strange.
For reference, my philosophy on chess, and games in general, is that you should try to win by any means. But I also think that "win", by definition, implies acting within the rules - once you start cheating, or in any way go outside the rules, you're no longer playing the game, and if you cheat and make your opponent think you win, it still has no more meaning than, say, flipping the board or drawing a gun on your opponent and forcing him to say "I concede".
So with that said, any play of an illegal move is, by definition of "illegal", outside of the rules. The fact that the rulebook tells you what to do when someone plays an illegal move doesn't make it within the rules, it just means that the writers want people to be prepared for what happens when somebody inevitably breaks the rules. So the situation you described isn't within the rules, and I wouldn't consider it acceptable.
This is in constrast to the OP's situation, since the clock is within the rules, imposing another constraint on the game. Not only do you have to make the best moves possible, but you have to make the best moves possible given a limitation on your time to think. This is especially true in a blitz game where time is supposed to be limited. To my mind, if you're low on time in the endgame it's because you traded time (one of your resources) for an improved position. If you trade time for, say, an extra pawn, and then lose on time, it's equivalent to if you gained an extra pawn at the cost of an awkwardly placed king, and lost because your opponent took advantage of said awkwardly placed king.
In the honor of play " a draw is a draw" when it is in fact drawn.
Exactly. You can run out of pawns, rooks, bishops, knights, queens and survive.
But you cant run out of time and survive. Them's the rules.
by rocketboosterSF 4 minutes ago
Caro-Kann Study Group (1.e4 c6)
by Ormiston313 4 minutes ago
Grabbing the Queen for Queening
by Pulpofeira 4 minutes ago
Hello GM, Penguin is Carlsen
by mike_tal 6 minutes ago
8/23/2014 - Kupper - Olafsson, Zurich 1956
by xray 9 minutes ago
Bugs On Chess.com
by ConnorMacleod_151 9 minutes ago
Mate in 4 (with a little help)
by FuzzleOIL 12 minutes ago
Hurt/Heal Opening Traps 2
by A_G_A 18 minutes ago
4” Hybrid Dubrovnik-Zagreb Chess Set
by 9kick9 20 minutes ago
Hurt/Heal Opening Traps
by A_G_A 21 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 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!