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.

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.

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.

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.

Just wanted to point out a minor flaw.

Well, I can't comment on Joey's communication skills, but he has all the best of this argument. Playing sudden death blitz and then complaining that your opponent is trying to win on time is just stupid.

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.

Clearly, there is no basis for complaint if an opponent plays just to flag you in a blitz game; the clock is perhaps the most important factor in blitz--which is why, as a slow-moving, slow-thinking senior citizen, I generally avoid it. But any talk about whether it is "sporting", or "ethical", or "mature" to play that way is utter nonsense! That's how the game is played, and no one is making you play at that time limit.

But Streetfighter has a point: It's legal, and it's fair, but is it fun? Personally, I don't think so, and  would happily give a draw in that situation and move on to the next game. But that's because, like Streetfighter, my few forays into speed chess are just for laughs. But plenty of people play it as a competitive enterprise, and it seems a bit unfair to expect them to change their way of playing just to accommodate someone with an odd idea of the gentlemanly way to play blitz.  And if you are playing in a blitz tournament (strange but true--people do play in them), then your actions affect other people's results. If you're not trying as hard as you can to win according to the rules, then your giving away other people's points, not just your own 

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.