13681 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!
I think the key point to remember is that one does not "win on time", but rather, one loses on time. If an opponent blames you or the clock for their loss, then they are misguided about the point of the clock to begin with.
I always thought you got credit for winning that way.
It's not meant to be literal, but rather a philosophy.
The problem with many of us mortal players is that we don't take enough time per position and play a 60 minute per side or 6 hour game as if it were blitz. When you learn to take your time then you practice time management.
Aren't you agree, that if you have just king and opponent has total material advantage (like pawns and few pieces) and you win by time - you will feel pretty shitty about your win?
In these cases, if your opponent runs out of time the game is a draw by insufficient material. There are a bunch of threads discussing this on the forums.
Let's add one pawn to your King to make it "no draw" by law. I did mention "one king" metaphorically. I agree - what most people saying. I agree - if you have 2 from 10 min left and your opponent run of time. But if you have 10 sec left and win by time having totally lost position - it is not quit taste good in my opinion and more fair to agree for draw.
Just because you have material does not make it a win. The fide rules state that you have to be able to win 'against the most unskilled counterplay'
That's only in an OTB situation where the TD can have the discretion of ruling it a draw. In automated online blitz chess, the tradition has always been to rule it a loss on time if the other side has anything to potentially give checkmate with. This is because that's the only way to have an automated working server concept to begin with. Otherwise, you'll have staff having to go over thousands of blitz games in order to adjudicate them properly, and nobody wants to deal with that.
just get over the idea that it is ever bad manners to win on time...time is part of the game and must be managed, just like every other piece...
perhaps the thought should be that it is very bad manners to lose on time
Its simple if you dont get your opponent in mate before youre time is up, youre not good enough. Only in matches where you have 10mins you can play slow.
That is a very good point. I also think that it is perfectly fair to win on time.
At higher level chess this is even unpolite to continue play in a totally lost position - giving respect to the opponent means believing he is able to launch checkmate. So playing only on time is considered a very bad habit at master and higher level - but I mean playing on time in a lost position or a dead draw! In a "normal" position it is fair.
However, in amateur games it is normal to play till checkmate or "bare kings" and playing on time should be considered just another form of implementing this idea. If you require your opponent to show that he knows how to checkmate it is ok to require him do so quickly.
So, an average member of chess.com should not feel guilty for playing on time even at 2 moves before mate - and noone should feel guilty when the position is still full of play (not a dead theoretical draw)
Is winning on time bad manners? No
Claiming that the opponent should have resigned because they themselves did not have enough time left on their clock to finish the game.. That my friend, is bad manners! If someone doesn't have enough time to deliver checkmate in an otherwise won position. It is entirely their own fault.
It rules it a draw if the side with time left has a king, king and knight, king and two knights or king and bishop.
Winning in any form against me is very poor etiquette.
So almost half your opponents have poor etiquette. Very logical!
I think a pair of knights or a knight and a bishop are enough to mate your opponent so why call it a draw?
my mind is blown that any chess player could be below a 1300
by chessnoob1234567 a few minutes ago
The handedness issue
by ebillgo a few minutes ago
4/19/2014 - Tisdall - Lee, London 1981
by EDB123 a few minutes ago
CANT PLAY ONLINE!!!!
by Ronnee 3 minutes ago
How do you study games?
by XDave121X 3 minutes ago
Chess books for class e/d player
by pfren 3 minutes ago
Cant complete move in online
by Kurt88 4 minutes ago
Man slugs inmate over chess game
by MrDamonSmith 6 minutes ago
queen and pawn end game...where were my mistakes?
by randyreinaldo2 7 minutes ago
Mastery of Finishing Touch
by Ronald_Aprianto 7 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!