15439 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!
This being on-line chess I realize that there has to be some way to control the length of the game and force moves to take place; however, winning on time is certainly not preferred....
What are your thoughts?
Other than the really short games, does anyone know if your points are affected differently than if you won or loss via checkmate? And, if so, how?
I don't like winning on time either, but just like in a blitz game the time keeps the game going. I don't think the points are affected differently than regular losses (not time losses) but you'd have to ask eric
If you are going to be very busy and running out off time and do not want to lose on time Put yourself on vocation until you have made your moves.
No need to lose on time.
I mentioned this in another thread and I'll say it again. There should be some kind of negative incentive for players who let a game expire on time. You wouldn't immediately suffer any consequences if you let a few games expire -- as you say, circumstances can happen to anyone. But if you pile up such games, it would be reasonable to, say, limit the number of games that person can start (this would encourage them to finish the ones they're losing rather than ignore them).
I know this adds a negative part to the site and people will say "can't we all just have fun?" Unfortunately, the answer to that question is "no, some people like to act like jerks." I believe the normal user would hardly notice this, except that there would seem to be fewer jerks on the site.
I prefer online chess but if opponents lose on time then they lose on time. However, if they feel they don't have enough time to join the tournaments then they shouldn't join simple as that.
i have no moral issues with claiming a win on time. if you do, then uncheck "claim win if my opponent runs out of time" in game preferences. or if you find yourself losing on time, upgrade your membership. the site automatically uses vacation time when you have less than an hour to make a move.
There is nothing dishonorable or less glorious about winning on time or by resignation than by checkmate. Most team sports are won on time - when it runs out, the side ahead wins!
I'm with Loomis about people abandoning games without resigning. There is no reason anyone needs to make a habit of this, it is unsportsmanlike behavior (as is rude and abusive chatter) and should be dealt with directly and severely. I think Loomis' suggestions @ #11 above sound quite reasonable, but I don't know how hard it would be to add that measure to the program.
Why hasn't Ivanov been banned yet?
by Wilbert_78 a few minutes ago
Who is better Paul Morphy or Magnus Carlsen
by Ubik42 3 minutes ago
A French Thumpin'
by ThrillerFan 4 minutes ago
12/11/2013 - Topalov-Kramnik, Dortmund 1996
by amitdashore 7 minutes ago
Who wins? Or is this a Draw?
by yeres30 8 minutes ago
by netzach 8 minutes ago
by Samsch 8 minutes ago
by BlinkyBlimey 12 minutes ago
Black to move - what result?
by ViktorHNielsen 12 minutes ago
London Chess Classic - Super 16 Rapid 2013
by waffllemaster 16 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!