Ooh, now that's personal.  It's OK to slag a guy a little, but to go after his religion like that?

again, learn to read posts before commenting on them and it'll save us both some time. really, you should consider it in the future.

here's the first time i said it:

"i honestly can't think of any other game (or sport) that one of the factors of the game is just completely disregarded simply because using it as an advantage is considered unsportsmanlike only under certain conditions."

and here's the second time i said it:

"please list all of the unwritten rules which stipulate when and how a specific factor of the game should be disregarded. like i mentioned, i don't know of any in any other game where that happens. apparently, according to you, there are some in chess. i'd like to know them for future reference for sure."

nowhere did i just ask for unwritten rules to be stated.

and furthermore, this is exactly what is NOT a fact. if this was a fact, then time would not be a factor in the game. if you don't want it to be a factor, then (as i already mentioned) don't play timed games or play with time increments. otherwise, time is always part of the situation, and one can't just deem it unsportsmanlike or unnecessary all of a sudden.

i dont know what u want. these unwritten rules are exactly rules which completely disregard factors of their games. these rules if u read them stipulate specific situations in which factors of a game are disregarded. i honestly have no idea what u want. i read and responded to your posts and u keep telling me im not giving u what u want.

also it is in my opinion that people who win a position that is drawn or lost because of time are completely missing out on the point of the game. Note that i am referring to positions which can only be a draw or better. if there is any play left whatsoever (such as a rook v bishop w/ a few pawns for each) and a person runs out of time i see that as their fault and they deserve to lose. i am not condoning poor time management skills. i agree with the concept that manners are manners and if you wouldnt do it over the board dont do it online.

However, in situations which literally have no chance of winning and you repeat checks or play a position such as rook v rook just to win on time, it is my opinion that u are missing the point of the game entirely and being unsportsmanlike.

im a jackets fan. its in my religion to make fun of others because i have nothing to be proud of :( 

Which team is that? Oh right those guys... I forgot about their existence because they are so forgettable.

There are conventions, and courtesy, and player preferences, but none of these are rules, unwritten or otherwise and they are also all inherently subjective, so what's unsporting to one person, might be entirely acceptable to another.

This is what's at the core of all of these disagreements about when it's acceptable to resign, or to not resign, whether it's OK to play for a win on time in a given position, whether you do or do not chat, say "good game" or "good luck", whether you simply disable chat pre-emptively, or grant rematches, or exclusively play premium members, or cherry pick your opponents by rating, or use opening databases and the analysis board, or automatically accept wins on timeouts in turn based, or do a post-mortem with your opponent if he asks, or a million other "preference" based discussions not explicitly covered by the rules that have occurred here ad nauseum.

What was stated earlier applies to all of these:  The consensus is that there is no consensus.

id think there is always going to be the its in the rules vs it should be in the rules argument. I guess my feelings toward this are similar to that of if a cop pulled me over for going 61 in a 60 mph zone. i technically broke the law but i just feel violated that he pulled me over for such a technicality. i guess the difference is that more people believe in the "a victory is a victory" concept then the 1 mph being imp. but i think you guys get my point that its violating to get beaten on a technicality.

i read the examples, and they don't disregard factors of the game. so i guess you just don't understand what i'm talking about.

perhaps if you considered them one at a time it would helps:

Baseball

1.0. Don't embarrass yourself, your teammates or your opponent.
(no factors in game disregarded)

1.1. Never show up an umpire on balls and strikes.
(no factors in game disregarded)

1.2. Never steal a base when leading by a bunch of runs.
(this one i might grant to you, but it is not quite the same as our discussion - it would more aptly compared to a person getting multiple queens instead of just mating the opponent, but since one can just resign in chess, this shouldn't be an issue.)

1.3. Never show up an opposing pitcher after hitting a home run off him.
(no factors in game disregarded)

1.4. Always run onto the field in support of your teammates or players after a fight breaks out.
(no factors in game disregarded)

1.45. Don't fraternize with opposing players.
(no factors in game disregarded)

1.45. (a) Players who don't run onto the field in support, or who fraternize with opposing players, shall be fined by a kangaroo court.
(no factors in game disregarded)

1.45. (b) Kangaroo courts shall exist in every major league clubhouse and operate by their own set of unwritten rules.
(no factors in game disregarded)

2.0. Play the game the right way.
(no factors in game disregarded)

2.1. Never lay down a bunt to break up a no-hitter.
(again, i might grant you this one, but it also differs in that it's not effecting the overall outcome of the game - which is our issue - as much as just screwing over the pitcher. i honestly can't even think of a comparison for chess for this one.)

2.2. When breaking up a double play, always go in with a clean slide.
(no factors in game disregarded)

2.3. Always throw a fastball on a 3-0 count.
(no factors in game disregarded)

2.35. Never swing at a 3-0 pitch when your team has a comfortable lead.
(no factors in game disregarded)

2.4. Never put the tying or go-ahead run on first base.
(no factors in game disregarded)

2.5. Never make the first or third out of an inning at third base.
(no factors in game disregarded)

2.6 Always run out ground balls, even routine ones.
(no factors in game disregarded)

2.7. Never interrupt a pitcher's focus by talking to him before a start.
(no factors in game disregarded)

2.75. Applicable to broadcasters and players alike, never mention "no-hitter" when a pitcher has one working.
(no factors in game disregarded)

2.8. Never steal another team's signs
(no factors in game disregarded)

2.9. Pitchers must work inside to keep opposing batters honest but must never throw at a batter's head.
(no factors in game disregarded)

2.95. Pitchers must retaliate for egregious acts committed by opposing pitchers.
(no factors in game disregarded)

i was going to do them all but i got bored. if i'm wrong about any of these please explain to me how. furthermore, we are (were) discussing chess and your examples obviously are not chess related. i said that it's strange to disregard a factor of the game of chess, and that i don't know of any such situation in any other games/sports either. although, even if you were to find one possible example in another game/sport, it does not necessarily correlate to chess as well, but feel free to keep trying.

What about the unwritten rule about making the right call on the 27th batter in a perefect game?

28 up, 28 down.

that one must be really unwritten because it wasn't written with the unwritten ones from this link apparently.

I think his is correct. i was generally stating that unwritten rules are in sports and games and that they are generally to promote sportsmanship. Sportsmanship in a game is more important to me than winning. i feel that flagging people is not the conduct chess employs and it is unsportsmanlike to do so. this is why the whole unwritten rules situation arose. if you believe it isnt unsportsmanlike than i would disagree with you for the same reason i would tell an official if he made a bad call in my favor. just because you can "win" by time doesnt make it right. the point of chess is to checkmate the king. the point of the clock is to speed up the game. i think abusing a rule for a different purpose than it was intended just because its technically the letter of the law is always wrong. 

But if there are no consequences to playing the clock then why should I bother to speed my play in order to meet the objective of having a clock?

The point might have originally been to speed the game, but the result has been that the clock has become an integeral part of the game's strategy.

exactly. you can't have it both ways.

you can if people dont abuse it. if you cant manage the clock well then at the end you will have less time to make good moves and that it to be the downfall of poor clock management. i dont think winning on time is bad if your opponent is just that bad at clock management but in positions like this:

 Have not read replies, so I'm not sure if this response has already been given.

But there is a way to make sure you do not lose on time in a clearly drawn/won game.
The answer is to simply play with an time increment.
And inc as little as 1 second may solve this problem completely.
And because the inc is so small, the opening and middle phases of the game still move at just as fast of a pace.

Yes, it is still annoying to have to play on in a drawn R v R game.
But at least you will never have to be saddled with a loss because of it.

If you ever choose to play with 0 increment, then you are playing a game in which time is a major factor in the result.
Often times, it is more important than even the position on the board.
Recognize this before you begin playing a 0 inc game.

--CM

You should read the replies first before posting. The OP himself said this:

I was premoving in the ending to conserve time, but there was still a significant premove lag (unlike some other live chess sites where it's only about .1 seconds).

I no longer place open seeks for sudden death time controls because of this.

well if it ended up in some position with RvR, i certainly have nothing to learn from that, imo the game is over.

 If the other guy wants to keep playing ill just resign, i guess. So thats another perspective to consider, i suppose...how much does it really matter playing online blitz games if you draw or lose?

 Also theres more exceptions than just a pawn promoting to rook and allowing mate in 1, in fact its not all that uncommon in practice to do tricks like this, which would be ruined by such a rule:

So figuring out exactly when things are a drawn and when they arent is not going to be quite trivial enough, imo.

Time is one way of winning, but in R vs. R, it's not sportsmanlike. I mean, in that position when one person has low time, you or your opponent can lose because of a mouse fumble. People should accept draws when offered, but only if it's a truly drawn position.

I find that when I play unorthadox openings, my opponents forget that a king can't checkmate the other one.