accept draw when opponent short on time?

In a clearly drawn position should the person with more time accept a draw or just keep randomly moving until the opponent time runs out?

Can I ask the correct approach here? - I understood it is poor sportsman ship to keep moving and win on time - but is it also a breach of the rules?

Please see the other 932,143,274,509,340 posts on this subject

https://www.chess.com/forum/search?keyword=accept+draw

OTB there's a FIDE rule about this, according to it you can claim a draw if you have less than 2 minutes remaining (without increment) and you think your opponent doesn't have the means or the will to win the game, provided the arbiter agrees with you. So I don't try to flag my opponent in such cases when playing online either.

It's not a breach of the rules.  But if you have a truly dead drawn position (read: the old "no losing chances" standard) and you play it out for time, you should not be surprised if that opponent does not want to play with you anymore.

Pulpofeira - thanks presumably that does not apply to online chess. My last game was like this and clearly drawn with plenty of time, but I had less time.

Depends on the time control.  In fast time controls the clock is central and if you have more time in an equal endgame that's meant to be a winning advantage.  In slow time controls it's a bit less clear.  There was a story in a recent chess magazine about someone who stalled because his opponent was short on time and needed to pee....not very sportsmanlike in my opinion.

In any case the opponent should count moves and call a draw on repetition, or failing that, on the 50-move rule.  On chess.com if the position's drawn on one of these and you offer a draw it will auto-accept.

It is never a breach of the rules to play on.  It can be really rude if the draw is obvious, though.

Last year I got a completely dead drawn position against a small child who dug in and played another 25 moves.  This is legal and there's nothing you can do but count moves (I was wondering if we'd get to 50!) and be sure you know the procedure for claiming the draw.  Getting upset only uses up your energy.

If you are the one stalling, be aware that this also uses up your energy and may cause you to suffer in the next round, if it's a multi-round tournament; taking the draw immediately is often a wiser strategy.  Also there are lots of positions which are dead drawn unless someone blunders--but are you sure it won't be you?

It is up to the players' morals.

Most people think that you somehow played better or were the better player if you are up on time, but that is not necesarily true, there is more than one different approach on the game, the fact that you took more time doesnt not mean you are worse, it just means you were calculating  much more other things your opponent didnt even consider, that you were calculating more precisely or that you are not simply as fast as him (maybe the last one means you are worse than him at blitz)

 

However, a lot of people here dont think that way, they think that because they ended up with more time they have the delusional right to flag you.

You can always choose a small increment so in clear drawn positions that you can just premove out you dont get flagged.

 

However I choose not to do so, I like sudden death time controls, maybe because I still have hopes of flagging my opponent in worse positions.

I believe the introduction and use of incremental time controls circumscribes this necessity. I remember an opposite bishop and pawn endgame were I had a white squared bishops guarding my opponents forward square for his pawn. He was very slightly ahead on time and spent the last three of the ten minutes moving round to avoid repetition. Of course it makes a farce of the game and he won on time. He was in his rights, but the problem is sudden death time itself.

The answer is to play incremental time which has been one of the greatest innovations of the game.

GodsPawn2016 wrote:

Please see the other 932,143,274,509,340 posts on this subject

https://www.chess.com/forum/search?keyword=accept+draw

*which particular thread should I refer too; the link lead me to a page of multi-threads on draws

I don't like the idea of playing on in a hopelessly lost or drawn position in an attempt to win on time. But in speed chess, it sometimes makes sense to play on if your opponent is in severe time trouble. He may blunder and turn a loss into a win for you or he could blunder into stalemate. The clock is part of the game. You've got to win the game within the prescribed time.

I don't play the clock, however. I don't make weird moves hoping my opponent (in time pressure) will run out of time trying to make sense of them. But if my opponent is behind on the clock, I think it's a good strategy to favor more complex lines. That's a good time for a speculative piece sacrifice, for instance. Under time pressure, the opponent might not find the correct defensive moves. My policy is to play the game, not the clock - but to keep the clock in mind when it comes to formulating a strategy.

Im probably the best possible opponent.  I will remind my opponent if they dont hit the clock.  No way im sitting there for an hour, or longer waiting for someones time to run out.  That isnt chess.  Even in a time scramble i will be more apt to offer a draw, even if im winning.  Not always, but at times...

Playing the clock when you know you can win on time even if your opponent finds a defense is nice but it's a bad habit to get into. That sort of tactic doesn't work on everyone, as some people can surprise you and start moving fast all of a sudden when they know the game is heading for a time scramble.

I play someone that does this all the time. His winning tactic usually depends on the piece sac to downswap so the game lasts till the endgame where he just makes sure he is winning on time. One of these days I will learn to pay attention to the clock and just not ignore it the entire game like I do, and what will happen then, the games will turn into big time scrambles where both players make stupid moves just to gain time on the clock. That is not real chess, but that will be my future when playing him if I do take the time to learn the habit of practicing good time management on speed chess rather than just moving pieces fast and hoping I do not run out of time. Hikaru Nakamura even said if all you do is win in this way then it's time to stop playing, but for some weird reason this guy thinks flagging a guy in a lost position by only something like 15 or so seconds every time is just as good as checkmate. Good chess is thrown out the window and now only the clock matters to him. It's fine if you want to play this way, just know it's not helping your chess.

I have had many clearly drawn games where my opponent tries to run me out of time.  In most cases, there is more than enough time to make 50 aimless moves and claim the draw.  In the few cases where I don't have enough time to make 50 moves, I lose.  No big deal.

OTB, there's no sense using this strategy.  With the use of increments or time delays, making 50 moves is relatively easy.

Keep playing

Managing time is as much a part of competitive chess as managing the pieces.  If you look at blitz and bullet games played by people who are very good at those forms of the game you see moves being played that are anti positional but assist a strategy of managing time better than your opponent.

There is nothing wrong with this and a win on time is as good a win as any other.  When your opponent manages his time better than you, a chess player congratulates him or her on their skill. If that is beyond you try another game or play social chess without time limits.

Depends on which player you are playing against and on the position.

In most cases I'd let the opponent's time run out. But if I am familiar with the player, and the game isn't for rating points, I would offer a draw

You bumped a 5 year old thread to add this?