Cheap win?
Sort:
Why would you want to win that way? I appreciate you bringing it up, but seriously?
To me, chess is about learning, doing it the right way, I don't get hung up on my number, if I want to do that I'll go play golf.
Technically, yes you won, time is part of some of the games, but deep down you know the answer. Winning should make you feel good, not question it.
Watchthis15 wrote:
yeah that's true, I'll keep that in mind for my future games. I appreciate your input
Why would you want to win that way? I appreciate you bringing it up, but seriously? To me, chess is about learning, doing it the right way, I don't get hung up on my number, if I want to do that I'll go play golf. Technically, yes you won, time is part of some of the games, but deep down you know the answer. Winning should make you feel good, not question it.
If it's a blitz or bullet game, then what you did is not a bit cheap. But trying to win on time on a lost standard time control game is poor sportsmanship.
shine5 wrote:
it was a 10 minute blitz game
If it's a blitz or bullet game, then what you did is not a bit cheap. But trying to win on time on a lost standard time control game is poor sportsmanship.
kafbucks wrote:
where my opponent essentially had the game won.
I noticed he was really low on time and I managed to stall long enough to make him run out of time.
yeah he had the game won and i should've just resigned.
He did not have the game won if he was not able to checkmate you within his time control.
How much time did he have left ?
Like I said, he did not have it won and there was no reason for you to resign.
Nov 24, 2015
0
#7
Your opponent didn't understand how to win the position, so you won the game. Looking at the game he missed a few simple mates and could have won your queen twice. If you opponent isn't good enough to win with a huge plus in material then they need to play longer time controls. There is nothing "cheap" about asking your opponent to show a bare minimum amount of technique. Especially when it's a blitz game.
Playing out these games is how both players learn how to win these kinds of positions. It would have been incorrect to resign simply because you're down in material.
Nov 24, 2015
0
#8
There's no such thing as a cheap win. A win is a win. You might as well play without clocks if you (or your opponent) aren't going to take the time seriously as a constraint.
Maybe you would have found better moves to avoid going a Rook down had you also had asuch a cavalier attitude to time and spent too lon on your moves, but then you would have lost on time instead.
I agree with what appears to be the general consent in the answers you are getting. In blitz, time is a factor just as important as the position itself.
I can't recall how many times I have heard the commentators of the Sinquefield events say that THE blitz formula is to make decent moves fast.
If your opponent couldn't catch up with you on the clock, then too bad for him.
I agree time is part of the game, but the OP said he stalled in order to win on time. I think it was classy to ask, but to me it's the equivalent of running around the ring to last until the end of the round. Yes you can do it, and yes you can win, imho that is a cheap win.
On the other hand, punching it out and lasting until the end is honourable.
Just my thoughts.
Nov 24, 2015
0
#11
No problem. Flag your opponent by any means necessary and don't give it a second thought. Prolong the game in a lost position to win on time by all means. He knew what the time control was at the outset. Yes, maybe he played superior moves but took too long to do so. Let him pay for it. Get some killer instinct. You shouldn't even be second guessing yourself with this thread.
If necessary, offer your opponent a beer--they always resign for that.
kafbucks wrote:
I managed to stall long enough to make him run out of time. I guess my question is would you consider this a cheap win?
I just lost a won game on time. My own fault as it is my clock. You win some you lose some. That's chess. People who complain it is cheap should simply learn how to close the deal in the agreed upon time limit. If they can't, they don't deserve the point. Play well!
I can see it's bothering you and it really shouldn't. The rules on time limits are quite clear. If your opponent ran out of time it's not your fault. It's just part of the game. You sound like a nice guy, don't worry about it.
Watchthis15 wrote:
but to me it's the equivalent of running around the ring to last until the end of the round.
No it is not. In boxing there is one time control identical for both players.
Nov 25, 2015
0
#16
It's more the equivalent of winning the long jump despite someone else jumping further because they stepped over the mark to make an illegal jump that didn't count.
Hey guys. Having some coffee. What is going on?
The sweetest win of all is when your opponent has queens and rooks and you got a bare king with one pawn that's blocked and can't possibly be promoted and it's mate on the move and your opponent loses on time.
It's better than sex.
Hello everyone and thank you in advanced for reading my post. I'm not sure if this has been up for discussion or not, but I just finished a game where my opponent essentially had the game won, he had his queen and a rook and i just had my queen. I noticed he was really low on time and I managed to stall long enough to make him run out of time. I guess my question is would you consider this a cheap win? I love chess, I love winning, but i don't want to win with cheap tactics. I keep having this argument in my head on one side yeah he had the game won and i should've just resigned. On the other hand, it was his fault for taking so long. What do you guys think? Any advice is appreciated but please be respectful with your replies.