Where's Dr Phil when you need him? 😮
Chess Etiquette: Winning on time when you are extremely behind
Sort:
Jun 29, 2024
0
#403
Optimissed wrote:
The idea of the honourable player not resigning was more a thing of the 1850s and before, carried through to the beginning of the 20th C only due to a few remaining romantic types. The more pragmatic era of Paulsen and Staunton was dominant later in the century.
At the time (the 1850s) Paul Morphy was sometimes criticized for the dryness of his style.
... an accusation that seems surreal to us, nowadays.
Jun 29, 2024
0
#404
blueemu wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
The idea of the honourable player not resigning was more a thing of the 1850s and before, carried through to the beginning of the 20th C only due to a few remaining romantic types. The more pragmatic era of Paulsen and Staunton was dominant later in the century.
At the time (the 1850s) Paul Morphy was sometimes criticized for the dryness of his style.
... an accusation that seems surreal to us, nowadays.
blueemu, do you have a link or source I can look that up?
Jun 29, 2024
0
#405
Impractical wrote:
blueemu wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
The idea of the honourable player not resigning was more a thing of the 1850s and before, carried through to the beginning of the 20th C only due to a few remaining romantic types. The more pragmatic era of Paulsen and Staunton was dominant later in the century.
At the time (the 1850s) Paul Morphy was sometimes criticized for the dryness of his style.
... an accusation that seems surreal to us, nowadays.
blueemu, do you have a link or source I can look that up?
Not at hand, no.
IIRC it was in a book by a pretty well-known player, though.
llama_l wrote:
zone_chess wrote:
Colin20G wrote:
Rules are rules. And generally people who whine because of "muh you've won on time but my position is better" are the first to flag you when they can. The absolute masters of double standards. Don't pay attention their garbage. If you agree to play 5 minutes you agree to lose when your time run off, the same applies to your opponent.
Nailed it. Etiquette is a hypocrisy.
Nah, that's a super lazy analysis. "They" are always contradicting themselves, because "they" (when referring to any large group of people) don't actually exist. Individuals have different ideas. Don't pretend all these people are the same person.
In reality the interesting point is more along the lines of selective memory. For example if I'm outplaying my opponent for 30 moves, then as a consequence, I might be ahead 90 seconds vs their 30. A logical way of leveraging this large time advantage is to play OK moves very quickly, allowing the position to slip to equality but maintaining my time advantage. In the end I might win K+R vs K+R by flagging, but this was not dirty or lucky, it was the logical end to a game where I transformed one advantage into another and outplayed my opponent the entire time. My opponent might complain, selectively remembering only the last few moves, but that's nonsense.
This seems a natural way to win utilizing a time advantage. My personal dislike with non increment chess online is that you're often flagging to someone who is simply better at flagging, not at chess. Maybe the position was equal and you were even ahead on time, but if you don't have mouse skills you're a lame duck and losing is often the only option. Then there are the connection issues that often plague me on this site specifically even though I have good internet. I don't think it's as big of an issue in general though as people make it out to be. If you don't like it, then just don't play it. Even in top level events where there is money on the line; actually then it is an even worse position to take because you cannot expect somebody to give up a cash prize in order to not flag you.
blueemu escribió:
Impractical wrote:
blueemu wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
The idea of the honourable player not resigning was more a thing of the 1850s and before, carried through to the beginning of the 20th C only due to a few remaining romantic types. The more pragmatic era of Paulsen and Staunton was dominant later in the century.
At the time (the 1850s) Paul Morphy was sometimes criticized for the dryness of his style.
... an accusation that seems surreal to us, nowadays.
blueemu, do you have a link or source I can look that up?
Not at hand, no.
IIRC it was in a book by a pretty well-known player, though.
Yes, he could do something like trading queens to win a pawn! 😳
Jun 29, 2024
0
#408
I enjoy running opponents out of time in dead drawn endings. If you have 25 seconds left, you better be quick to earn that draw by the 50 move rule.
Jun 30, 2024
0
#409
0110001101101000 wrote:
When I am in a winning position, but behind on the clock, I like to sacrifice my extra material so me and my opponent have exactly the same amount of pieces on the board. That way it's fair because you even the playing field.
Wow, that's nice of you. I use my extra pieces to win.
Jun 30, 2024
0
#410
JoeTheV wrote:
Put yourself in your opponent's shoes. How would you feel if you were Black and he was White and he still managed to win although you have more material? I get fed up already in plenty of games when my opponents refuse to resign when I am clearly winning but run out of time.
Winning on time in situations like this is to me poor sportsmanship, and doesn't reflect how the winner actually plays. If anything, I think it's insulting and rude.
This doesn't apply though when both sides have comparable amounts of material. But in games like the one mentioned above, it most certainly does apply as bad manners.
Managing your clock is part of the game, is the way I see it. If you can play well, but keep losing on time, that's nobody's fault but yours. If you can achieve winning positions but can't hold your clock, either play longer time controls, or move faster. I've played a game, where my opponent was two queens to my king and pawn, had 20 seconds left, missed two mate in threes, two mate in two's and a mate in one, and lost on time. I think if their going to be three queens up and miss the mate/ flag, that's their fault and they should go play longer time controls. Now I do think at the elite level it can be different, but unless you're playing professionally in a long time control event, I think it's fine to flag.
It's always fine to flag, it's only that in top level it usually works differently. There's a legendary Bronstein vs Lubojevic game where B sacked his queen for three minor pieces in the early middlegame. The outcome was unclear until the end, but when it was all lost for Lubojevic, Bronstein was in such a bad zeitnot that almost got flagged.
Jul 1, 2024
0
#412
this is why in serious tournaments for FIDE you use increment, with 30 seconds added per move, there is no excuse for running out of time. if you play in another format like time delay or even play g/x, you have to take the seriousness of time trouble into consideration. If your conscience still bothers you in these rare cases, offer a draw when their time is super low (esp if no delay or increment) although offering the draw may make them aware of their time situation if they oblivious
personally, the only time i offer a courtesy draw is in a friendly game where say i my opponent has an unclear advantage ( say a pawn and a rook + rook endgame ) but they about to clock out . to acknowledge my opponent played equal or better than me, i offer the courtesy draw since winning on time when i had no right to win leaves a sour taste in the victor and a sense of hollow victory in the lucky winner.
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
to acknowledge my opponent played equal or better than me
But they didn't play better than you. You played a strategy that you could play out with the time you had. They got themselves into a situation using their strategy that killed them, they ran out of time while you had time to spare. Their strategy may have won them a classic chess game against you. But clearly you are more adept at the clock than they are. Which is really interesting, that someone could be far better than someone else at any classic game they play, but about equal or maybe even worse than you at a certain time control. They play the game maybe far better than you ever will, but you think faster than them. So your thinking might be stinking, but when they need to think as fast as you then suddenly you can hold your own. Every victory on time is earned imo, in its own way.
Jul 28, 2024
0
#414
Impractical wrote:
Where's Dr Phil when you need him? 😮
You never need a quack, nor do you need a qualified psychologist whose advice departs from all available data. This is true of Dr. Phil as much as it it of James Dobson. They have the credentials, but they spurn the standards of their profession to push personal views that not only are not research based, but often go directly against what research shows.
Jul 29, 2024
0
#416
StartingSquare wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
to acknowledge my opponent played equal or better than me
But they didn't play better than you. You played a strategy that you could play out with the time you had. They got themselves into a situation using their strategy that killed them, they ran out of time while you had time to spare. Their strategy may have won them a classic chess game against you. But clearly you are more adept at the clock than they are. Which is really interesting, that someone could be far better than someone else at any classic game they play, but about equal or maybe even worse than you at a certain time control. They play the game maybe far better than you ever will, but you think faster than them. So your thinking might be stinking, but when they need to think as fast as you then suddenly you can hold your own. Every victory on time is earned imo, in its own way.
what happens at the board is objective, whether they could have played the same 5 seconds or 5 minutes faster speculation. Hence the gentlemans draw.
Aug 2, 2024
0
#417
Ziryab wrote:
Impractical wrote:
Where's Dr Phil when you need him? 😮
You never need a quack, nor do you need a qualified psychologist whose advice departs from all available data. This is true of Dr. Phil as much as it it of James Dobson. They have the credentials, but they spurn the standards of their profession to push personal views that not only are not research based, but often go directly against what research shows.
My dear Ziryab, those "standards of the profession" and "what research shows" change with time, depending on the votes by the professionals. When the grant money that feeds the professionals comes with donor's bias, then bias creeps into the voting on meaning of research into to workings of nature. The earth continues to turn regardless of voting.
So, Dr Phil serves as good a model as any for pointing out that our topic is into the wonderings about human behavior.
Aug 2, 2024
0
#418
Impractical wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Impractical wrote:
Where's Dr Phil when you need him? 😮
You never need a quack, nor do you need a qualified psychologist whose advice departs from all available data. This is true of Dr. Phil as much as it it of James Dobson. They have the credentials, but they spurn the standards of their profession to push personal views that not only are not research based, but often go directly against what research shows.
My dear Ziryab, those "standards of the profession" and "what research shows" change with time, depending on the votes by the professionals. When the grant money that feeds the professionals comes with donor's bias, then bias creeps into the voting on meaning of research into to workings of nature. The earth continues to turn regardless of voting.
So, Dr Phil serves as good a model as any for pointing out that our topic is into the wonderings about human behavior.
Professional standards in psychology and other social sciences have been refined, but have not reversed. Dobson spurns them. McGraw spurns them. Neither are credible.
Winning on time by pre-moving randomly when you were wayyyy down in material, had only 3 seconds left compared to their 30 seconds, is the sweetest victory in blitz. And winning on time by randomly moving in classic chess must feel even better.