Chess - Play & Learn


FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store


Chess Etiquette: Winning on time when you are extremely behind

  • #201
    I haven’t read the whole thread but this shouldn’t even be a debate. What is the point in having time controls if it’s wrong to win on time?

    It’s not even a technicality. The player with a winning position that is behind on time, burnt more time in order to get a better position.

    That’s the balancing act. Balancing good moves versus faster moves, and making choices about how long to think about a move at certain points in the game.
  • #202

    I'm curious, why is winning on time any different than winning on the board? Why did you decide one rule was more or less important than the others? I understand that you might not like it when you lose or win on time, we can each have our preferences, but I've seen it compared with taking dropped money for oneself, or "rude," "dishonorable," or "mean" behavior.

    To say there is something wrong with people who win in a fair and legal manner is beyond poor sportsmanship, and those people should, in my opinion, grow up. Like I said, you can dislike the time aspect of chess all you want, and there are time controls that cater to your preferences. If you choose to play a fast time control, and the opponent plays within the rules to win, you have no one to blame but yourself. Time is part of the game mode that you chose to play, and you got beat fair and square.

  • #203
    lfPatriotGames wrote:

    It's just a game. The whole point is to have fun, it doesn't matter who wins.

    In the greater scheme of things, of course it doesn't matter if I win or lose a casual chess game. But what I like most about chess is it's challenging. That's what makes it fun. If it didn't make a difference to me if I won or lost, I'd have no incentive to try to win and I wouldn't bother playing. It's only challenging if one cares about the result of the game.

  • #204

    you lost me at "winning"


Online Now