Chess Etiquette: Winning on time when you are extremely behind

no matter how you do it...if you win on time or a beautiful checkmate after a queen sac...be gracious. its an attractive quality.

i just saw an article by Daniel Rentsch from a year ago where he talks about lag problems on chess.com. they still aren't fixed, apparently. this means more undeserved time wins.

Really annoying when my phone battery dies

+1

Has an Extremely behind what?...husband?

Back in the pre-digital clock days, when the only option was analog clocks, using the clock was a huge strategy. Back then, a lower rated player could complicate a position in order to try and force a higher rated player to burn his time.

Outside of blitz and bullet, increment has largely gotten rid of that strategy. Now the higher rated player can take time to look at the position and find a reasonable line of play, and blitz out  a few moves to increase his time.

For many years, especially in the 2nd half of the 90's, I despised digital clocks because I was low a rated player and was used to trying to win games by complicating the board against higher rated players.

Nowadays I love increment because it gives me the time to find a proper defense or offense against an opponent. Although occasionally I still outright blunder by playing too fast and not using my clock. But that's mainly at chess meets where the socialization factor is more important than winning a chess game.

Usually where an increment is used you get less base time so it shouldn't change much, except in an end game.  Just makes it easier for people who aren't able to manage their time.

Increment wasn't invented for blitz games. It was invented so that when playing classical games, players were less likely to lose on time, and it was needed in order to stop game adjournments.

Once chess engines came on the scene, it was only a matter of time before adjournments would be banished.

You still get less base time in general in a classical game where you have increment, or at least as far as I have seen.  You'll get more time in a longer game that has increment, true, but in games with multiple time controls the first time control can be calculated to give you exactly the same time with increment as you would without it - it's just a safety net for players with poor time management before the last time control.  Obviously after it then it gives a lot more time for games that drag on.

THE CLOCK IS PART OF THE GAME.  When I'm ahead in material and lose on time, it means I didn't move fast enough.  Sometimes at the end, I will try for a draw by taking off all my opponent's mating force.  

Incrememtal time vs analog clock:

The total time played in each comes out to the same based on  number of moves.

For single time control, it presumes 60 moves.

For example: 30 minute sudden death = infinite moves made in 30 minutes.

For example: 15+15 = a 30 minute game based on 60 moves. So in longer games. You can end up using more than 30 minutes of clock time

Yes, you get less base time, but it averages out to something similar. Plus it's easier for a player to manage his time. For a really long game, it makes a huge difference.

That's what I mean, you don't get more time to think about your moves, you can just be lazier managing your time with increment.

The whole point of a clock is to limit how much time players use to contemplate moves. It's the game of chess, not the game of "clock".

Whether that limit should be on a per move basis or an overall basis is open to plenty of debate though.  I see so many people lauding increment as being some great solution to things.  Sure, in the final time control it makes a big difference.  Before then it's basically just like feng shui and it seems chess players, in general, are very poor at managing their time, therefore being given the safety net of a minimum e.g. 30s to be able to play each move, however badly they manage their base time gives them more security.

Whether you like it or not the clock is just as much a legitimate element of chess as the position of the pieces on the board. The clock has to be used to limit the playing time. I personally prefer to play rapid chess at this site at 15 minutes per game with 10 second increments. Quite frequently I use a lot of clock and have less than a minute left while my opponent has ten minutes or more. I will be in a superior position but end up losing because of time pressure. That's my fault. I don't complain and neither should anyone else. In rare instances the situation is reversed and my opponent while winning on the board basically runs out of time to think and blunders me the victory. When that happens I don't feel guilty about it because I managed my time better  than him and deserve to win.

Our lives don't last for an eternity. The world won't stop it's schedule or the things it expects us to do so we can finish a game of chess using as much time as we want. Time limits should be beyond reproach and it's not proper etiquette to resign a position because your losing on the board but ahead on time. 

When you play 30 second chess, it's all about the clock. Even so I've mated and been mated playing such a travesty. 

I'm not comforting but let's just day at least you didn't get checkmated and butchered

If you click on your own post, you can edit and delete it.

You are never truly behind if you are ahead on time.