x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

Chess Etiquette: Winning on time when you are extremely behind

  • #201
    Vlei wrote:

    Well, I usually think of the clock as an equalizer. 

    A game without a clock could turn into a stallfest, where parties just wait out the other until  their enemy runs out of patience. 

    Most other sports have clocks, and they don't mind since it removes some of the imbalances that make the sport more complicated than just shooting a ball through a hoop. It also ramps up the challenge on both parties, since they're going to have to work with and against the clock to win. 

    I don't know why other players complain about chess clocks - it's a good way to raise their level. Perhaps they think it's all about winning? If that's so, then that's not very sportsmanlike, now is it?

    A clock is an equalizer. But no clock is also an equalizer. Both players having an unlimited amount of time is an equalizer. There is obviously a need for clocks in competition chess. But for a friendly game I almost always dont have a clock because we like to talk about the game, about what's for dinner, about the latest Below Deck episode, etc. It's just a game. The whole point is to have fun, it doesn't matter who wins.

  • #202

    this argument about chess clocks comes up a lot especially regarding blitz games. lots of people say things like they don't deserve to lose if they are totally about to checkmate their opponent but just ran out of time, while their opponent was making stupid but fast moves. my response is that if their opponent had spent as much time as them to make their moves, then they would not be a few moves away from being checkmated.

  • #203

    5 min game:

    Player1: 1. f3

    Player2: Thinks for 4 min 59 s 1. ...e5

    Player1: 2. g4

    Player2: Loses on time. No skill! NO SKILL!

    Player1: gg

  • #204

    That's it.

  • #205
    I play OTB / online Blitz; in 3 minute + 2sec per move games each 10 seconds worth a point; say a rook advantage to your opponent but you are ahead of 50 seconds still the game is equal provided there is not force mates
  • #206

    Guys just remember how many times u were flagged when u had a winning position, or had a 1 move mate and lost on time. It's only fair that u can do the same. Not even a matter of revenge or getting even, just a matter of fairness and rating accuracy. Why should someone have a higher rating cause they make random moves in a lost position and have a better grip and the mouse than u do? In this case, it's perfectly ethical, fair, legal, and recommended

  • #207

    The essence of blitz games is to win either in position or in time. I have nothing to add.

  • #208
    lfPatriotGames wrote:
    Vlei wrote:

    Well, I usually think of the clock as an equalizer. 

    A game without a clock could turn into a stallfest, where parties just wait out the other until  their enemy runs out of patience. 

    Most other sports have clocks, and they don't mind since it removes some of the imbalances that make the sport more complicated than just shooting a ball through a hoop. It also ramps up the challenge on both parties, since they're going to have to work with and against the clock to win. 

    I don't know why other players complain about chess clocks - it's a good way to raise their level. Perhaps they think it's all about winning? If that's so, then that's not very sportsmanlike, now is it?

    A clock is an equalizer. But no clock is also an equalizer. Both players having an unlimited amount of time is an equalizer. There is obviously a need for clocks in competition chess. But for a friendly game I almost always dont have a clock because we like to talk about the game, about what's for dinner, about the latest Below Deck episode, etc. It's just a game. The whole point is to have fun, it doesn't matter who wins.

     

    Obviously if you are playing over the board, with someone you know it is a whole different proposition.  Playing some random person online in a 5 minute game is hardly a time to start having a chat, you might as well just go to a forum and cut out the chess from that!

     

    It is true that it really doesn't matter who wins in most (or all) chess games, but when I go into a game with that attitude I might as well not play.  Even if it isn't important (which it never is) I play to win because otherwise there's no point me playing.  Rating is unimportant in any meaningful terms too, but it provides some purpose.  I have played unrated games a few times and find myself part way through the game thinking 'It's unrated, it really doesn't matter what happens here' and the focus of the game just goes away.  It still isn't really important when it is rated, but at least defending rating points provides some competitive purpose rather than just artistically moving pieces around.

     

    When I want to admire the beauty of chess I usually watch someone like Levon Aronian play rather than do it myself since his artistry is far beyond mine!

  • #209

    If you're ahead in material but don't have enough time to mate, you're not winning. You're losing or drawing. The time limit is a part of the game.

  • #210
    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.
  • #211

    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.

  • #212
    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.

Top

Online Now