There's no such thing as 'not fair' in chess unless someone is actually cheating. You sit down at the board (metaphorically, at least) both with the same amount of time and the same pieces and the same rules.
If one person shows a cavalier disregard for their clock to the extent that they are unable to achieve the goal of the game, checkmate, within the time they were given then they don't deserve to win.
It isn't great skill to get a winning position by taking longer to get there than your opponent if he/she used their time sensibly and you used all your time except 10 seconds and then can't finish what you started.
Sportsmanship is another of those airy-fairy things that gets thrown in when players like to force their own definitions of 'rules' that don't really exist onto others. Sportsmanship is playing within the rules of the game. Nothing more, nothing less. If it's over the board then it's not sporting to kick your opponent under the table or spit on the board, but online there's no such thing as un-sporting given people can disable chat, if they want, which is the only place unsporting actions can occur.
People should play longer time controls if they don't want to have to be burdened by playing the game within the time they agreed with their opponent.
Chess Etiquette: Winning on time when you are extremely behind
Nyctophile88 wrote:
I've both won and lost by timeout but if my opponent is running extremely low on time but has a COMPLETELY WINNING position, I WILL resign the game when he/she has less than 10 seconds but checkmate is still a few moves away.
So you'll resign when you are about to win on time. Suppose the same situation, but then your opponent blunders his queen because he had no time to think about his move? Would you still resign? Kind of the same thing. He was winning even though he is about to lose. It's the clocks fault. Why take a victory like that?
You should probably just resign every game if you are willing to accept your opponents strengths and willing to overlook his mistakes.
Material advantage alone doesn't determine the outcome of a match.
If your position is completely lost, like in a king vs king and queen endgame, I think it is extremely shameful to try and get a win by timeout. That's exactly like breaking the law and getting away by exploiting a legal loophole. For example, the player who won on time exploited the fact that winning on time is allowed and chose to take advantage of it despite the fact that he was completely lost but checkmate was 7 moves away and the winning player had just 3 seconds to execute it. How is that a fair win by any means?
If the game can go either way, then a win by timeout is fair. If the position is completely equal but one player wins by timeout, it is unfortunate for the player who lost but the win is still fine(unless the player who won on time refused a draw offer just so he could win on time.. and yes, I've had that happen to me. The guy even admitted that's what he was going for.)
I've both won and lost by timeout but if my opponent is running extremely low on time but has a COMPLETELY WINNING position, I WILL resign the game when he/she has less than 10 seconds but checkmate is still a few moves away.
One of my friends lost a completely drawn position on time. He offered a draw to his opponent that was repeatedly refused. No points for guessing why.
This is the biggest load of nonsense I have ever read on his site.
For starters, if you're winning on time your position is never completely lost.
For another, if you have a material or position advantage but you have taken too long to think about your moves then that is poor time managament and you deserve to lose.
I have been in drawn positions were I have 30 seconds left and my opponent has 5. They waste their precious time sending draw requests because its evident that in 4 seconds I will get the win.
What you suggest is not in the spirit of the game at all and actually it is a form of cheating because you aren't playing moves you feel most likely to avoid defeat.
Only a bad sportsman would resign a game where victory is all but guaranteed. Only a bad sportsman would accept a draw when victory is all but guaranteed. This game is about winning and if you play time restrictions it's about winning within that time.
Shame on you.
On the contrary, you ARE part of the problem.
"Only a bad sportsman would resign a game where victory is all but guaranteed"
There's a reason players resign a lost position. Or agree to a draw regardless of how much time is left. Maybe you should try and understand why.
"I have been in drawn positions were I have 30 seconds left and my opponent has 5. They waste their precious time sending draw requests because its evident that in 4 seconds I will get the win."
No. All you're doing is being a "bad sportsman". If the position is completely equal and neither player can try and get an advantage, then the outcome is a draw regardless of the time left for each player.
The problem lies either in your sportsmanship or in your comprehension.
You cannot agree to a timed game, take toon long deliberating your moves and then expect not to be punished when your clock runs out.
What you are doing there is asking for an unfair advantage.
If you know a series of moves will lead to your victory and instead you resign then you are also being a poor sportsman as you are not playing competitively.
Players like you need eradicating from this site.
I've learned, painfully, that I cannot time out my opponent in 3 2 and have started to resign when they get the fourth queen.
There's no such thing as 'not fair' in chess unless someone is actually cheating. You sit down at the board (metaphorically, at least) both with the same amount of time and the same pieces and the same rules.
If one person shows a cavalier disregard for their clock to the extent that they are unable to achieve the goal of the game, checkmate, within the time they were given then they don't deserve to win.
It isn't great skill to get a winning position by taking longer to get there than your opponent if he/she used their time sensibly and you used all your time except 10 seconds and then can't finish what you started.
Sportsmanship is another of those airy-fairy things that gets thrown in when players like to force their own definitions of 'rules' that don't really exist onto others. Sportsmanship is playing within the rules of the game. Nothing more, nothing less. If it's over the board then it's not sporting to kick your opponent under the table or spit on the board, but online there's no such thing as un-sporting given people can disable chat, if they want, which is the only place unsporting actions can occur.
People should play longer time controls if they don't want to have to be burdened by playing the game within the time they agreed with their opponent.
Yep.
Now that I think of it, the rules of chess both online and in real life are some of the most fair of any competition. Since there is little to no luck in chess, nor are there very many outside influences (like the sun getting in your eyes) it would be hard to make it more fair than it is already. Equal time, equal pieces, equal starting position, etc.
Material advantage alone doesn't determine the outcome of a match.
If your position is completely lost, like in a king vs king and queen endgame, I think it is extremely shameful to try and get a win by timeout. That's exactly like breaking the law and getting away by exploiting a legal loophole. For example, the player who won on time exploited the fact that winning on time is allowed and chose to take advantage of it despite the fact that he was completely lost but checkmate was 7 moves away and the winning player had just 3 seconds to execute it. How is that a fair win by any means?
If the game can go either way, then a win by timeout is fair. If the position is completely equal but one player wins by timeout, it is unfortunate for the player who lost but the win is still fine(unless the player who won on time refused a draw offer just so he could win on time.. and yes, I've had that happen to me. The guy even admitted that's what he was going for.)
I've both won and lost by timeout but if my opponent is running extremely low on time but has a COMPLETELY WINNING position, I WILL resign the game when he/she has less than 10 seconds but checkmate is still a few moves away.
One of my friends lost a completely drawn position on time. He offered a draw to his opponent that was repeatedly refused. No points for guessing why.
I dont understand your analogy. If someone breaks the law and gets away with it because of a legal loophole did they really break the law? The rules of chess apply to everyone equally. If someone wins on time its exactly the same thing as winning by checkmate. The rules are identical for both sides. Either side could win by time, or, either side could win by checkmate. As far as I know there are no rules of chess that say one way of winning counts more, or less, than the other. Some people even win by other means, like the opponent resigning, disqualification, etc. I think the rules count all wins, no matter how it's done, as one point.
Think of it like other competitions are decided. Like sports for example. In a basketball game if team A is up 2 points the entire game and team B is never leading, not even once, should team B lose just because they made a miracle 3 pointer with .01 seconds left to play? The rules say team B wins, even though they were losing, maybe badly, for 99.999% of the game.
Chess is just like most other competitions, time is the most important factor.
Maybe I wasn't clear on what I was actually referring to with the analogy. I did mention a few scenarios where winning on time is fine. What I was actually referring to when I said "loophole" was the fact that there are players who take advantage of the fact that they can win on time and continue to play on despite the position being down to just a king vs king and queen endgame (the BEST you can get out of a king and queen vs king endgame is a draw if you're the side with just the king.. and THAT is if the opponent terribly blunders) or when the position is a complete draw (like a king and rook vs king and rook.. or a bishop and pawn vs a bishop and pawn) but one player declining the draw offer to win on time.. and I'm NOT exaggerating when I say this stuff happens a lot of the time.
THAT is NOT FAIR at all.
I'm only talking about positions where there's not a chance of winning. Draw by stalemate? Maybe(as the winning player is running low on time and can blunder by forcing his opponent to a stalemate)
Like I mentioned in my comment, I HAVE won on time and I've lost on time too. The majority of the games, I regards them as unfortunate losses. But I've also lost games where I was just one move away from checkmate, had completely drawn positions when my opponent simply refused to accept a draw and even openly said he was doing that so he could win on time etc. Notice that in these situations, the other doesn't have even a remote chance of victory.
How is any of that fair?
For starters, a bishop/pawn vs bishop/pawn endgame can be very complicated. There is little chance I would resign such a game, if for no other reason, to learn. And especially if someone is low on time, definitely worth going for the win, either on time or by checkmate.
Yes you did mention a few scenarios where winning on time is fine. But in reality, ALL scenarios where the game is won on time are fine. That's why the rules about time exist. They are ALL equally acceptable wins. Honestly I dont understand what you mean when you say it's not fair that someone declines a draw and instead tries to win on time. How is it not fair to play by the rules everyone agreed to? That's like saying someone won a car race on time, but it's not fair because his car is ugly. Winning a chess game on time may not look as pretty as a 5 move forced checkmate, sometimes winning on time is very ugly with all the bad moves made, but style points dont count. No matter how it's done, it's still one point for a win.
If you cant win by checkmate, you are SUPPOSED to try to win on time. That's how timed games of chess work.
It evens out. I used to think that it is unsporting to play for a win on time in a dead-drawn position but now I'm more relaxed about it and accept that there's a skill involved. But I won't play "Fischer clock" incremental times like 3:2 or whatever. I encountered too many people who were not playing chess in the normally accepted pattern, but who were setting out to win on time by creating a difficult position, often where they were worse, and then boring their opponent to death. Sometimes also they would play extremely slowly and use up almost all of their time and then just play at random but very fast. Gamesmanship. I don't consider it chess and I only play fixed time limits where a player can lose on time.
If the position is completely equal and neither player can try and get an advantage, then the outcome is a draw regardless of the time left for each player.
If it took one player less time to achieve a completely equal position, I don't see how it can be unfair if he wins on time.
And even if a position is completely equal there is always a chance of getting an advantage if my opponent blunders because of time pressure.
If you don't want to loose equal positions on time just play with increment.
Yesterday Aronion made a blunder when in extreme time trouble, giving Caruana a win in a completely drawn end game. Fabi should have offered a draw.
This game I played was with 30 min time control. Opponent "won" on time with only 4 seconds to spare on clock. This was a completely drawn position, until he blundered and gave me a win. But because of a connection lag he won on time. I don't think it's the same as blitz where winning on time is legitimate. Trying to flag your opponent for the last 5 min of the game is just unsporting.
This game I played was with 30 min time control. Opponent "won" on time with only 4 seconds to spare on clock. This was a completely drawn position, until he blundered and gave me a win. But because of a connection lag he won on time. I don't think it's the same as blitz where winning on time is legitimate. Trying to flag your opponent for the last 5 min of the game is just unsporting.
You were unable to force a win and unable to force a draw, the result is absolutely fair, end of story.
This game I played was with 30 min time control. Opponent "won" on time with only 4 seconds to spare on clock. This was a completely drawn position, until he blundered and gave me a win. But because of a connection lag he won on time. I don't think it's the same as blitz where winning on time is legitimate. Trying to flag your opponent for the last 5 min of the game is just unsporting.
You were unable to force a win and unable to force a draw, the result is absolutely fair, end of story.
That's what unsporting means. Technically within the rules, but not something you can be proud about
This game I played was with 30 min time control. Opponent "won" on time with only 4 seconds to spare on clock. This was a completely drawn position, until he blundered and gave me a win. But because of a connection lag he won on time. I don't think it's the same as blitz where winning on time is legitimate. Trying to flag your opponent for the last 5 min of the game is just unsporting.
You were unable to force a win and unable to force a draw, the result is absolutely fair, end of story.
That's what unsporting means. Technically within the rules, but not something you can be proud about
That's difficult to say. I'm sure others would agree there are very different definitions of sportsmanship. What if his only goal was to win on time? Then he would probably be very proud of the win. For all you know, he may think it's unsporting to win by checkmate when it's clear a time loss is imminent.
This game I played was with 30 min time control. Opponent "won" on time with only 4 seconds to spare on clock. This was a completely drawn position, until he blundered and gave me a win. But because of a connection lag he won on time. I don't think it's the same as blitz where winning on time is legitimate. Trying to flag your opponent for the last 5 min of the game is just unsporting.
You were unable to force a win and unable to force a draw, the result is absolutely fair, end of story.
That's what unsporting means. Technically within the rules, but not something you can be proud about
It's within the rules, word "technically" means nothing in this context. I would be proud of such win - put up max resistance and force your opponent to think for too long.
On move 90 you had 5 sec left. With 90...Kg3 you could win a pawn in 5 moves and secure a draw. 90...Ke5 was a blunder... but it's so much easier to blame your opponent for bad sportsmanship.
P.S. Final position is a theoretical draw and you run out of time. Your loss is the only conceivable result here.
Unsporting is just something people make up to suit themselves. It's unsporting to claim someone else is being unsporting by playing within the rules. If a 30 minute game comes down to one player losing on time and the other having 4s left then neither managed their clock well and it is just a matter of who moves that bit faster at the end. People nowadays just expect to be given stuff rather than earning it. You've earned a draw when you've drawn. Before that you've earned nothing and there's nothing unsporting about playing within the rules agreed to by both the players. If you don't want the clock to be a factor play with 2 hours and an increment.
Yesterday Aronion made a blunder when in extreme time trouble, giving Caruana a win in a completely drawn end game. Fabi should have offered a draw.
according to the rules of the tournament draws cant be offered. It was Aronian's bad time management that he lost. There is nothing unethical about winning on time
I know I was being sarcastic.
This game I played was with 30 min time control. Opponent "won" on time with only 4 seconds to spare on clock. This was a completely drawn position, until he blundered and gave me a win. But because of a connection lag he won on time. I don't think it's the same as blitz where winning on time is legitimate. Trying to flag your opponent for the last 5 min of the game is just unsporting.
If you don't want time to be a factor then play daily chess over 14 days.
Your opponent absolutely should be proud. He forced a difficult position that you took too long to evaluate and thus secured victory.
Absolutely legitimate.
This game I played was with 30 min time control. Opponent "won" on time with only 4 seconds to spare on clock. This was a completely drawn position, until he blundered and gave me a win. But because of a connection lag he won on time. I don't think it's the same as blitz where winning on time is legitimate. Trying to flag your opponent for the last 5 min of the game is just unsporting.
Your opponent didn't blunder and give you a win. Your opponent made a mistake and gave you the opportunity to win. It's your job to take advantage of that. If you dont, you could draw, or even worse, lose. I agree with Uri, you made a very bad mistake at the end that cost you the game. You had enough time to get that last pawn and get a draw. But you didn't. That's your fault, not your opponents. Your opponent did almost everything right, but most importantly, your opponent managed his time better than you did. You did in fact have a drawing position, but didn't play well enough to get to that point. Your opponent should be proud of that win. I know I would be.
This game I played was with 30 min time control. Opponent "won" on time with only 4 seconds to spare on clock. This was a completely drawn position, until he blundered and gave me a win. But because of a connection lag he won on time. I don't think it's the same as blitz where winning on time is legitimate. Trying to flag your opponent for the last 5 min of the game is just unsporting.
If you don't want time to be a factor then play daily chess over 14 days.
Your opponent absolutely should be proud. He forced a difficult position that you took too long to evaluate and thus secured victory.
Absolutely legitimate.
Basically, if you block a player you feel has been unsporting, does that mean he can't accept your open challenges, so you will be free of him forever? We all have our opinions regarding what is sporting and what is not.
Material advantage alone doesn't determine the outcome of a match.
If your position is completely lost, like in a king vs king and queen endgame, I think it is extremely shameful to try and get a win by timeout. That's exactly like breaking the law and getting away by exploiting a legal loophole. For example, the player who won on time exploited the fact that winning on time is allowed and chose to take advantage of it despite the fact that he was completely lost but checkmate was 7 moves away and the winning player had just 3 seconds to execute it. How is that a fair win by any means?
If the game can go either way, then a win by timeout is fair. If the position is completely equal but one player wins by timeout, it is unfortunate for the player who lost but the win is still fine(unless the player who won on time refused a draw offer just so he could win on time.. and yes, I've had that happen to me. The guy even admitted that's what he was going for.)
I've both won and lost by timeout but if my opponent is running extremely low on time but has a COMPLETELY WINNING position, I WILL resign the game when he/she has less than 10 seconds but checkmate is still a few moves away.
One of my friends lost a completely drawn position on time. He offered a draw to his opponent that was repeatedly refused. No points for guessing why.
This is the biggest load of nonsense I have ever read on his site.
For starters, if you're winning on time your position is never completely lost.
For another, if you have a material or position advantage but you have taken too long to think about your moves then that is poor time managament and you deserve to lose.
I have been in drawn positions were I have 30 seconds left and my opponent has 5. They waste their precious time sending draw requests because its evident that in 4 seconds I will get the win.
What you suggest is not in the spirit of the game at all and actually it is a form of cheating because you aren't playing moves you feel most likely to avoid defeat.
Only a bad sportsman would resign a game where victory is all but guaranteed. Only a bad sportsman would accept a draw when victory is all but guaranteed. This game is about winning and if you play time restrictions it's about winning within that time.
Shame on you.
On the contrary, you ARE part of the problem.
"Only a bad sportsman would resign a game where victory is all but guaranteed"
There's a reason players resign a lost position. Or agree to a draw regardless of how much time is left. Maybe you should try and understand why.
"I have been in drawn positions were I have 30 seconds left and my opponent has 5. They waste their precious time sending draw requests because its evident that in 4 seconds I will get the win."
No. All you're doing is being a "bad sportsman". If the position is completely equal and neither player can try and get an advantage, then the outcome is a draw regardless of the time left for each player.