If you prefer to resign in such cases it's up to you, just don't pretend to set an example of high moral standards for others.
Geepers are you this harsh to all newcomers? Are you having a bad day or just grumpy in general?
Did you just set an example of harshness for others?
I raised a question based on a "feeling". It didn't feel right. So, I wanted to research what was normal etiquette versus rules.
When I've won because of time when behind in material, I've always considered that my opponent was ahead because he used too much time to figure out his moves and that he has to pay for that.
That's why they have clocks, otherwise , in a losing position your opponent might go on vacation.
If you prefer to resign in such cases it's up to you, just don't pretend to set an example of high moral standards for others.
Geepers are you this harsh to all newcomers? Are you having a bad day or just grumpy in general?
Did you just set an example of harshness for others?
I raised a question based on a "feeling". It didn't feel right. So, I wanted to research what was normal etiquette versus rules.
I am sorry... I didn't intend to insult you.
Rules exist where etiquette fails. Yet, humans find a way to turn any rule to an advantage the opponent doesn't have. For example, prior to clocks, some players would take hours to make a move, and in the 1800's many a game was abandoned because it was time for evening's close. Later, Fischer and technology had the gumption for "add on" time to avoid time scramble externalities. Fischer felt that a proper game of chess was a thoughtful battle of ideas, and he did not like externalities such as opening memorization, time scrambles, adjournments (where others could analyze your next move)--"It's not chess!" There are many who agree with Fischer, and many who do not. It makes one wonder whether the realm of chess politics is not about "externalities."
Was it Lasker who was playing with a cigar case, and then chewing on an unlit cigar when his opponent complained, “the threat is more powerful than the execution”?
Here’s the answer https://chesshistory.com/winter/extra/nimzowitsch.html
The rules of chess are pretty clear. A player who times out loses the game. There's nothing unfair, improper or illegitimate about winning on time, no matter what the position.
This is why any X|0 is garbage and why 10|5 should not only be a standard format but the default format.
10|5 is certainly good for people incapable of managing their time properly over a full game for sure!
10|5 is certainly good for people incapable of managing their time properly over a full game for sure!
10|5 is standard on lichess and was the format chosen for pogchamps. But I know, all those people are "incapable" according to you in your arrogant ivory tower. To you, giving people options is bad and anyone who wants an increment is "incapable." Get out of my sight.
The rules of chess are pretty clear. A player who times out loses the game. There's nothing unfair, improper or illegitimate about winning on time, no matter what the position.
I agree, these are the rules. Still, I think that people who try to win on time, when losing in the actual game, are just being sore losers (myself included).
Also agree with other things metioned here: people who don't like losing on time should play games with time increments that help to solve the issue of losing on time when in a significant advantage.
The rules of chess are pretty clear. A player who times out loses the game. There's nothing unfair, improper or illegitimate about winning on time, no matter what the position.
I agree, these are the rules. Still, I think that people who try to win on time, when losing in the actual game, are just being sore losers (myself included).
Also agree with other things metioned here: people who don't like losing on time should play games with time increments that help to solve the issue of losing on time when in a significant advantage.
What do you mean by winning on time but losing the actual game? A win on time, regardless of position IS winning the actual game. In sports, they do that all the time. In basketball, one team could be ahead on time, but wants to stall so the opponent does not get a better position (last possession of the game) and potentially win.
It doesn't matter how ugly one team plays, or their position. What matters is the score when the clock reaches zero.
It doesn't matter how ugly one team plays, or their position. What matters is the score when the clock reaches zero.
Trying to win on time in a bad position is poor sportsmanship, and I believe it is against the rules in FIDE.(although don't quote me on that).
It's one thing if your opponent runs out of time naturally, it's another if your opponent runs out of time because you force him/her to.
The rules of chess are pretty clear. A player who times out loses the game. There's nothing unfair, improper or illegitimate about winning on time, no matter what the position.
I agree, these are the rules. Still, I think that people who try to win on time, when losing in the actual game, are just being sore losers (myself included).
Also agree with other things metioned here: people who don't like losing on time should play games with time increments that help to solve the issue of losing on time when in a significant advantage.
What do you mean by winning on time but losing the actual game? A win on time, regardless of position IS winning the actual game. In sports, they do that all the time. In basketball, one team could be ahead on time, but wants to stall so the opponent does not get a better position (last possession of the game) and potentially win.
It doesn't matter how ugly one team plays, or their position. What matters is the score when the clock reaches zero.
For me the actual game is the position and pieces. Time is just a constraint to make it interesting and playable. So when I say losing the actual game, I refer to a lost position, where, for example, the strongest players of all time would unlikely win against a much weaker opponent.
It doesn't matter how ugly one team plays, or their position. What matters is the score when the clock reaches zero.
Trying to win on time in a bad position is poor sportsmanship, and I believe it is against the rules in FIDE.(although don't quote me on that).
It's one thing if your opponent runs out of time naturally, it's another if your opponent runs out of time because you force him/her to.
No. If you are winning time, that is a GOOD position. The clock is the most important piece of the game. It's impossible to win on time AND be in a bad position.
There is an old saying in golf, it's not a post card, it's a scorecard. Meaning it makes no difference (within the rules obviously) HOW you got the score. Nobody draws a picture. What matters is the score at the end. So in chess, if one side sacrifices pieces or position on the board, in order to gain time, that is very often a winning strategy. No different than sacrificing pieces for a checkmate. It still giving up one thing, in order to win.
The rules of chess are pretty clear. A player who times out loses the game. There's nothing unfair, improper or illegitimate about winning on time, no matter what the position.
I agree, these are the rules. Still, I think that people who try to win on time, when losing in the actual game, are just being sore losers (myself included).
Also agree with other things metioned here: people who don't like losing on time should play games with time increments that help to solve the issue of losing on time when in a significant advantage.
What do you mean by winning on time but losing the actual game? A win on time, regardless of position IS winning the actual game. In sports, they do that all the time. In basketball, one team could be ahead on time, but wants to stall so the opponent does not get a better position (last possession of the game) and potentially win.
It doesn't matter how ugly one team plays, or their position. What matters is the score when the clock reaches zero.
For me the actual game is the position and pieces. Time is just a constraint to make it interesting and playable. So when I say losing the actual game, I refer to a lost position, where, for example, the strongest players of all time would unlikely win against a much weaker opponent.
OK. I often play games with no clock. But usually a competitive game has a clock, so it's an integral part of the game.
Players for whom losing on time is too painful might be well advised to examine the reason for their losses. In going over the lost games, they may discover characteristic positions which gave them particular trouble, so that they can then work on these kinds of positions.( I have found that my blunders and mistakes are generally the moves that consumed the most time. ) They may also find that they are prone to excessive self-doubt and repetitive checking for almost every move. Perhaps they are slow in their openings, which should point to the need to develop a small opening repertoire. Or they may be trying to play far above their
level, attempting to calculate long and brilliant combinations which most intermediate players can't do. Losing is also an occasion to reflect on what the game really means to the player. Is it to demonstrate some kind of personal superiority, to "boost one's ego", or is a way to participate in the international and historic fellowship of this marvellous and inexhaustible game which has challenged the minds of the most brilliant human beings?
I would suggest that at an amateur level, wins and losses have no real consequence and that the ongoing mission of an amateur player is to study the game and improve. Time control provides a structure within which to do that. "Trying" to win on time from the outset of a game isn't a good way to approach chess, but accepting the finality of the clock as the game evolves is perfectly reasonable and in my opinion, the mark of a mature player. A player
with a losing position who is about to win on time always has the option to resign, but if everyone did that, time controls would be meaningless in the first place.
Ljubojevic kept playing this endgame just because Bronstein was in extreme time trouble. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1034661
Of course it is legit.
I'm not a terrible chess player, but I know a few who are. I also know a couple people who are actually pretty good. And one thing we all have in common is that we do not expect other people to resign. I can't speak for them, but I personally have never once, in any game I've ever played, expected someone to resign. I expect every game I've ever played to either be finished by checkmate, draw, or agreed abandonment. I've had many games where we play for a while, then just agree to stop. Not agree to draw, just stop playing. We've also played a lot of times where we set up a position and start playing from there. But never once, under any circumstance, have I ever expected the other person to resign.