Chess Etiquette: Winning on time when you are extremely behind

Pulpofeira
Mornstar7 escribió:

The clock IS a part of the game. I have seen IMs fight to the end against queen and rook with only the king and 2 pawns, who ended outplaying their opponents into a stalemate draw!

I think that what is shameful is the opposite. It is when I see someone playing blitz who does not accept defeat by running out of time. I’ve heard the usual: “If we would play it out, you would lose”. Well, guess what... I once gave that chance to the loser, and ended up beating him twice.

Guys, the rules are the rules. If you use up your allotted time trying to get a clear positional advantage, that is YOUR choice. If you prefer to play games until the bitter end, then by all means, play slower time controls. 

It is bad form and very low class, to lose on time and then try to shame the winner into changing the rules. You will NEVER see a strong, confident player do such a thing. This is a syndrome seen only in sore loser beginners. 

I agree.

Optimissed

I will ALWAYS play on if I think I have a genuine chance of winning or drawing. I dropped a whole piece in the opening of a 10 min game earlier and I thought, well, I've lost a lot of rating points in the last month .... I can play at 200 stronger than my rating and I can see chances. I went on to win. It happened a second time .... I'm playing badly at the moment ..... and I did the same but I could see my opponent was playing very well and solidly so I resigned because I realistically stood no chance and I can use the time better by winning the next game instead.

TheCalculatorKid
Optimissed wrote:

I will ALWAYS play on if I think I have a genuine chance of winning or drawing. I dropped a whole piece in the opening of a 10 min game earlier and I thought, well, I've lost a lot of rating points in the last month .... I can play at 200 stronger than my rating and I can see chances. I went on to win. It happened a second time .... I'm playing badly at the moment ..... and I did the same but I could see my opponent was playing very well and solidly so I resigned because I realistically stood no chance and I can use the time better by winning the next game instead.

 

Genuine includes on time as well. 

Optimissed

Occasionally I will decline to take a win on time if I think my opponent played well and deserves it but that is out of chivalry and I would never expect it of someone else. Occasionally when the compliment is returned, it's a nice surprise.

 

EndgameStudier
glamdring27 wrote:

I certainly wouldn't resign against someone who gets 3 Queens when they have almost no time on the clock!  If its inevitable that they'll beat me then they'll beat me.  If they don't then maybe they only got into the position to have 3 Queens because I moved faster and made mistakes whereas they played accurately but didn't leave themselves enough time to finish.  People seem to ignore that fact when they say they were winning but lost on time.  In many cases I have an even position, but I make mistakes, get what would be a losing position, but win on time.  The reason being I made sure I played to the clock so I couldn't play good moves, my opponent didn't play to the clock and thus made better moves.

Well that is not chess, if don't even have enough time to think of a decent move. Also, premoves seem to take .5 secs and not .01

glamdring27

What isn't chess?  Playing bad moves?  Most people on this site do it all the time!  If both players are low on time a game doesn't just get declared null and void.  The players have to play moves.  Sometimes they are fast bad moves, sometimes they are slower better moves, but they are pointless if you don't have time to make enough of them to win the game.  Anyone can play better moves if they stick two fingers up to the clock and expect their opponent to give up if they spend all their time finding one great move.

ChessieSystem101
EndgameStudier wrote:
glamdring27 wrote:

I certainly wouldn't resign against someone who gets 3 Queens when they have almost no time on the clock!  If its inevitable that they'll beat me then they'll beat me.  If they don't then maybe they only got into the position to have 3 Queens because I moved faster and made mistakes whereas they played accurately but didn't leave themselves enough time to finish.  People seem to ignore that fact when they say they were winning but lost on time.  In many cases I have an even position, but I make mistakes, get what would be a losing position, but win on time.  The reason being I made sure I played to the clock so I couldn't play good moves, my opponent didn't play to the clock and thus made better moves.

Well that is not chess, if don't even have enough time to think of a decent move. Also, premoves seem to take .5 secs and not .01

thats what fast chess games are about. Not play, or strategy, just time and blunders.

ponz111

It is very bad form to lose on time and then blame your opponent.

TheCalculatorKid

ponz111 wrote:

It is very bad form to lose on time and then blame your opponent.

Completely agree