Rules are rules. And generally people who whine because of "muh you've won on time but my position is better" are the first to flag you when they can. The absolute masters of double standards. Don't pay attention their garbage. If you agree to play 5 minutes you agree to lose when your time run off, the same applies to your opponent.
Chess Etiquette: Winning on time when you are extremely behind
Sort:
ezeldin1 wrote:
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.
Well put. It reminds me of another golf analogy. Sometimes after a round someone will reflect on their loss but still can't quite figure out how they lost. The reply is often "Your problem is simple. Too much loft." Not everyone will know what that means, but it certainly applies to most people who complain about losing on time.
If you don't agree with time control play, don't do it. Or manage your time better.
Next, I expect to hear that playing when behind instead of resigning or making an opponent demonstrate they can convert a winning position into a checkmate shows bad sportsmanship because you're just waiting for your opponent to make a mistake when you were "beaten".
I'd argue that playing for a stalemate, 50-move draw, or reptition draw is no different... it's part of the game.
Projecting judgment on others usually reveals weaknesses in your own character; not the other way around.
Apr 2, 2021
0
#345
MickinMD wrote:
"I just won a game that I feel pretty scummy about. I was way down in material, but his timer ran out."
You shouldn't feel scummy at all. Your opponent took more time than allowed. Should he have been allowed more thinking time than you? Of course not!
All sports have rules that restrict play. In baseball, if a player hits two long fly balls out of the park, but both in foul territory, he not only gets no runs or hits for them, they are penalized as strikes.
This is the best answer/analogy I have seen on this thread.
Apr 2, 2021
0
#346
MisterLoco76 wrote:
glamdring27 wrote:
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.
Chess clocks existed long before increment was invented and people did fine. They knew they had 10 minutes to play a whole game, if that was their time control, so they measured their time accordingly.
Lichess can choose whatever it was as 'standard', but when I login to there I see both 10+5 and 10+0 as standard options. And chess.com has the option of 10+5 too, so no-one is being denied their options. But if someone manages their time properly in a 10+0 game then it is no problem. I lose plenty of 10+0 games on time too and am quite happy to consider myself 'incapable of managing my time' in those situations because it was true. I don't need people to give fake commiserations that it was only because there was no increment that I lost. I failed to manage my time correctly. End of story.
Apr 2, 2021
0
#347
binomine wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
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 no no its not against the rules and the worlds best players often do it. That makes it a legit part of the game, end of discussion 
Apr 2, 2021
0
#348
forked_again wrote:
binomine wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
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 no no its not against the rules and the worlds best players often do it. That makes it a legit part of the game, end of discussion
Can you show me a game, excluding 1 minute and 3 minute games, where a "best player" stalls a losing position for the win on time?
Apr 2, 2021
0
#349
binomine a écrit :
forked_again wrote:
binomine wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
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 no no its not against the rules and the worlds best players often do it. That makes it a legit part of the game, end of discussion
Can you show me a game, excluding 1 minute and 3 minute games, where a "best player" stalls a losing position for the win on time?
Échecs : Bruno5979 contre everybodyischilling - 6335916878 - Chess.com
Google traduction :
Yes I have a part like that. Part 15+10 !
This is probably the part of which I am most proud. This is the only time that I have been offered an opponent over 1500. I took the advantage following a rider positioning error on his part. I found myself in this winning position for the final but thought too long if a pawn sacrifice paid off to deflect the queen.
Apr 2, 2021
0
#350
binomine wrote:
forked_again wrote:
binomine wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
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 no no its not against the rules and the worlds best players often do it. That makes it a legit part of the game, end of discussion
Can you show me a game, excluding 1 minute and 3 minute games, where a "best player" stalls a losing position for the win on time?
Why exclude blitz and bullet? They are really the only games where the strategy works. Longer time controls usually have sufficient increment to prevent flagging.
This topic is something I believe depends on the game mode and how you or your opponent starts playing. I play a lot of 1min bullet chess. My rule is, if I lose my Queen and can’t either improve my position to a winning one or retake my opponents Queen in 3-5 moves then I will resign. If you are playing a 10 minute or so game and you win on time with low material then it’s no big deal in my eyes, 10 minutes is more than enough time to scan the board and make your plays. 1 minute however for most is not. I don’t mind opponents playing me on time when they are clearly still in the game, it’s when I take so much material and they are making random pre moves just to get a cheap win and they know they couldn’t win off merit is when it gets to be bad sportsmanship and exploiting. When you or your opponent are clearly just making moves to run down your clock, it’s poor form and should be frowned upon. Mating takes more time to think than just making random moves, and this is where the problem lies, it’s too easy to win on time for super quick modes. You can argue the fact that you can move quicker to beat their time, but then is the game chess at all or are we just playing who’s got the faster hand?
So in my opinion, long games then it’s fine, short and quick games if you are clearly out and just making moves to run down the time for a cheap win then no, this is just bad sportsmanship.
May 22, 2021
0
#352
If someone takes so much time taking all that 'so much material' that they don't allow themselves time to deliver checkmate why would they deserve a win though? Maybe if the opponent had shown the same total disregard for the clock they wouldn't have lost the material in the first place?
Maybe it's like the old saying about getting old. When people are young, they trade their time for money. When they get old, they trade their money for time.
Like the time and position in a game of chess, those that do the best are those that realize both need to be managed well.
its_only_me wrote:
I do not say that it is not allowed but what unnerves me beyond limits is when a player that is clearly lost hops around like a crazyman hoping for the clock to accomplish what his failing brain could not... tsk, tsk, tsk ....
That is exactly the theme of my satirical video wherein I use stupid King moves to run my opponent into the flag pole,
Warning:
Empty your bladder prior to watching (you have been warned)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WOWxjesTFY
Easy fix: Ban pre-moves!!
Aug 8, 2021
0
#355
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Maybe it's like the old saying about getting old.
As someone who turns 65 this year, I can categorically state that getting old isn't so bad when you consider the alternative.
Aug 9, 2021
0
#356
mattchessnoob09 wrote:
you should resign if you have a lot more time then your opponent
using this thinking, you should also resign when you have a lot more material, or a much better position than your opponent.
Aug 9, 2021
0
#357
MrDogFace wrote:
its_only_me wrote:
I do not say that it is not allowed but what unnerves me beyond limits is when a player that is clearly lost hops around like a crazyman hoping for the clock to accomplish what his failing brain could not... tsk, tsk, tsk ....
That is exactly the theme of my satirical video wherein I use stupid King moves to run my opponent into the flag pole,
Warning:
Empty your bladder prior to watching (you have been warned)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WOWxjesTFY
Easy fix: Ban pre-moves!!
You probably also turn off the TV when a football games gets down to the two minute warning and the team that is behind jumps around like a crazyman trying to win like in the Heidi game where the TV channel thought the game was over and went to the show Heidi instead of showing the last few minutes of the Football game where the team that was way behind was able to come from behind and win.
online pre-moves makes it a whole different game.. it becomes a guessing game
Aug 11, 2021
0
#359
when I was just starting out I played an expert in rapid chess all of the time to learn how to play fast. He made me pay him 25 cents a game for his time. We played several ways. One way was he would give me rook odds but he would get five minutes to my three (or he would take take the rook odds and give me the more time. Another way was to give me queen odds and take three minutes to my 5. Or he would take the other sides. In both cases he would always win. A time advantage is a tangible advantage just as a material advantage is a tangible advantage. The only sure way to get beaten is to resign. It ain't over till it's over.
Personally I've lost a number of games that I would've resigned had I been on the other side. The lack of etiquette is a struggle for me. I learn a lot playing though games I'm behind in but it your down to your king and make your opponent chase you around for 5 minutes it's not doing either of you any good. Just my opinion....
I just won a game that I feel pretty scummy about. I was way down in material, but his timer ran out. When should you throw in the towel and resign? Is it ok to play for time (I still had 2 minutes to play with)?
Yes. It is part of the game.