i just said one should resign a 'completely lost position' rather than winning on time.
Why??? Why should he resign??? I guess a 'completely lost position' is something that you'd win with 100% certainty if given enough time. But you don't have enough time to checkmate, you don't even have enough time to force a draw. So why should your opponent resign if he can win within rules of chess? Why do you deserve to win if you can't checkmate within the rules?
have lost so many games whilst having a surmountable lead in material, not my fault the opponent didnt use his time to think and make good moves, on almost even position or a little imbalanced in material, is completely fine but one should resign if he is in a completely lost position.
Its also not your opponents fault that you didn't leave yourself enough time to convert.
lmao you here to play chess or basically see the other person lose on time, while giving away a lead of like 20 points or 10 points or even > 7 points .. sorry to say but im talking about playing chess here not racing against the clock, as far as a lot of people having this delusion of 'converting' your lead, we aint masters here, if you would have just seen my rating its around the 1500 mark and certainly not adequate to blitz moves to a win when under time pressure, but certainly to think and make good moves and have a healthy lead early on , so please think before you speak ! also lets play together and see if i just make pawn moves 1 step and defending and you playing for a win and we'll see if you can barely even scratch the surface @ converting lmao also they dont even accept a draw P.S i wasnt talking about bullet games here
"Racing against the clock" is part of playing chess just as much as making good moves. If you don't like this it's your problem.
Why somebody should accept a draw when they can win within the rules? If you don't like the rules you can always play other games.
if you would have just read my post carefully, you would have realized already that, and i quote myself, "i am here to play chess, not race against the clock" i dont sit there making moves which dont contribute to active play just to put time pressure on the other person who is really trying to improve his game and improving upon the plans he has had to employ in his previous games or even just improving positional analysis ( all of which takes some time, and most of the time im not losing on time under moves 20 so yeah blitz or whatever making plans takes time, but you wouldnt know cause you race against the clock and have never tried to play any real chess), i get it i play blitz but only because i am not a full time player and dont have time to take out for rapid or classical games, but i just hate to see players who have no interest in playing and improving and just are plain egotistical about winning on time and who cannot accept that they lost at the more significant part of the game.
All in all you have your opinion i have mine and ill stick with mine
Why can’t you accept that you have lost according to rules? And who told you that position is more significant than time?
lol who said i didnt accept my defeat, what are you even saying ! i just said one should resign a 'completely lost position' rather than winning on time. Anyway clearly you are just replying for the sake of it and are not even understanding my point and mostly just writing gibberish. If only you would have known the natural progression of chess playing is classical -> rapid -> blitz -> bullet, what this means is that once a classical player has acquired a certain level of skill he can move on to a faster time control only cause his evaluation skills and middle game planning is more intuitive allowing him to move much much faster, and so on and forth. Its not the other way around that kids start with bullet and as they get better they move up in the time controls, so yeah understanding positions and evaluation and planning is much more important than time lmao anyway you are just replying for the sake of it so ill just concede here to whatever your point is which was ? lolll that was a rhetorical question btw please dont even bother to answer.
And all of this i am saying at lower rating levels, as i have mentioned time and again. A master wouldnt have as much difficulty converting his win under time pressure tbh.
It's easier for people to think they should win if they make up their own rules when the real ones don't suit!
It's easier for people to think they should win if they make up their own rules when the real ones don't suit!
+1
For time trouble problems I recommend training rigorously, eating raw meat and keeping your hand close to the clock. Something that helped we once was a strong player who would give me my choice of either side where one side got 5 minutes on their clock but had to play a rook down, the other side had to play with just one minute on their clock. He could beat me with either side. Try it with your friends and see if you do better down time or down material. Have fun.
I'd tale the material every time, especially since most opponents would get sucked into the playing speed of the player with 1 minute on their clock and move far too quickly.
People flag me all the time, even if I have 3 queens, so u can bet that I'll premove like hell and check my opponent as much as possible in a losing position. I'll make moves that are VERY inconvenient to my opponent actually forcing mate if he has a few seconds left. only fair.
today i played a specimen that won as folllows : in a 5 minute game i lost connection twice, which set me behind for half the clock time, since his skill wasnt sufficient to win i got 2 pieces up, including the queen, the b*gger managed to win on time by hopping around like a madman... so many players here are completely honorless and chess.com does nothing against it ...
What are you complaing about? Your connection is not your opponent responsibility. Somebody with honour would rather fix it instead of complaining.
fix my provider?? hahaha you have humour :-) I guess this is how you win :-))
I win by any means within the rules. When playing on train and expecting disconnections I choose to play unrated. When my home WiFi had problems I played via my iPhone hotspot. You choose to play blitz on loosy connection and then to compain on the forums about losing on time. And then you preach about honours?!
can you clarify how exactly you come to the conclusion that my connection that is normally fine would become bad in a prvisible way ? sorry, next time you want to communicate think first, and avoid to blurt some crap
If it was just one time connection problem and it did cost you one game - then what’s the big deal? I just think it’s completely inappropriate to complain in public forum about problems caused by YOUR connection and to call the other player names when he won the game perfectly within the rules.
since you don't get the point i will not talk to you again, its wasting my time ,,,
"specimen", "b*gger", "honorless" - those are words you use to describe someone who wins on time while behind in material. Your point is very clear. You invented your own rules besides those defined by FIDE and chess.com and now you are trying to shove these rules down everybody's else throat.
try to understand the post before blurting
Think we should stop quoting posts. Too confusing
Gena Sosonko wrote an article called "Killer Instinct" for "NIC" and republished it in "Smart Chip from St. Petersburg." He spoke how GM Malakhov didn't enforce the touch tule when his opponent picked up a Bishop, but remembering he first need to exchange Rooks, put the Bishop back and made the Rook move. Although this was a critical game in the 2003 European Championship, Malakhov saw the mistake as having nothing to do with chess and didn't want to ruin the logic of the game (even though his own position was worse at the time) because of some inexplicable slip in the intended move order, and so he let it go. His opponent, Azmaiparashvili, won the game, but suggested they consider it a draw (too late too be officially a counted a draw). Of course, since the Bishop move would have meant a certain loss, Azmaiparashvili should have resigned on the spot and not doing so, Malakhov should have forced the situation.
The repercussion for breaking the rules by not insisting on the rules was a loss of respect by his peers who saw it as unsportmanslke, a violation of fair play and an interference with the standings of the other participants.
Sosonko says, "this type of incident is almost never repaid with interest. Mores o, it does considerable damage to the party who shows mercy, weakness or indecisiveness. It leads to discomfort, an unpleasant aftertaste and a burning would in a disturbed soul, as it contradicts to the principle of the game itself. Mistakes made at the board should be punished, but so should any other 'unchesslike attitudes' . . . Caissa doesn't like it when some other goddess than she is worshipped. Caissa doesn't like that. She likes those who enter her kingdom unconditionally and live by her laws. Only after the game can you return to the normal world..."
I totally agree with Sosonko. Winning a game by any and all legal means isn't just legitimate, it's an obligation. Anything else is an affront to Caissa (who is actually a dryad or a nymph, not a goddess). If you have time to win or you can win on time, offering a draw, letting time run down - in short not winning if at all possible - is wrong and not in the least honorable or sportsmanlike.
Think we should stop quoting posts. Too confusing
It's simply laziness and selfishness.
It's fair, because there are thousands of players who are ready and willing to flag you even if you are obviously winning and then brag about it, so don't be afraid, it's perfectly ok!!!
Blitz 3 min is usually long enough for me, but one time I lost a 3 min game on time when I had 3 queens cause I had 1.3 secs left with no increment and couldn't even pre-move fast enough LOL it was actually funny
I think it all depends on the situation, and the player. I agree with EMP, we have all had lots of games where we have been on both the winning and losing end. Lucky for me I just dont care that much. If, for example, I am a very bad position and my opponent has 5 seconds left while I have 30 seconds left I will probably start playing very slowly because he deserves the win. I wont resign, because I think the game itself should continue, but I probably would not feel it's fair to win on time alone.
Fair is to play by all the rules not just the ones that seem like good etiquette. That's why we have rules. Why even pay good money for a clock if you are going to negate its use. On the other hand if you are playing with a close friend you can bend some rules a little, like touch move, or other rules, but official games should be played b
try to understand the post before blurting
Ok I don't understand - please help me. For convenience I'll copy your post #63 here :
"today i played a specimen that won as folllows : in a 5 minute game i lost connection twice, which set me behind for half the clock time, since his skill wasnt sufficient to win i got 2 pieces up, including the queen, the b*gger managed to win on time by hopping around like a madman... so many players here are completely honorless and chess.com does nothing against it ..."
Was it a sarcasm? Then I am sorry for writing irrelevant replies.
https://www.chess.com/news/view/norway-chess-starts-with-three-wins-a-draw-and-a-loss-3896
https://chess24.com/en/read/news/norway-chess-1-carlsen-stunned-by-loss-on-time
At Norway Chess 2015 Carlsen lost on time in a completely winning position against Topalov.
Carlsen blamed himself, criticized organizers for not making new time controls clear enough. Poor guy! But he completely missed an opportunity to accuse Topalov of bad etiquette for not resigning. Can somebody show this thread to a world champion please? Because he is obviously unaware of new trends emerging in chess community.
Plus, the game IS over, so no use crying about it now.