Clock-suckers!!

haha ok I will bite,

firstly are you seriously telling me that stating "I have had moves that require over 50 minutes of thought" is not bragging?? lol

secondly I would prefer to be OTB to at least see if my opponent had got up and left the board, at least then you don't sit there waiting wondering what the heck is happening.

Maybe you assume your opponent is d**king around after thinking 35 minutes about a move. But think about that for a second, that makes no sense either. Obviously he or she is making the best move possible to them. Maybe it doesn't reach your high and mighty Chess standards but that's no reason to call it d**king around. Not everyone can be as wonderfully talented as you at chess. Maybe check your ego next time at the door...

To answer all of your Questions:

Firstly - NO!  It's pointing out that long stalls do happen - in response to your doubt that anybody would stall over 30 minutes.  It happens, but the one player that did it in 2006 did it with clear intent to simply stall and be a d**k, unlike others I've had go over 50 minutes that were legitimate, and how is it bragging if it clearly also implies that others have long thinks like that too, not just myself?  I've been on both sides of 50-minute thinks, the thinker and the one not on move.

Secondly, mine was no assumption, and again, I refer you to the original post about it.  He actually proceeded to enter a 1 in the blank beside White's name (which was me) and a 0 beside Black's name, which was his.  But he purposely did not acknowledge that he was resigning, and I had the director force him to clarify, and the director made him erase the result.  This is not the same at sitting there with your head facing the board or looking upward in a "thinker's stance".  This was him truly being a d**k.  Let's also point out that in 2007, at the Southwest Virginia Open, when he saw me come in to register, he blurted to the director that he better not pair me against him or he would kill me!  He was that sure of himself that he was so good that nobody should be able to beat him, only draw or lose, and so when I beat him in 2006, he was, in all seriousness, a complete lunatic.

And lastly, I don't claim to be "wonderfully talented at chess" like your snide comments state.  I'm in the 2100s, not the 2800s.

Clearly you've got nothing better to do with your life but whine and bi*ch on the message board because a player stalls, and then when someone refuses to give you sympathy or show empathy for you about a 2-minute stall by pointing out far more extreme cases, you have nothing better to do with your snotty attitude but to take what people say, twist them around, exaggerate to extremes, and make even more of a fool out of yourself! 

Good Bye!  No more dealing fools like you.  Maybe the real slimcheffy will please stand up.

@thrillerfan - thank you for reinforcing my points, and for showing your true colors. Have a wonderful day : )

Once in a sicilian (I'll have to look for the game later) my opponent made an unexpected exchange sac (the common rook takes c3, but in a non-standard position).

The tactics afterwards were fairly easy to calculate, maybe only 2-3 moves deep in any line, but positionally the outcomes were very different (a few different pawn structures to choose from). I stared a hole into that position for 30-40 minutes. Afterwards I was very proud to have chosen the engine line :D

A few hours later I lost a drawable endgame 

These kinds of stories, if they are bragging, at the very least are also self deprecating. Such a use of time is double edged, as you're now down on the clock, often for the rest of the game. In my endgame the lack of time caused blunders.

Sometimes I do that when I'm at 2 minutes

One reasonable idea I fail to meet, but try to keep in mind, is that ideally you will lose as many games due to time pressure as you do for having moved too fast. That can be a sign you're finding a good balance.

Said in another way, if you never lose for having moved too fast, but often lose to having moved too slow, then in general you should speed up.

Some people are set in their ways though.

The facts that you dont have the patience to wait a few minutes, and now you dont believe someone can analyze a postion for 30 minutes, just further proves what i was saying.  Chess isnt for you.  

You beat the whole "clock sucker" thing into the ground and no one really bit.  From that, your online demeanor, and lack of patience i can assume that youre young.  

my dear friend - I do believe someone can analyze a position for 30 or even 50 minutes. Maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension. What I did say is it doesn't make sense that someone would sit there for 30 minutes knowing full well they would resign at the last second. That would be ridiculous, and that is what thrillerfan was trying to sell us. Maybe next time try your best to understand the words before responding...now that takes patience ; )

 "I have a really hard time believing anyone would sit there for 30 minutes unless they thought they may find a way out of the position."

"my dear friend - I do believe someone can analyze a position for 30 or even 50 minutes."

@ Diakonia - There is a difference between sitting there and analyzing the board and just sitting there waiting to resign. Can you understand that? It's 2 different things...I don't know how to say it any simpler for you. 

You dont get it, but thats ok.  This post has run its course.

Your attempt to contribute has run its course, that is abundantly clear.Thank you for your efforts however, good luck and maybe seriously brush up on that whole reading comprehension thing, it may come in handy one day.

Classic Canada.

Is that a comment or are you just a Troll...

I was under the impression that sore losers timed out when there was an impending checkmate, since there is a difference in the rating change for a loss by time expiring and a checkmate, since one is considered more decisive than the other.

I discovered this while trying to see what my new rating would be during a good old fashioned clock sucking and was left feeling cold when I was shorted 2 rating points, that I would have gotten had my opponent made one more move, according to the rating adjustment link of the game interface.

Interesting points! I did not know about the rating differences. Sore losers not only time out when an impending checkmate is apparent, they also time out when they get down in material, it's ridiculous, sometimes 4 or 5 moves in. Sore losers is a perfect way to describe these clock suckers!

Kaynight your gratuitous belligerence has no place here. 

Happened to me . My opponent had about 15 minutes. I had an obvious forced mate in like 3.

My opponent thinks for 10+ minutes then sacs his queen to delay it a move, I quickly win

Another tournament. My opponent has about 20 minutes left. It is about even in an endgame, then he drops his rook to a skewer. I check him, winning his rook. He uses all but 3 minutes of his time to decide where to put his king. It makes absoultely no difference. I quickly win

both of these examples were among the 40 tournament games or so in the last year. Which is ~ 5%

thanks for your comments logozar - unlike some of the other posts before, your comments are believable and make perfect sense. Also I don't get the impression you are using this as an excuse to fluff your own feathers. It seems there are in fact clock suckers in OTB games as well and I can see how that would be super annoying to say the least. Down with clock suckers!