Your opponent was not able to convert his advantage into a win in the available time. Thus your decision to flag him was clearly justified.
Etiquette: winning on time
Sort:
It depends on you, some people flag me being a queen down; I usually resign when I'm a piece down if there's no compensation what so ever but it depends entirely on you. Recently I could flag a opponent who was queening but resigned ( 2 second left and lots of pieces) but I thought hey I'm lost and It just rating points. I also have flag people being material down but mainly I didn't realize it or thought I have some kind of attack or compensation
Let's say he's got only 30 seconds against my 2 minutes and I'm down a Queen and a rook, my opponent needs to show his mating techniques. Otherwise....he loses.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Blitz is not chess , it's a variant.
And why it's a variant? Because time is more important than it is in classical chess.
If your opponent needs to think 4.50 in a 5 minute game to get a winning position then he must lose from time.
Because I am so lousy at Blitz, I don't mind this claim.
But I have the feeling that many others won't support your claim that it's a variant. A variant is something like 960 Chess or Bughouse Chess. Your claim is that Blitz/Bullet belong in the variant category.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
SeniorPatzer wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Blitz is not chess , it's a variant.
And why it's a variant? Because time is more important than it is in classical chess.
If your opponent needs to think 4.50 in a 5 minute game to get a winning position then he must lose from time.
Because I am so lousy at Blitz, I don't mind this claim.
But I have the feeling that many others won't support your claim that it's a variant. A variant is something like 960 Chess or Bughouse Chess. Your claim is that Blitz/Bullet belong in the variant category.
Blitz is a variant.If it wasn't it wouldn't have different ratings.
Thinking is the main ingredient in chess and it s higely reduced in blitz.
Even wikipedia refers to speed chess as a variation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_chess
"Fast chess (also known as speed chess) is a variation of chess in which each side is given less time to make a move than under normal tournamenttime controls."
Apart from that , the fact that many great players don't respect blitz shows that it's not chess.
Karpov for example resembles chessplayers playing blitz with dogs sniffing each other's ass.
"Like dogs who sniff each other when meeting, chess players have a ritual at first acquaintance: they sit down to play speed chess."
LOL, I'm sure that Karpov has sniffed plenty of arse in his life. Maybe all the GMs in the world have sniffed arse, and happily did so.
I offered draw to my opponent when he tried to castle and dropped his king one box earlier!
DeirdreSkye wrote:
SeniorPatzer wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Blitz is not chess , it's a variant.
And why it's a variant? Because time is more important than it is in classical chess.
If your opponent needs to think 4.50 in a 5 minute game to get a winning position then he must lose from time.
Because I am so lousy at Blitz, I don't mind this claim.
But I have the feeling that many others won't support your claim that it's a variant. A variant is something like 960 Chess or Bughouse Chess. Your claim is that Blitz/Bullet belong in the variant category.
Blitz is a variant.If it wasn't it wouldn't have different ratings.
Thinking is the main ingredient in chess and it s higely reduced in blitz.
Even wikipedia refers to speed chess as a variation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_chess
"Fast chess (also known as speed chess) is a variation of chess in which each side is given less time to make a move than under normal tournamenttime controls."
Apart from that , the fact that many great players don't respect blitz shows that it's not chess.
Karpov for example resembles chessplayers playing blitz with dogs sniffing each other's ass.
"Like dogs who sniff each other when meeting, chess players have a ritual at first acquaintance: they sit down to play speed chess."
My guess is that not too many people consider the wikipedia definition accurate. Because if speed chess is defined as a variation of chess, then 99.9% of all chess games are not actually chess. It would be like defining golf by saying anyone not playing by the rules, in a tournament. isn't actually playing golf.
I'm talking about chess, regardless of when or where it's played. Same rules. Same board, same pieces, same moves. If 99.9% of all chess games played are not in tournaments with long time controls, then the wikipedia defintion seems pretty sketchy.
I agree that blitz is a totally different game from classical, kind of like calling treebeard a tree:
Thank you all for your posts especially to the man who has sadly since deleted his post, who in a Winning position in a competition offered a draw to his opponent so that his opponent could get home earlier to see his children on Father’s Day. What an amazing and inspiring story: warmed my heart. I aspire to be that sort of player.
The clock is part of the game. There are some positions you'd see resignations from in long games but in bullet even GMs will try to flag the opponent.
It is unmanly not to resign in a lost position. Be a man and resign.
[COMMENT DELETED]
In any timed game, Time is just another factor that can be used to your advantage, or can be used against you. To not take advantage of it and resign is akin to feeling bad for being up a piece or pawn. I find that foolish. Why play a timed game at all if you don't want it to be a factor???
BeepBeepImA747 wrote:
It is unmanly not to resign in a lost position. Be a man and resign.
What is a lost position in a game without the element of time is not necessarily a lost position when time is a factor. Be a man and play by all the rules of the game at hand, not just those you choose.
Blitz chess is real chess, but with different playing conditions that make it of less value.
, 中秋节中秋节中秋节中秋节中秋节中秋节中秋节
It is a personal decision but if i can have a win on time i am happy to take it.
Isa_Vulpes wrote:
Only bitch-ass niggers win on time.
If ever there were a post to prove that time is a factor to be reckoned with, yours is it. Your time expired long ago.
DavidEricAshby wrote:
Recently I won a game on time at Blitz. I was behind on time (2min to my opponent's 4:15) and ahead on pawn structure with a rook to my opponent's queen. I made very rapid defensive moves with my rook and burned out my opponent's clock.
Afterwards I felt uncertain about whether I should have resigned at the point where I was behind on material and time or whether it was perfectly acceptable to play for a win on time in that scenario in Blitz.
What are your views?
Afterwards I felt uncertain about whether I should have resigned at the point where I was behind on material and time or whether it was perfectly acceptable to play for a win on time in that scenario in Blitz.
What are your views?
For me it depends on the time and material left on the board; it is subjective. In your case it's perfectly ok, a rook and pawns still stand a tiny chance of winning against a queen and pawns if a winning blow is readily available or the opponent is too complacent. On the other hand, if for example Black has only a h5 pawn stopped by White's h4 pawn (White also has a queen) when White's time is more than 1 min and Black tries to play on time, it would not be very ethical for Black to do so since Black does not have any reasonable chance of winning at all.
Having said that, time allocated is part of chess play, so we cannot fault players who attempt to win on time since this is not forbidden under the rules of chess, although these actions will reflect poorly on their sportsmanship.
Afterwards I felt uncertain about whether I should have resigned at the point where I was behind on material and time or whether it was perfectly acceptable to play for a win on time in that scenario in Blitz.
What are your views?