I hate it when people do this...

Now I know chess is "just a game" and whatever.  But competition is competition and if you are invested at all in the winning of a game, you can/will feel emotion.

So for all of you jacks, who make the "it's just a game" statement.  DUH?  But that doesn't mean I can't get caught up in the moment.

Okay...that was my disclaimer. 

I hate it when I'm playing a long game with someone and their position is lost, but they might be up like 5 mins to 2 mins. and play it out for the win on time.  Yes I know it's part of the rules to lose or win on time, but it still bugs me. 

I'm not talking about 1 min games here.

I had this game with a seemingly strong player, who after a long fought game, almost proceeded to convert his losing position to a win because of my lack of time left. At move 32 I had about 1 min and 30 seconds left on my clock.  The game went 60 plus moves!  That is why quick is a good practice.

Here is the game: Would you have resigned? Or tried to win on time?

Hey immortal gammer don't I know you?

first thing that comes to mind for me is the saying about how in chess there are tradeoffs for position and time... Use of Time is involved in strategy. If an opponent sacrifices position for time then they are probably using that as a strategy to win the game.

you ran out of time one move before the mate? man that sucks :(

anyways congratulations on a good game, and as far as i'm concerned you have won.

i know, i know, that doesnt get your rating back up. but beating a 1600 rated person means you are good enough to match yourself at that level, which means that you will reach that level soon.

you are right, a game is not just a game. emotions get high and it sucks to lose..

but you have to realise, you didn't lose...

you outplayed him and therefore won. (i hope this explains what i mean, kinda like losing the battle but winning the war thing).

also if you want to prevent this in the future... play longer games...

This reminds me of what my younger brother says about stalemate:

"stalemate is stupid! I have your king trapped and i have more pieces, but its a draw!?"

Not sure?  Maybe?

I didn't lose I won.  Just saying he should have resigned.  It is a discussion on chess etiquette

I hate it when people do this...

...complain when they won. So sorry you won.

...start threads hoping to fish for comments.

...complain about rules that they have agreed upon prior to begining the game.

...write comments about the smartaleky ones I've made, so please don't.

Yeah I disagree aswell.

I think it's poor sportsmanship to try to win on time for white in the above position.

Of course.  I wouldn't expect a lot of "agreements" here.  However, I think there is a bit of a tipping of your hat to the other guy if you feel he has skill.  If I were in the same position as he was after that game I would have resigned out of respect...that is just me though.

Yes, if you cant win in the time limit then you lost. end of story. and i dont belive in resigning. play the whole game.

Again.  I didn't lose because of my every increasing quick skills.  So you would have been beaten as well and just resigned before being mated.

so if you won.... whats the problem?

you played in time and beated someone higher rated.

be happy >.<!

huh?

i'm rated higher too.

Chess is a complex game/sport. It involves beauty and calculation and strategy. It involves tactics. But it also involves determination.

I admire a reall nice combination whose beauty leaves you almost speechless.

But I also really admire a player who fights to the very end and uses every resource possible. For some players, the more behind they are the harder they fight and I like that. That isn't to say that I don't sometimes resign because I often do, when (in my opinion) it is very unlikely I can get something out of the game. But in quite a few games I have gone into the ending a few pawns down, the exchange down or even a piece down and I have managed to get something out of the game by not giving up.

I really don't agree with you immortalgamer. I especially don't agree that it has anything to do with chess etiquette. There is nothing wrong in a player trying to win on time. In all timed chess games, the clock is an important part of the game. Your opponent could argue that the only reason you were up in the game at all was because you used longer to make your moves whereas he/she used time more carefully but, as a result, made a few bad moves. In the end, the guy who can best balance the use of time wins the game.

Fair Enough

ive thought about board etiquette n such a lot, i dont like to offend people, but i know ive stuck around in a bad positions to see if i could win on time and i know many of my opponents have done the same to me...so i guess its not bad "etiquette" to try to use every resource available to win in a competition as long as its not cheating (i.e. using a resource thats not allowed in prearranged rules)

if you loose on time, it means you took more time to think (to get a more advanced board side), you oponent has less tought it through but got time over.

I had an alsmost similair situation once, dough i speeded up my play in the end of a quite complex game and so after 83 moves i finaly checkmated, using premoves wherever i could, quite risky to do. i think about the last 30 moves where played in a minute...

And yes he was loosing in the end but didnt gave up, and in fact i like that people who keep up a tuff play hoping on time, or stalemate. Then you got to prove yourself to them

Well the point is even if the game is great you need to take time in acount its only fair. it might be wise to be more familiar with the opeings you like so you dont loose much time on it.