I hate it when people do this...

I understand what you mean about the lost position... But then again could we not say that the other person has a lost game as well for they have neglected the clock. (iffy statement... but its the other sides argument)

As far as a "championship-level situation"... That would be interesting to see! However, Chess is a very straitforward game as far as rules are concerned and there would be quite some controversy if they tried to implement ethics into who won the game.

What I don't understand is why the draw was not declared? In that particular game, the opponent had no material to win, so when the stronger side runs out of time with other side having no material it should have been a draw. I had a couple of live chess 1 min games when such draws were declared.

But he didn't neglect the clock. He's said before he comfortably won.

atomicchicken- I was not talking about any game specifically. About the argument that is going on in general. I know immortalgamer won.

win or lose it all part of the game; i have losted quite a few games ';; due to time

when i have been in a very strong winning postion;

but thats life ; that s the rules which we play by;'

lo';

all i can say is get over it and learn from it.

OK. For what it's worth anything that is done within the rules is fine by me..

 So what that's part of the game, if it wasn't they wouldn't have the timer there for nothing.

You should have put some form of the word try into that sentence. The way you have written it, it clearly states that your opponent won.

Anyway, personally I favor having a bold amount of extra time per move, I don't like playing blitz, and playing with only a set amount of time one will eventually get to play some long blitzy endings.

But as others have stated, time is part of the game. The only thing I would consider bad sportsmanship is that he doesn't let you checkmate him. After forcing you to play the long boring endgame he doesn't let you play the final move and make it a win by checkmate rather than resignation.

The management of your time is as important as your chess moves. Strategy is also involved in use of the clock as it is on the board in a tournament. Remember, a tournament is chess for blood, not for fun. So, think like you are going into combat for your life.

Thinking about what things should be according to your sense of decency is not reality and that kind of thinking will get you dead!

If you are in a sword fight and you have been winning the entire time, what does that time count for if you suddenly lose. The answer is that it counts for nothing. The end result is that you are dead and that is the only thing that matters.

With that said, turn your energy to winning or stop playing in tournaments.

I hope this helps you. It's the best advice I can give you.

The solution to your problem is very simple immortalgamer:

1. Never play without an increment.

2. Use the noplay list for those who don't have the dignity to resign. And exchange the noplay lists with your friends! Eventually such rude guys will end playing between them. Or not playing at all.

so playing by the rules is not polite when it's not in your favor I say stop complaining and learn clock management then this wouldn't be an issue

The RULES say that you have a certain amount of time to make your moves.  If YOU don't follow the rules YOU lose the game. You don't get to use just the rules you want to and disregard the ones you don't like.  You LOST by using too much time. Learn to manage your time. He learned to use the clock.

By the way it happens in grandmaster games all the time.  They use too much time early and have to scramble to not lose the game.  I play in OTB tournaments a lot and never get in time trouble.  The reason the clock is used is that players with a lost position would just run around or just not make a move at all. Is that ethical?

The clock in a timed match is there to prevent people from taking an hour to move a piece like in Morphy's days that games had no time limit and could last 9 hours++. It isin't there so you lazy-useless players can benifit from it by trying to win a game on time in a lost position that you know your oponent can and will play to perfection despite his time deficit, and therefore make you look like a fool for wasting your time and losing, you spiteful people, those kind of people never improve.

so if i win because you had bad clock management  i'm spiteful if you were better you wouldn't be in that position in the first place

Minzz0 If you can't play by the rules; and cry like a baby when you get beat, find a game where you pick your own rules (or try basketball where they run around to run the clock out, in every game.)

People who approve such a behavior probably never played OTB. They would know otherwise that, if you are for instance a rook down and you continue to play on, trying to win on time, then everybody in the tournament will laugh and make jokes. You would be considered either an idiot or an extremely rude person. In both cases, your chances of playing in another tournament would decrease significantly. Nobody likes players without fair play.

i think time is part of the game, your opponent took less time to make the first 30 moves, so why should they be penalised? its a tradeoff you have to make when moving, better position vs time remaining, obviously you went for the first one and your oppenent the latter. i dont see the problem.

its a timed game and part of the rules, i dont resign in timed games

Costelus, you are obviously one of those who doesn't play OTB in tournaments.  I have played in tournaments for 30 years, have won games after being down a piece, have won on time, have NEVER seen or heard a person being put down for playing to the bitter end, and have seen Grandmasters lose on time. Everybody makes mistakes, even Grandmasters when in time trouble. If you played in real tournaments you would know that , except for a rare "invitational", anybody who pays the entry fee can play. I am playing a game on chess.com right now where the other player is dead lost, but is going to make me play 15 or 20 moves for a indisputably won game. That is his right. If you don't like that, don't play, but people are not idiots just because they don't agree with you.  By the way, I played a Grandmaster, in a tournament, and by your reasoning, I should have resigned after move 1, because I knew that I was going to lose.

Sorry, maybe I did not say exactly what I intended.

1. It is very rude to play when your position is completely lost, you are convinced of that and try to win on time. But ...

2. It all depends on your level. Of course that a beginner, for whom "opposition" it's not a chess term, needs to play on even with a lone king against the queen. Who knows, maybe his opponent hasn't heard about stalemate? In such a case nobody will say anything. 

3. You can be down a piece and play on if you have compensation for it. Or the position is not clear enough so that complications/tactical shots are possible. I've never said that being a piece down you must automatically resign. It is OK even to play on in a lone king versus knight + bishop ending, there are cases when even masters failed to find the mate.