Clock management is definitely a key part of blitz. If someone is running out of time because they invested in longer analysis, then that was their choice, like any move is their choice--good or bad. Winning position but no time? Tough!
Is it polite to resign in blitz?
Sort:
Why not just play increment blitz?
nuclearturkey wrote:
Why not just play increment blitz?
If you play with increments then its not really "blitz" imo.
I see.
goldendog wrote:
Clock management is definitely a key part of blitz. If someone is running out of time because they invested in longer analysis, then that was their choice, like any move is their choice--good or bad. Winning position but no time? Tough!
I fully echo this, and it extends to all forms of the game.
If you have a 5 minute game, and you've used 2 minutes and they've used 4 and a half, then they *should* have a better position for you, having used more than twice the time. If they haven't left enough time to finish you off, that's their own poor time management.
I kinda agree with Reb that blitz with an increment isn't 'real' blitz. Although playing without an increment using a trackpad can lead to some infuriating losses... but I think it's taught me to use my blitz time a bit better.
Anyway, if you choose to resign when you're losing but your opponent is low on time, then you'll be putting yourself at a marked disadvantage compared to your competition.
So... the first person to run out of time... "No CheckMate in Game" loses?
I think blitz with increments is much better.
Dec 10, 2010
0
#9
It depends on the situation.
If I am down on the initiative and a lot of material. And my opponent has plenty of time. If he has 30 seconds left, then let him prove he can think of an attack that fast.
TheOldReb escreveu:
nuclearturkey wrote:
Why not just play increment blitz?
If you play with increments then its not really "blitz" imo.
If you play without increments, it is not really chess...
Jokes aside, for me the point of playing blitz is to have a complete chess game in a short time. The winner is the one who can play better in a short time (say, 2 seconds). The clock is there to force you to move fast, not to decide the game (in soccer, the offside rule is there to force you to rely on something else than long balls, not to decide the game...). In the end it is a matter of preferences (there is no fair).
Hey!
I recently started playing some blitz games (<5 mins). It's pretty fun, but I am making really bad mistakes because I am not used to play chess this fast. Anyway, let's get to my question:
Say you are losing the game of blitz chess, but your opponent is low on time. Is it polite to resign a game and let him/her win? Or is it ok to just play around until the time runs out?
Winning in such a way sure does feel kind of cheap and wrong. So I am wondering if there are any unwritten rules for this sort of situations? What's the right thing to do?