Is winning on time bad manners? No
Claiming that the opponent should have resigned because they themselves did not have enough time left on their clock to finish the game.. That my friend, is bad manners! If someone doesn't have enough time to deliver checkmate in an otherwise won position. It is entirely their own fault.
Just because you have material does not make it a win. The fide rules state that you have to be able to win 'against the most unskilled counterplay'
That's only in an OTB situation where the TD can have the discretion of ruling it a draw. In automated online blitz chess, the tradition has always been to rule it a loss on time if the other side has anything to potentially give checkmate with. This is because that's the only way to have an automated working server concept to begin with. Otherwise, you'll have staff having to go over thousands of blitz games in order to adjudicate them properly, and nobody wants to deal with that.
It rules it a draw if the side with time left has a king, king and knight, king and two knights or king and bishop.
Winning in any form against me is very poor etiquette.
:D ivandh
Winning in any form against me is very poor etiquette.
So almost half your opponents have poor etiquette. Very logical!
Just because you have material does not make it a win. The fide rules state that you have to be able to win 'against the most unskilled counterplay'
That's only in an OTB situation where the TD can have the discretion of ruling it a draw. In automated online blitz chess, the tradition has always been to rule it a loss on time if the other side has anything to potentially give checkmate with. This is because that's the only way to have an automated working server concept to begin with. Otherwise, you'll have staff having to go over thousands of blitz games in order to adjudicate them properly, and nobody wants to deal with that.
It rules it a draw if the side with time left has a king, king and knight, king and two knights or king and bishop.
I think a pair of knights or a knight and a bishop are enough to mate your opponent so why call it a draw?
Yes. I wholeheartedly think that winning on time is borderline cheating. Beat me on the board not on the clock!
Torrubirubi, you know...I've always wonder why they use clocks at all. I mean...don't timeout me! Mate my king! Or, if one times out then, based on the moves each player made, a score should be calculated and the one with the best moves thus far should win!
But it is bad sportsmanship; there have been many cases I could've won by running out the clock but didn't because that'd be rude. I don't how is playing like a child and trying to run out the clock not rude.
It's a waste of time; if anything there should be a piece taken per game meaning the player that has taken the most value of pieces actually won to discourage time outs. Anyone, even a child could time out a game but not many players can win a game through mastery, and skill.
Or, in other words:
My thoughts are...as long both players are actually playing, then I'm fine with winning or losing on time, regardless of what the position is. There is a fixed set of time to get the job done.
Its bad manners to take more time than you should at the beginning of games trying to calculate the very best moves, and when you get a lead expect your opponent (who has been using their time properly) to resign.
As a Rapid player, if you're in a losing position but up on time, you should keep playing. Because players not used to Rapid will try to slow everything down and then cry precious tears when they lose on time. If you try and slow a Rapid or Bullet game you're only cheating yourself. Learn to play quickly, strap on a pair and don't slow games down deliberately because you can't handle it.
Also to point out; if you need to win via the server, and not because you're good at chess; you suck at chess then, period.
I think it's completely silly to care about "manners" during a game of Chess. The idea is to win. Win anyway you can.
I think it IS bad manners if you're in a totally obviously losing position, but don't resign... Even then, is it really? When you can possibly play for a stalemate? I think only against a strong GM it would be bad manners not to resign if you're in an obviously losing position.
Iros a la mierrda chess.com
I think the problem occurs if you wish to view chess as an intellectual challenge rather than just a game.
If you bring intellect into it, then coming across someone trying to hold out for a time out win - despite clearly having lost the game already - can seem like a dishonerable / dishonest practice.
However if you look at it just as a game where whatever goes, then doing whatever you can to win regardless it just the nature of the beast.
just get over the idea that it is ever bad manners to win on time...time is part of the game and must be managed, just like every other piece...
That is a very good point. I also think that it is perfectly fair to win on time.
At higher level chess this is even unpolite to continue play in a totally lost position - giving respect to the opponent means believing he is able to launch checkmate. So playing only on time is considered a very bad habit at master and higher level - but I mean playing on time in a lost position or a dead draw! In a "normal" position it is fair.
However, in amateur games it is normal to play till checkmate or "bare kings" and playing on time should be considered just another form of implementing this idea. If you require your opponent to show that he knows how to checkmate it is ok to require him do so quickly.
So, an average member of chess.com should not feel guilty for playing on time even at 2 moves before mate - and noone should feel guilty when the position is still full of play (not a dead theoretical draw)