DetectiveRams, in addressing your P.S. note:
You are correct in saying that you can't play two games simultaneously on chess.com (under a default account). You can however, under (one of several benefits of having) a premium membership.
That's a relief! Wouldn't want to think i might have been beaten by some person who was playing two games at once! It might wound my ego.
I think you deserved it because of your bad technique
You really look like a guy that would say that.
I don't agree with you on this one. Though i know it would be nice to get all your time if you disconnected, how would you feel if your position and your opponent's was reversed. If you were playing a game that went for, say, half an hour, and your opponents internet was terrible and they disconnected for 25 minutes of that half an hour (not likely though), though they would lose (probably), would you really want to spend 25 minutes staring at a screen waiting? People have demanding schedules, and if you went to even higher time controls, like 3 hours, and their internet disconnected, it would be rather annoying to not be able to start a new game.
I disagree. If you started a 30 minute time control game, you should obviously have enough time blocked off to play a game that might take up the full time control. This negate the possible argument that you have to go do something else. If so, then you should have been playing a faster time control.
Not only that, but you could leave that tab open and start a new game rather than waiting 25 minutes if you really want to.
I can't say i agree either. Hardly anyone prepares for the possibility of the whole game being played. Most people would assume that the higher the time, the longer the game would go for, but the chance of it taking the full thing, especially when the time controls enter the hours, is quite rare, because no one needs that much time unless the position is quite precarious.
However, please note that when i say we have other stuff to do and we have 'demanding schedules', i generally mean we could spend the time doing other leisure stuff instead of staring at the screen. I, for one, rarely start a chess game less than an hour before i have to go somewhere. I'm sure i didn't convey myself well enough in my above post, so i will clarify. People have better leisure activities, or enrichment activities, such as homework, pet projects etc., to do then waste time staring at a screen, and even if the game is still going, but the opponent takes a long time to move, you know that the time you spend watching the screen is time your opponent uses to think up a move, so you know that the time actually has a purpose in this case. However, when your opponent disconnects, some of that time could be when your opponent has already thought up a move, and you already spent time looking for plans, and you are just waiting for them to reconnect so they can play the move.
In all aspects, i truly wish i could i agree with you, because i know just how pissed off you can get when you lose a winning position. But when you look at it from your opponent side, you realise just how much time you could potentially be wasting.
I do respect your opinion, and i would be delighted to hear what you have to say about this topic. I'm sure the majority of chess players would agree with you, as this is JMHO.
PS. I'm fairly sure you can't play two live chess games on separate tabs in chess.com. If you can, please forgive my naivety. I haven't tried before.
You can play unlimited games at once with premium
why doesn't chess.com at least give a draw if it's a winning position?
why doesn't chess.com at least give a draw if it's a winning position?
The chess.com system doesn't know if it is a losing/winning position. It thinks that the person is losing and therefore disconnecting (like many people do)
I should be coronated chief due to my daily experience. I Almost uninstalled the app awhile ago. I enjoy bullet games and hardly have good network due to my location in Africa. I hate playing people from certain places esp US because it almost always a certain defeat due to network disadvantage. You may think it balances out but it doesn't rather it makes it even more difficult to climb to back up, imagine hoping to get balanced-up and then being pair with someone just like you whose rating has been badly dealt with by network as well, or someone who has superb network. Truth is you'll keep trying but network will always be there to drag you down no matter far you go. That's why some people seem stuck at a level. Since I can't get a good and steady network, what I do is to stop playing after a max of 2 losses due to network issues.
i pla rapid but i in a complitly winning position the i look a my time 38 seconds because i would make a move and it would take days to load
why doesn't chess.com at least give a draw if it's a winning position?
The chess.com system doesn't know if it is a losing/winning position. It thinks that the person is losing and therefore disconnecting (like many people do)
also they could disconnect from a losing position just to save their elo
That doesn't work @AhmedAryan because losing a game via disconnect loses the same number of rating points as if they had lost that game by resignation or checkmate.
O.P., it happens all the time. It's just one of those things and isn't important.
That doesn't work @AhmedAryan because losing a game via disconnect loses the same number of rating points as if they had lost that game by resignation or checkmate.
i was talking about the alternative of draws
If they disconnect the game, then they will lose. How is this related to draws? I'm confused by what you mean and seems like probably just didn't understand what you were referring to.
DetectiveRams, in addressing your P.S. note:
You are correct in saying that you can't play two games simultaneously on chess.com (under a default account). You can however, under (one of several benefits of having) a premium membership.