1) Plays Blitz.
2) Complains about losing on time.
3) ????
Losing with more material
Sort:
Jul 8, 2020
0
#23
We have time constraints on our lives. We may want to play a shorter game, but actually have the outcome based on our play, It wouldn't be hard to program a version of the game that we could select over the current default 10-minute game. Why would anyone be opposed to having one more option on game types? If you like it the way it is, keep playing that version.
Jul 8, 2020
0
#24
Sure, you can play using your own rules against other like-minded individuals... perhaps in a club. When time runs out, let Stockfish adjudicate the game, and you can run your ladder tournament according to those results.
I don't see how this affects the rest of us, though.
Jul 8, 2020
0
#25
blueemu wrote:
1) Plays Blitz.
2) Complains about losing on time.
3) ????
lol exactly, if you don't like losing on time then play longer games. there's classical chess tournaments as a separate category for a reason.
and if you "don't have time in your life" imago that's on you lol the rules shouldn't be changed for that
3/10 for getting me to respond
Jul 8, 2020
0
#26
Time is as important as the position... If you play a fast game then yeah, expect to manage your clock. If you can't handle losing on time, go and play a longer time control like Rapid and no, if Carlsen said it needed to be fix, I would not agree with him. Bullet is a minute, if you run out of a minute, you lose regardless of how superior your position is to the other.
Let's say that we use your idea that if the person is winning they deserve to get a win. Then, what's wrong with being up a queen and letting your clock run out on purpose so it's a win for you, see the problem here?...
Time is as important as the position itself, you need a right balance of position vs time.
Jul 8, 2020
0
#27
It's obvious when some of you don't read the thread. Since I'm not suggesting replacing the regular option, but adding another. One would think the chess community would be more thoughtful and less stodgy. It literally affects each of you zero if there is another game type and you choose not to play it.
Jul 8, 2020
0
#28
The idea is also easy to abuse. As soon as you are certain your position is better or you are up material, you can play slowly and safely with the knowledge that you will win when time runs out anyway. Back to my previous point, why not just declare a winner once a player gets a lead in material? It's not fundamentally different than the proposal. A lot of people think their opponent should resign anyway in such a position, so maybe you could get them on board with the idea 
Jul 8, 2020
0
#29
I would prefer other variants such as Horde or Antichess before This. It doesn't make much sense, as you could spend 20 secs on every move in a blitz game, be flagged, but in a better position because you took time.
Jul 8, 2020
0
#30
Martin_Stahl wrote:
The idea is also easy to abuse. As soon as you are certain your position is better or you are up material, you can play slowly and safely with the knowledge that you will win when time runs out anyway. Back to my previous point, why not just declare a winner one a player gets a lead in material? It's not fundamentally different than the proposal. A lot of people think their opponent should resign anyway in such a position, so maybe you could get them on board with the idea
They'd agree, wouldnt they? 
Jul 8, 2020
0
#31
Imago13 wrote:
It's obvious when some of you don't read the thread. Since I'm not suggesting replacing the regular option, but adding another. One would think the chess community would be more thoughtful and less stodgy. It literally affects each of you zero if there is another game type and you choose not to play it.
Your original post never proposed it as a variant, but even as a variation, it's way too easy to abuse and in my opinion would make the game less exciting; e.g. sacrifices/attacks that may not be sound won't be attempted with a knowledge that if it come down to time, the material deficiency wouldn't be worth it.
It it ever became a variation, I know I would never play it.
Jul 8, 2020
0
#32
Imago13 wrote:
It's obvious when some of you don't read the thread. Since I'm not suggesting replacing the regular option, but adding another. One would think the chess community would be more thoughtful and less stodgy. It literally affects each of you zero if there is another game type and you choose not to play it.
So basically winning on lead of material. Win a Queen early in a 5 minute game? Eyy, just don't move you'll win no matter what because if your clock runs out, the most +1.25 they'll get is +6.25, Queen is worth 9, no big deal, easy dub right there.
Jul 8, 2020
0
#34
canadian_rt wrote:
Imago13 wrote:
It's obvious when some of you don't read the thread. Since I'm not suggesting replacing the regular option, but adding another. One would think the chess community would be more thoughtful and less stodgy. It literally affects each of you zero if there is another game type and you choose not to play it.
So basically winning on lead of material. Win a Queen early in a 5 minute game? Eyy, just don't move you'll win no matter what because if your clock runs out, the most +1.25 they'll get is +6.25, Queen is worth 9, no big deal, easy dub right there.
Not merely material, but evaluation of position as well. And the 1.25 is just a number I threw out. some mathematicians and game theory experts could spend a day figuring out a better penalty. it may increase with each additional minute. or if say the end of your game is 5 consecutive minutes of stalling each minute doubles or some such standard. There are great options out there if someone actually wanted to think about it instead of dismiss it with no thought.
Jul 8, 2020
0
#35
canadian_rt wrote:
Imago13 wrote:
It's obvious when some of you don't read the thread. Since I'm not suggesting replacing the regular option, but adding another. One would think the chess community would be more thoughtful and less stodgy. It literally affects each of you zero if there is another game type and you choose not to play it.
So basically winning on lead of material. Win a Queen early in a 5 minute game? Eyy, just don't move you'll win no matter what because if your clock runs out, the most +1.25 they'll get is +6.25, Queen is worth 9, no big deal, easy dub right there.
I've always loved that phrase 
Sep 15, 2021
0
#36
Even if you have more material than your opponent it doesn't mean you are going to win the game.
Many of you are missing the point and that's fine. I'm sure if my rating was three times higher you would listen, of course it just dropped 200 points as I work on learning a new opening, but whatever. My point is that it is antiquated. It is a rule made before computers could give an unbiased and accurate decision as to who is winning. and if you want to reward better time management have an incremental penalty based on the time difference. Say, a penalty of 1.25 score per minute left on your opponents clock. It makes more sense. It's more representative of the game outcome.
It's also funny that some of you are acting like I'm using it as an excuse. I never said I only lose because of the clock. It is just something that as an analytical person when I break it down logically, it makes no sense. I even heard some GM's saying the clock was never meant to be a weapon when commentating a game. So I started to think about it a little more.
Maybe y'all should too.
I know a guy that was suspended for 3 years from the USCF for cheating. This same genius tried to propose that games should be played out against an engine if the game ended in a draw, or if you could prove its a win if you ran out of time (sound familiar?). So i asked the obvious question: "How long do you hold up the next round?" His idea was just to extend the length of the tournament. Your idea like his makes absolutely no sense.