peopel on this website are savages

a

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1245148596

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1245145722

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1245128960

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1245125470

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1245117677

Put time stamps in the archived games, and put computer evaluation +/- on every move in your archived games.  

That probably won't happen because Danny Rensch is a time player. 

When I lose games on time I want it to be seen that 

1) my opponent ran around the board and flagged me 

2) that I was winning the game on each move (forcing my opponent to shuffle pieces and disrespect the game, and flag me to win)

I don't understand a single phrase.

You don't understand any phrase because you're trying to patronize me, because that's how you try to win arguments. Your rating is significantly de-valued thanks to the character of people here. 

You won't see any games of mind posted like this on the other-end. The most I've ever won time games on is being down one-minor piece. It's called respecting the game. 

But I can find probably close to 100 games I've lost like this. 

It's not fair to the ratings scheme if people will respect people who play like this, because it doesn't reward better players who want to achieve more. 

Arguments? Where?

you are the first savage

i mean pullin

But surely YOU know that you lost games because your opponent shuffled his pieces til you flagged, is that not enough? Or is it a pride thing - you want everyone else to know that you only lost because of this? But why should you care what everyone else thinks, especially if the people on this website are "savages", as you put it?

But if you take longer to think about your moves than your opponent, then you will have an advantage in terms of improving your position. So if your opponents skill is similar to yours, it makes sense that you would have a better position than he does when you run out of time. And it also makes sense that your opponent should win when you run out of time because if he didn't then the game timer would be pointless. thus whether you win on time or by checkmate is irrelevant. I think this is why they don't bother to include this info in your stats.

I'm gonna google 'peopel'

You lost those games because your opponents played better than you did... they were bright enough to realise that time is a part of the game, and to play at a time limit they could cope with.

They didn't disrespect the game... you are disrespecting the game by whining about losing games you completely deserved to lose.

If you do not like losing on time, do not play fast time controls. Time management is an integral part of the game. It doesn't matter if a general comes up with a brilliant plan if by the time he's done calculating the war is over.

I'm a nobel savage, I eat or use every piece from every game I lose on time leaving nothing to waste.

The war the NEVER over!

You just have to win the battles.

*anyone know what peopel is?

Play slower games if you can't hack it.

But unfortunately then people will play better moves and you'll still lose.

You'll have to admit you're just bad at chess.

You want your opponent to play quickly but for you to have enough time to checkmate. You can't have both.

I agree with Scottrf.

The OP is crap at chess. 

peopel means savages rather than real people

Maybe this is off topic but why don't stupid people realize how stupid they actually are? Because they are so stupid?