time control is stupid
Sort:
DreamscapeHorizons wrote:
exactly
Jenium wrote:
baller3578 wrote:
magipi wrote:
It's a pretty strange thing to play mostly 30-second bullet and complain on losing on time.
This only applies to rapid and maybe maybe blitz
I'm not complaining about losing on time in bullet because that's kinda the whole point
You can play with increment to avoid this.
sometimes the increment isn't enough
Oct 31, 2025
0
#25
OF COURSE NOT!!! What if someone just stops making moves FOREVER!?! Btw, here is a tip: Start playing daily
And if u think daily is too slow just play multiple games at a time. Some people have hundreds going simultaneously but thats way too many. I used to try to keep it under 10. Maybe 1 is ur choice.
baller3578 wrote:
Jenium wrote:
baller3578 wrote:
magipi wrote:
It's a pretty strange thing to play mostly 30-second bullet and complain on losing on time.
This only applies to rapid and maybe maybe blitz
I'm not complaining about losing on time in bullet because that's kinda the whole point
You can play with increment to avoid this.
sometimes the increment isn't enough
Lol, I give up.
i've been playing more increment chess since yesterday and 2 of my opponents have timed out despite me being completely lost
Time control is not stupid. In the early 1800s, there was no time control. The result:
the player went dating, to restaurants, etc., and the opponent was thinking for days….
the player went dating, to restaurants, etc., and the opponent was thinking for days….
Fet wrote:
Time control is not stupid. In the early 1800s, there was no time control. The result:
the player went dating, to restaurants, etc., and the opponent was thinking for days….
the player went dating, to restaurants, etc., and the opponent was thinking for days….
If people didn't abuse it
But since they do, I have a new proposition
Think of a time control where you get a certain time to make a move. The time you take has no effect on the time you get for your next move.
ex. 3 minutes on this time control means you get 3 minutes to make every move (that's probably more than enough)
Your only way of stalling is waiting until and playing a move (your timer would reset to on the next turn regardless)
ok you’re gonna wanna hear this:
✨10 minute rapid game✨
✨10 minute rapid game✨
Feb 1, 2026
0
#32
If you can't convert a winning position ahead 4 queens in time then you deserve to lose, even if your opponent has no material left besides the king.
I think you make a great point, Chess isn't scored based on game performance, people get free wins just for showing up, even after getting embarrassingly outplayed. Which is what makes being good at the game incredibly difficult. Winning the won game consistently is already very hard, but to have to maintain sharp accuracy for 30 more moves without a single error every game as it can flip in 1 wrong move, thats annoying. Usually increment technique and strong endgame knowledge can somewhat resolve this problem, but I wonder if 3-5 or 3-10 would work (dont think chesscom has). Or making a new variation where some button option exists to Declare Win, then it pauses and lets you play out the Mate in X, if correct you get the win, if you don't solve it you lose. The opponent can also choose to resign instead of waiting for you, since they probably know they have obviously lost. But this only satisfies some chess personalities, other people love the flagging stealing wins aspect of chess so they can inflate their ratings.
Feb 2, 2026
0
#34
Try playing standard chess games then. (Non-timed chess games). 🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰
Fet a écrit :
Time control is not stupid. In the early 1800s, there was no time control. The result:
the player went dating, to restaurants, etc., and the opponent was thinking for days….
the player went dating, to restaurants, etc., and the opponent was thinking for days….
In what book have you read about such an "issue" in XIX° Century chess competition?
The actual issue there is with playing without a clock, or any time limit, is that, a player having a losing position, just have to "think" forever until the game gets cancelled because everybody has other things to attend.
You bet that happened a whole lot within prized matches.
The firsts attempts have been to set a time limit (and a money fine in case of trespassing it) per move. It, of course, did not work out. Read a History of chess to know the details.
The chess clock has been the miracle that saved chess from being ultimately left aside regarding anything like "Who's the strongest in the World?".
The first model of chess clock 1850: (or one of these...)
Feb 3, 2026
0
#36
baller3578 wrote:
why do i lose on time when i have 4 queens, mate in 2, and my opponent has a single pawn (the game thinks if i run out of time i would let the pawn promote, take all of my pieces, and mate me)
sometimes it doesn't even matter if you're winning and more about if you have more time than your opponent
for example in bullet if you have more time than your opponent but you're losing you can just rapid fire premoves and checks, you'll probably win on time
i wanna ask for a mode where you get as much time as you need to think but that already exists for most people (classical) and if you literally had infinite time people would use that to stall
firstly you aren’t managing your time well, if you’re taking 30 seconds to move when you can clearly see you have 10 seconds left that’s on you
second, why would you choose such a short time control
It's a pretty strange thing to play mostly 30-second bullet and complain on losing on time.
This only applies to rapid and maybe maybe blitz
I'm not complaining about losing on time in bullet because that's kinda the whole point
You can play with increment to avoid this.