DrSpudnik wrote:
There is a point where resignation is the best idea you can come up with.
I resign when:
1. chances to save the game are very slim
AND
2. playing on is no fun
Scenario in the original post doesn’t fit any of these criteria.
What is your opinion about players who try to win on time when dead lost?
Sort:
Dec 24, 2019
0
#103
LosingAndLearning81 wrote:
What is your opinion about players who try to win on time when dead lost?
If I have plenty of time, then I beat them quickly and easily, so I have nothing to be upset about.
But if I don't win, then apparently their strategy was correct, and again I have nothing to be upset about (other than my own lack of skill).
I think that you should try to win the game tactically and by time because timing is part of the game and players need to learn how to manage it. I know this might not be possible, but it is what I try to do.
I won't resign if I'm up on material and I won't resign if I'm up on time neither.
Dec 25, 2019
0
#106
I hate those players who try to win in a dead won position. It's just not acceptable,
glamdring27 wrote:
I hate those players who try to win in a dead won position. It's just not acceptable,/ I am soooo a cockblocker I like to rub Jack Daniels on my b@lls and push roocks and bishops up my @ss🖕
You are sick in the words of Gordon Ramsay orh disgusting
DrSpudnik wrote:
There is a point where cockblocking is the best idea you can come up with.
You are disgusting 2
Dec 25, 2019
0
#109
stdoutnull wrote:
... especially those less privileged?
Less privileged? A nose is a privilege? Or did you mean "nasally challenged"?
A game is played with predetermined rules accepted by both players. If winning on time is a part of those rules, and on this site it generally is, whining about people using it against you speaks against your character as a person. There is nothing wrong with your opponent following the rules, and trying to handicap your opponent from such a thing after the fact is just sad.
Time management is an aspect of playing chess if your not using increment. I play with increment, so I rarely get issues with running out of time.
More often than not, I'll have a pretty good idea if I can win or not, long before the I get to the point where I'm worried about losing on time. But, once in a while, I do manage to use up too much time.
I usually play 15+15 on another chess server, so I'd have to be under 3 minutes to even start to worry about time issues. An yes, I do occassionally lose on time.
Back in the early 90's and even most of the 90's, when most players didn't have a digital clock, if you were playing against a higher rated opponent, complicating the position in order to for your opponent to eat up time on his clock was a viable strategy.
Between increment time, and players in general having more access to playing chess 24/7, means that your unlikely to find an opponent that isn't familiar with navigating complicated positions, and keeping their time management in order.
I'm talking about 30min or longer games: 15+15 is considered the same as a 30 minute game.
Most chess games have 60 or less moves, so statically speaking, so you multiply the increment by 60, then add the base time to get what an increment game's length is.
(15 seconds = 4 quarters of a minute): 15min + (4/60) = 15 minutes + 15 minutes = 30 minute game
if you want to play quality games then go for classical chess...cause blitz and bullets are introduced to increase the toughness in game by letting players make a compromise between time and accuracy...from my pov blitz and bullet shows how corporate world works...deadlines and getting work done...
If I'm dead lost I usually try to sack all my pieces and play to a draw, if they can't mate me in that time then that's on you 🤷♀️ obviously it depends how much time is left like if we've both got 5+ minutes left then I won't bother because they're gonna mate me but that's not out of class that's because I'll lose anyways 🤔
May 8, 2022
0
#114
Personally I think it’s poor sportsmanship to just move pieces randomly to burn clock
they are annoying.lol
LosingAndLearning81 escribió:
HobbyPIayer wrote:
"What is your opinion about players who try to win on time when dead lost?"
I consider it just part of the game.
I've played a lot of blitz and bullet over the years. Eventually, you come to expect it. After all, clock management is one of the defining characteristics of speed chess.
Both players are playing blitz/bullet because of the thrill of racing against the clock. To complain about an opponent who's trying to flag you in a lost position is kind of missing the point of speed chess.
That very struggle is a big part of what blitz and bullet are all about.
Just because you're winning, that doesn't mean you're entitled to a resignation from your opponent.
You still have to earn the win, and your opponent still has the clock as their last resource to wield against you.
I think the thing that bothers me so much - when it probably shouldn't - is that people put more stock in the technicality of a win than they do the heart of chess. It's like when people play deliberately bad moves hoping to win right away and such. I don't know why this bothers me, but it does. I love this game.
I don't care if I win or lose - I just want to play as good as I possibly can. And if I have a choice between playing good moves and losing and playing bad moves and winning - I'd rather play good moves and lose. Early on in the thread I made an exception for those who play for money because I understand that needing to eat is important, too. But playing online - lichess for instance - people had literally rather win than anything. And I find that ugly.
I can't tell you have many times someone blunders terribly and then asks for a takeback. I'm not talking about a mouseslip - I mean they miss something completely...a blunder - and they want a takeback. Why? Does a technical win really mean more to you than chess itself? I find that offensive but I let them have it. Every single time I let them off the hook.
Why not? After all, it's all they'll ever get out of chess.
It's the opposite to me. No problem with beating me on time. But takebacks, never. You can't do that in real life, you can't in a game either.
That's called "dirty flagging", a legitimate strategy if your opponent is low on time. The clock is a piece!
What baffles me is how people who "literally don't care" because it's just a game feel so much about other players' approach.
May 8, 2022
0
#119
Earning a winning position, then losing on the clock? That's like having great form while defusing a bomb - but then the bomb explodes before you finish. What does it matter, in the end, if you had great form or not?
If the bomb goes off, you're dead.
If your flag falls, you've lost.
At that point, the position on the board no longer matters at all . . .
glamdring27 wrote:
I hate those players who try to win in a dead won position. It's just not acceptable,
Then go and tell FIDE, chesscom or whoever You are referring to, that their rules are unacceptable for You.
Tell them how much You hate, when people follow their rules and play within their ramifications 
There is a point where resignation is the best idea you can come up with.