I don't like winning on time either, but just like in a blitz game the time keeps the game going. I don't think the points are affected differently than regular losses (not time losses) but you'd have to ask eric
Winning on Time
Sort:
It would be nice. But people may just let the clock run out if the game looks hopeless.
I hate lossing in time but i have to admit that i have done it. And i HATED it, it was a complete accident. I was bussy that week but i found time to come and make the moves on my game which had only a 25 hour time limit but while not forgetting to move that game i unfornumatly let my three day games slip and lost. I was most dissapointed. But time i agree does have its place, it ensures that a game doesnt last forever.
If you are going to be very busy and running out off time and do not want to lose on time Put yourself on vocation until you have made your moves.
No need to lose on time.
I don't like winning on time so I check the profile of a potential opponent and never play against someone with a timeout percentage over 10%. It a position is hopeless it would be nice if a player resigned instead of just forgetting the game. Also if a player feels time may be an issue, it would be good if that player didn't get involved in one, three, or even five day games.
Being new to internet chess, I'm glad you guys brought this topic up or I'd be in trouble during the first internet game I played. Don't get me wrong, I know about the various time limitations imposed during tournament game. However, I was pretty cloudy regarding the rules of internet play. Once again, I learn something new at chess.com
I'm neutral about winning on time... there's no bad thing about winning by time because at some point you might (and usually will) lose because of the same principle.
I love winning on time because otherwise I would have around 10 wins...
there will always be cases of natural disaster(hard drive crash, power outages, fires-like california, or forgetting to go on vacation when you go on vacation. what i dislike is situations where your opponent is in a losing position and just drops the game instead of resigning. this is a very uncool,unclassy way of dealing with a lost game. i guess i was raised to treat others as i would like to be treated(except for those who are my friends-i have to razz them a little bit).
doctor-ice wrote: what i dislike is situations where your opponent is in a losing position and just drops the game instead of resigning. this is a very uncool,unclassy way of dealing with a lost game.
I mentioned this in another thread and I'll say it again. There should be some kind of negative incentive for players who let a game expire on time. You wouldn't immediately suffer any consequences if you let a few games expire -- as you say, circumstances can happen to anyone. But if you pile up such games, it would be reasonable to, say, limit the number of games that person can start (this would encourage them to finish the ones they're losing rather than ignore them).
I know this adds a negative part to the site and people will say "can't we all just have fun?" Unfortunately, the answer to that question is "no, some people like to act like jerks." I believe the normal user would hardly notice this, except that there would seem to be fewer jerks on the site.
It has been a while since I first began this thread....for what its worth I've lost a couple of games due to circumstances beyond my control and won several due to who knows what. The most frustrating of those are ones in which the opposing player is definitely going to lose and instead of playing it out or resigning they let time expire.....one of these games was a 15 day game - it was frustrating to say the least (and I checked - the guy was still on line playing other games).....
There are sore losers and bad sports in every activity of life. Let the losers be losers and the winners be winners. If your chess ability is so bad that you have to resort to childish tactics like running your time out, then you should contemplate other hobbies.
In the calculation made by the rating algorithm, there is absolutely no difference how you won the game. A win is a win, however accomplished.
I think freezenyr has nailed it! Check your opponent's timeout percentage, and if it's something you can live with, then play on! If not, then politely decline. This may be heresy, but it is, after all, just a game!
I hate lossing on time one time I had two rooks and a queen while they had a knight and then I had a busy week and forgot.
I prefer online chess but if opponents lose on time then they lose on time. However, if they feel they don't have enough time to join the tournaments then they shouldn't join simple as that.
This being on-line chess I realize that there has to be some way to control the length of the game and force moves to take place; however, winning on time is certainly not preferred....
What are your thoughts?
Other than the really short games, does anyone know if your points are affected differently than if you won or loss via checkmate? And, if so, how?