winning on time....ethical. ..??

LOL if you think you're bad at time management, play longer time controls easy as that   LOL.

some people lose on time even in 5 hour games. Some spent 30 minutes on an obvious move.

30/30 or 45/45 are good slow time control for learning. ..but very few people plays long games. Therefore I prefer 30mins which is good time to think.

The most important thing to think about when claiming a win is "Why you decided to play the game to begin with?" What specific goals are you looking to acheive by playing the game in the first place? There isn't much of a silverbullet answer, however I did write and article kinda expounding on this. http://maddchess.blogspot.com/2014/07/chess-clock-winning-and-ethics.html hope this helps.

Chess is played with rules and boundaries. To claim winning on time unethical is unethical itself.

Who cares? You won

Next Question!

Winning on time is still legit in RvR's I mean come on. They guy should have enough time to hold a draw, gotta make it to 50, if he can't, doesnt deserve the 1/2.

Never said it's not legit!

Yes, he said 'ethical'. How could it be no legit?

I don't understand the question. Ethics has nothing to do with it. I played in a tournament once where my opponent would forget to hit the clock after making a move, allowing me to think about my move while his time ran down. I would decide on my move then ask him to start my clock.

I was taking advantage of my opponent's error in the context of the game rules. I never considered anything about it to be unethical.

        Management of your time is part of the game. It cannot reasonably be regarded as unethical to win on time, never mind whether the winner was losing on position or material, before the loser ran out of time.

If you are worried about the "ethics" of losing on time (if you can call it that) you may look into only playing games with some amount of bonus time added after every move? That way, time pressure can still be a factor, but no player will actually lose on time granted they move quickly enough.

i usually play 30 min so... no worries

That one I actualy feel is unethical . Winning on time is just a part of the game, but failiure to mention that your oponent forgot to hit the clock shows bad sportmansship. Ofcourse you can let the time run a litle to see if s/he notice, but letting half a minute go, is bad. 

I know chess lacks fair play rules, but that does not mean there shouldent be any. 

Even GMs at the highest level get into time trouble and make, if not blunders, then inaccurate moves and lose. Clock is part of a game in any format.

I played bullet game in which I took virtually ALL of my opponents pieces,,was two moves from checkmate and then my time ran out. Such is OTB. Alternative is online (correspondence) chees.

Also, if you were thinking as long as your opponent you might have much better position or see a tactics or combination that you missed because you were playing faster.

Houdini_Genius wrote:

I just played a game with my opponent wherein I m almost losing because of opponent's decisive material advantage. But only thing was in my favour is he was low on time...n finally he couldn't convert his advantage to full point because of time trouble.

How do guys feel is it ethical to continue the game in order 2 win on time or people should resign from there since he already outplayed. ..??

Let me know ur thoughts...??

Thanks!

It's ethical. Your opponent spent more time thinking and as a result he made better moves. As a consequence, he lost time.

Of course it's ethical. Time is part of the game.

"Anybody can play like a grandmaster in SIX minutes!!"

http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-wit-and-wisdom-of-louis-fogg

Time control is for competitive players. A social game could last forever.