you shoulddnt be awarded winm in time if you olny have pawns or less

I dont thinking winning on time when you only have pawns or , just a king is fair. it said i lost on time even though i had a queen and my opponent only had 2 pawns. He couldnt have possibly won the game properly.

He did win the game properly, he managed his time better than you.

no i dont think winning on time counts as winning properly . you should checkmate your oppoent to win. I am not saying im aganst winning on time I just think its silly if it gets applied when the oppoent cant possibly win by checkmate.

lol then what's the point of a clock?

Well, what you think doesn't really have a bearing on the rules.  Winning on time is a legitimate way to win, as is resignation.

Learn the rules and sportsmanship and then you'll fully understand why the clock is such a useful device!

Have you ever won on time with only a pawn left?

Well, so much for consolation.

Put a 5 second bonus into all your games.  Learn to move faster, and you will lose many, many, less games on time.  Great for your endgames too.

TRACKING!

Call it tough love.

I dont konw how to get the 5 second increment option , I ve tried  to look for it but have not found it

1) with just a king it is not possible to win in time...

2) play with increments

Why didn't you checkmate him with your queen, then? It goes both ways, pal.

It's under bonus time.

Ok here is how to get a 5 second increment. Click to see your options of game times to challenge. there will be one that says customs. Click on that, and you can set your challenge to any time you want. (though the longer it is the less likely you get your challenge accepted right away. Time is part of the game, and although it does suck to lose on time when you are winning, it happens to everyone.

Instead of knobbing around checking him over and over again, you should have taken his last pawn if you couldn't figure out how to mate. Then he can't win on time because he's got no mate even if you cooperate.

Why did I lose when my opponent checkmated me but I had more pieces??  It's not fair.

lol. Yup.

White to move and mate....

You may say, well that is an exceptional position, but that would ask a lot of the checking software...."Sudden Death" time which is what we invariably play on chess.com  and represented by club analogue clocks, underlies the "need/justice" to eventually migrate to "Fischer timing/digital clocks". Much of the debate on the forum about "unsporting behaviour" relates to this increasingly outdated time limit format.

Fischer timing keeps the idea of a time constraint without making the clock the most important piece. I remember on game where my opponent had bishop and pawn and I had bishop of opposite colour. He was very slightly up on time with a few minutes for each of us left. All I did was to cover the pawn's square and surrender the bishop when necessary. All he did was to keep making king/bishop moves and not allow threefold repetition. OK this was 10 minute blitz.

I don't know about other countries, or wether indeed this is a FIDE thing, but with sudden death timing, arbiters can jump in on the basis of an opponent not making "sufficient progress" - this is open to abuse and indeed requires a level of chess understanding that is not necessarily held by the arbiter in question - underlining again the merits of "Ficher Timing".

Of course on chess.com, understandably, we can't call in the arbiter !