That would not be fair. Time is as much a part of the game as material. Add a couple of seconds of increment to assist with securing the win when in time trouble.
And it is not fair to use more time than your opponent in getting a lead and then to be awarded a win when running out of time because of that lead.
Carpark, your rival also can fall him/herself in such situation, don't you think is far enough?
Oh really? Would you resign if you just had a pawn and you're opponent had 0.5 seconds on the clock with a queen?
Who said it is? Who said it is? Oh you can, can you? What if it didn't happen?
The only thing forcing you to play blitz is your own paranoia.
I find it frustrating
I also find it highly annoying
but when i am significantly ahead and have to lose....... is disgusting and hard to take.
fair to all.
Take up a different hobby. It will be good for your blood pressure.
Guess he took your advice Lagomorph. OP has left the building.
Guess he took your advice Lagomorph. OP has left the building.
I guess we should warn Backgammon.com
I find it frustrating that i have to play three minute games so that cheats have less time to consult a program in games.
I also find it highly annoying that taking this path means i also have to suffer people who play the clock regular.
I can accept the fact when it's equal material or even a slight material disadvantage but when i am significantly ahead and have to lose to a timeout cos my opponent has one pawn for example is disgusting and hard to take.
imo it should be considered to be a draw if you time out and your opponent is -5 or more material to be fair to all.