Letting time run out vs resigning

I dont think the issue is taking time to think- if one is playing 10 min game- each player is entitled to take asmuch time as they need- but if a player takes 9:50 for the second or third move, well that is rude, but not unfair imo- however, what i encounter frequently is players who, when in a bad- not even unwinnable- position, abandon the game altogether and let tthe clock run for 10+ mins- instead of resigning- that is more than rude, and these players should be flogged publicly and demoted to tic-tac-duoh its a matter of fair play- there are better things for me to do than watch the clock wind down because some baby made a poor move and wants to be a jerk instead of just changing thier diaper and resigning like a big boy/girl. and if people think this is a fair system of play- perhaps there should be a different area for players who want to play, and players who want to be idiots and run away and waste others time. and i dont think the clock is there so that i can refuse to move and lose but have the satisfation of knowing that i wasted my opponents time- i mean i havent read that in any chess books, but sound like a valid approach.

Cripes! a bit condescending, and i agree rude and obnoxious is basic behaviour, and that totally justifies it (sarcasm intended)- as for chess i thought is was a game- which implies rules and ideas of fair play, but now i realize its a mysterious activity! that attracks nuts!- so now i understand! wow, cool

you confuse me chris, what are you saying, you agree with the fair play poilcy or you don't. Atm you are agreeing with it, so am I but melvin is against it and is saying is not working properly and you agreed with it ?

would you do that in the otb melvin, let the time run out, walk away from the board and not returning to it ? the TD, coach, fellow members would have few word with that player about the sportmanship, just the same as the fair play come in.      

melvinbluestone 

hahaha- brilliant - i would like to play against players who want to play- this means actively participating in the game- cripes! even a child.. well you know the rest- and your suggestion to not play a clock game is equally brilliant- please explain what happens when a player abandons that game?- not disconnects, but just refuses to move and lets the clock run out?- oh thats right there is no clock- hmmmm

 as for you posting: "My opponent is an idiot and a jerk because he has a bad (not even unwinnable, just "bad") position, and instead of resigning, he keeps playing. The nerve of the guy: to try to win! The audacity to keep playing when he's playing chess game!

i think this indicates that you lack understanding the point and are skewing thing to make your own point- thie issue is when a player, confronted with a bad move/poor position STOPS PLAYING-  and abandons the game to let the clock run out. i doubt that anyone would argue that a player has the right to play and try to win. but 'idiot and jerk' are your words not mine-  i simply advocate flogging to improve moral-

and please reread the posts and try to understand , this is about fairplay sportmans ship and not being an ahole. i have a problem when a player abandons a game( instead of resigning or playing to fruition) when confronted with a losing position- this means they stop moving(playing) and let the clock run down without moving(playing) and lose the game on time without moving(playing)- which implies to me that they are not trying to win- just being obnoxious and rude so i think perhaps you might not understand. 

 I guess I dont understand your gripe, because choosing not to play at a 30 minute time control is exactly what I am doing.

I would love 30 minutes, if I knew my opponents would resign when it is hopeless and not deliberatly let the clock run out for 20 minutes to "get back at me."  My kids might be in the next room, maybe they want daddy to come play with them or something, and instead I am sitting here, like an idiot, waiting for a random jerk who can't bring himself to click "resign".

For a real game I am perfectly content to stare at a position for 20 minutes or even longer, my favorite time control is about 2 hours per game. But I have no intention of ever trying this out in a online game.

Why do you think you never hear about people doing this in OTB play?

Because there, you have to face your opponent. You can't be an anonymous jerk. After the game you have to get together with all the players in a room and wait for the next round assignments. being a jerk is going to get you a bad reputation, in person, from people you might see again next week at the next tournament.

So yeah, my solution is to play only the online variant, or short blitz games. never longer live games with a "decent" time control. I wont allow jerks to waste my time in that manner.

btw melvin admitted earlier "he is only kidding around" in the thread. So....

 yea - why should the expectation of someone acting like an adult be even considered? after all if one person acts like a diseased infested fetid fecal infused parasitic nematode, should that be be the norm and shouldn't we all act like that? briallant arguement

 1)i feel you are condoning this behaviour- you are arguing strongly for it

2) your 'jerks to lonely guy' comparison point is moot becasuse the issue is when players STOP PLAYING- i dont know how else to explain- but however you want to take is up to you

3) thank you for explaining my logic to me- i must be confused becasue what i thought i was trying to say, logically, is that when a player STOPS PLAYING- they are being unsportsmanlike, but i guess you know better than I

4)In conclusion please accept my deepest condolences. i thought chess was supposted to be fun and having aholes waste my time is not fun- but now i know that it really "It's a mysterious activity involving moving little pieces" and alsoi had no idea that you are a champion for "fostering better chess" and are fighting the tyrrany of "mass-marketing a watered down version of a great game" it must be exhausting, but now i feel enlightened and cant wait for some one to abandon a game

but thanks again for explaining to me my logic and reasonong -i certain understand my opinion much better and that is priceless

I agree with JohnnyRocco. I have no problem at all with a player legitametly taking a long time to think and move. The bad apples are the ones who just stop playing but want revenge on their opponent by making them waste real world time for the win. It is difficult to fathom the pettiness involved in wanting to take revenge on a player halfway around the world that you will never see and never know. But there it is.

thanks, everyone has their opinion, but i dont think its too much to ask for people act maturly, but hey its just a game on the internet, which brings me back to flogging hmmm.

It is not part of the game of chess itself.

People who walk away instead of resigning forego the chance to play a rematch with me, because instead of playing and finishing a decent game with me, they have unnecessarily wasted some of my time.

They hope to be able to play other players instead, thinking there is going to be always a new opponent in the big enough pool of players who has not yet stopped playing with them.

I agree that it can be a good idea to protect these other players, and to show the offenders that this is supposed to be about playing chess, not about trying to fool others into losing on time by boring them to death, and not about childishly insisting on punishing each opponent for beating you by making him wait for the rest of the time of the game.

 Exactly. Thats why I only do 10 minute games. I am not going to have an opponent screw up in minute one of a 30 minute game, and then tie up my computer and myself for the next 29 minutes. I have better things to do.

Just because you can do something doesn't make it right.

If you're a jackass, don't expect a rematch.

Oh, and easy way out is give them ~60 seconds to move in their lost position and then just resign.  No point in wasting time.  I do this ~half the time this sort of thing happens.

 I am going to give this serious thought, this might be a better approach. The rating will take care of itself in the long run.

 Hm... I'm 18 and I almost never give the benefit of the doubt. It's pretty easy to tell when someone's thinking, and when they've left. Why should I give them the benefit of the doubt when at least 99.9% of them don't deserve it?

.017%: The other guy's house was raided and got shot, but hey, he could still hit the resign button. It's not like he has anything better to do while he waits.

.049%: The other guy's dog got hit by a meteor, and he needs to tend to it's wounds. Well I guess the dog would be dead so there's not much point in that. Once he realizes, he should come back and resign.

.034%: The other girl happens to be pregnant, and it's time. No that's not even good. She's waited 9 months; it can wait one more second for her to hit resign.

Better idea: rather than playing the game just give it to the fellow who

feels morally superior - that will solve this time issue.

 If we do that your rating would break 3000

then what are you saying about this whole thing here ?