Letting time run out vs resigning

I once had a situation where I lost track of time and found myself faced with the possibility of being late for class. Despite having a clear tactical disadvantage, my opponent refused the draw I offered. I checkmated him a minute later and made it to class on time :)

 You know by their rating and how well or bad they played against you and of course other factors.

I agree with this post 100%. I would never do it, but if the opponent chooses to do it then so be it. When this happens to me I just do a quick chore around the house or open a new tab and browse for a while. Of course I'm always reverting my attention back to the game in case my opponent tries to move quickly at the end and win on time. This is just something internet players should have to deal with rather than try to track them with some kind of system while insnaring the innocent. If this type of behavior bothers people that much, I would suggest to play over the board or keep track of players that do this in your notes so you know who not to play. This type of behavior is equivalent to someone just walking away from the board in a horrible position. The game is immediately forfeited and you are declared the winner so if you play over the board then you won't have to deal with this behavior. Otherwise quit griping and chalk it up as a win. Moreover, a real poor sport could just sit at the board and run down time out of spite. That is when you get up and go for a stroll around the room. Many GMs and other players don't always sit at the board when it's not their turn. And to reiterate what is in the quote above, that is ONE of the reasons the clock is there in the first place. Who cares what they do with their time. A win is a win.

If you think you can tell your opponent when to resign you might as well

just play  againts yourself.  Show some sportsmanship and don't take it so

seriously.

I had this happen. I was wining a game, and the guy had about 10 min on the clock. He let it go down to 50 seconds, then moved. To his surprise, I was still there. Then, he lost for sure.

I too used to ask for a draw if a game was even, and I had to run off on an emergency call. But, now...I just resign. It was my bad, but I got a clue. Never had a restriction but wont for sure now.

On the disconnect however, I do have bad connections at home. And I have lost several game to my disconnection. It seems to be better now, but still...there are some of those that are legit. I do hope the staff can make exceptions in those cases. I always document it in the notes on the game if that happens.

It has also happened to me. I obviously had the advantage in many games and my opponent didnt play hi next move because......well I dont know, he is stupid. I dont understand such kinds of ridiculous behavior. If you realise that you 99% have lost then just resign and dont waste people's time. If you are one from those who are tough nuts, then play but dont let time past on purpose. Its not polite and generally fair and honest. Its like saying to your opponent ''Hey, you know something? You are an idiot who just beat me. Therefore I will punish you by breaking your nerves with the clock.!''. DEFEAT IS DEFEAT, you played, the other got the advantage and you lose.......SO SIMPLE! And of course i am reffering to all kind of games except 1 min, 2 min etc. SO BE GOOD OPPONENTS BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER THE GAME. THE OPPONENT MUST BE ALWAYS RESPECTABLE WETHER HE LOSES OR WINS.

While you make some good points, I need to point out that a player can legitimately lose on time at any real-time time contol, and especially where there is only one sudden death time period.  You certainly shouldn't have to resign if you only have a 1% chance of winning, but have the right to play for that 1%.  No question, deliberate stalling or simply abandoning a game are not acceptable conduct.

You are right, but I am talking about waiting on purpose in order to break the opponent's nerves. I agree on what you say regarding everyone's right to keep on playing if they want to.

You are all nolifers that's all :]]] There is so much unfair in the world , and you get upset about a guy or two , who do not take this game seriously? :DD Glassy nerd , go get a life, and jsut enjoy the game. so what , he left the timer running ... wow , just go play another game , you nolifers must have premium membership either way :}

Letting time run out rather than resigning shows a person without class.

It also shows a person who has a very poor understanding of chess.

Bunk, if you know you are going to lose because of time and/or position and there is no way not to lose-you should resign--it is not fighting spirit

to sit there while time runs out.

And I if you do sit until time runs out--that does not necessarily mean your opponent will get angry at you.

Is there any way to set up a virtual arbiter, and give a player the ability to petition for a win or draw?  Of course if the petition is not granted a time penality would be assessed to the petitioner.  A lost position is a lost position,regardless of a players ability to evaluate a chess game.   

Ok, I had yet to read all the posts before I added my initial comment, I call this thread a draw by the threefold repetition. 

I agree with melvinbluestone.

What? We only play by the rules if it doesn't inconvenience us? And if it does, then, not?

I've been in lots of situations in live chess where I've thought about a position for ten minutes- that doesn't make me a cheater or bad sport. I wasn't stalling, I was thinking.

 If you don't like the way someone plays or you think that they're a bad sport- block them.

 It's ridiculous for chess.com to penalize someone when they're playing within the rules.

And, just for the record, I've had several games where my opponent stalled and let the clock run out rather than resign- I've never done that to anyone else.

I would hope everyone understands that there will not be a consensus on this matter. 

Is there something inherently wrong with the desire to play under extended time controls without having to wait for, in some instances, hours to complete a game that is obviously won?

If you are content with the way the rules are established that is fine.  Although various types of alternative games/controls could create a playing experience that can be enjoyed by a wider audience.   

one  move of check mate guy just stops playing wastes time, i click on his account and the guy has multiple  comments on same issue ie sore loser  violate the rules, what did this guy get out of running the clock insted of leting me check mate him or resigning

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=752345699

this was my game it was his move, there was no way he cud prevent. he waited 6 mins to move never given me the chance to pull of the attack, it is not thinkin time it is clearly sore losers. and resigning isnt bad even in this case he has no need to watch me checkmate him if he resigns i get the same satisifaction then checkmate, i win done deal but letting the clock run out, i just wonderd what they get from it. like lose less points or somthing ?

I cannot understand the mentality. Also, I cannot understand the mentality of the people who defend this behaviour, except of course that all of the defenders are in the habit of the same poor sportsmanship qualities.

It seems to me that there must be some server modification that could help ameliorate this problem. I have an idea:

If a player makes no moves for a significant period of time, then there could be a popup that asks if he's still playing/thinking. If he doesn't click "yes" within a reasonable amount of time, then he forfeits the game automatically. There could be a threshold for amount of material disadvantage; say, the server only asks inactive players who are down 3 points of material or more.

The appropriate period of idle time could be a little tricky to nail down. A set period of time might work, but the idle time could be scaled (perhaps non-linearly) based on how much time the player had on the clock when their turn started. If a player clicks "yes" to indicate that he is indeed still playing, but never makes a move, that player would obviously be flagged by the server.

Thoughts?