If your opponent's computer loses its connection one in a million times, then you can say you are playing for that possibility to win !
Personally, I see that as low class and would instead resign.
Same rationale as playing in a tournament thinking about resigning in a dead lost position, with otherwise no hope -- ie; my opponent can have a heart attack and die or he/she can be called away for an emergency.
I had it on monday exactly the way you put it, mate in like 3 and i have 42 seconds and the clock is at 15, I ended up resigning the game against the lower rated player.
I mean of course I would do this. I don't see it as bad etiquette, especially if my opponent is chasing me for money. If I don't have to why would I basically give him money. If it is just for rating I would probably just resign.
I am not sure how to start a new topic but chess tournaments would be more fun w/ limited # of players per tournament. That allows outside players to watch the story unfold of who's on pace to win... as far as time goes, it's all part of the game, time constraints
In this case, stalling is fair play. Letting the arena time run out is a strategy in arena tournaments and does not demonstrate poor sportsmanship or etiquette.
If your opponent's computer loses its connection one in a million times, then you can say you are playing for that possibility to win !
Personally, I see that as low class and would instead resign.
Same rationale as playing in a tournament thinking about resigning in a dead lost position, with otherwise no hope -- ie; my opponent can have a heart attack and die(hopefully not) or he/she can be called away for an emergency.
If your opponent's computer loses its connection one in a million times, then you can say you are playing for that possibility to win !
Personally, I see that as low class and would instead resign.
Same rationale as playing in a tournament thinking about resigning in a dead lost position, with otherwise no hope -- ie; my opponent can have a heart attack and die or he/she can be called away for an emergency.
Not really. There isn't a 100% that your opponent would have a heart attack and die. In this example, you can run the clock down and have the best outcome 100% of the time.
I don't consider it unfair in any way. You shouldn't be surprised, that "all of a sudden" you have no time left. I see it this way: Let's assume there are 5 minutes left in a 3+0-arena. That means, you should know before the game, that you have to win using only two minutes of your own time. If you don`t succeed, you simply didn´t deserve the points. To play a "normal" blitz game in this scenario without thinking about the clock situation is just bad game strategy.
Obviously with increment it gets a little bit more tricky, because you don´t know beforehand, how much increment your opponent might accumulate over the moves. But even then you should guess, how fast you have to play not to get "flagged by the tournament clock" and play accordingly.
I mean, it is not a secret, when the tournament clock runs out.
i think chess.com should change the rule and let the games in a tournament finish even if time is up
I run into this a lot in arenas so I thought I'd ask about it. Let's say there are 30 seconds left in an arena and I have 35 seconds on my clock and my opponent has mate in 1. Is it proper chess etiquette to just let my time run since the arena will end and thus abort the game before it is over? I know it's allowed, but I'm not sure if it's proper.