Time Management

If you signed up to play a chess game as part of a group or as an individual, who is responsible for time management? You, me or is it chess.com?

The reason why I ask, is that recently I won a game, where my opponent is ahead in material, but lost on time. The comment I received from my opponent - 'moron'.

My reply to this - 'why did you call me a moron?' Is it because you lost the game on time? If you knew you were going away for more than the time control (normally 3 days), it is your responsibility to set up vacation mode. I am not responsible for you failing to do this.'

I understand that there is an option to turn off the feature of winning the game on time - but I wondering how many of you have actually turned this feature off?

I have read many post where people have stated that they have been in a game for over six months to a year - so who is in the wrong?

Entirely the player's problem. You did nothing wrong.

Just ignore him/her. I'm telling this with a 47% time out ratio, and in every one of my time out losses, it was strictly myself I was upset with.

Wow!!! Only two responses. I expected a few more at least as this is a controversial subject!!! For those that have responded, thank you :-)

It is only controversial if you ask the person who just lost to you on time...

Interesting thought, which is much appreciated. I do resign games, but in this particular game, my opponent wasn't in the position to force checkmate any time soon and there is always a chance of getting a stalemate. I have done it before and I am sure I will manage to in future games.

I shall give you the benifit of the doubt becaus eyou did nothing "wrong" but you should consider the fact that your basically delaying the inevitable and some ppl get touchy about having to play a clearly won position out for a month.

I think that, if you've agreed to terms for a game and then do not meet them (eg. time control), then a forfeit is an appropriate result.

I think it's the opponents fault. I have won games on time before albeit not a 3 day buffer which I think is luxurious by the way. In any case, your opponent in a stronger position needs to take advantage of that situation, if subsequent moves appear monotonous, he/she will have to learn to change tactics to force a change in the status quo. Hyannis, having played against you before I believe that the 'moron' comment was out of order and was rather uncalled for needless to say unecessary

Well if he thinks he could stalemate then it wasn't hopeless in his eyes. Whether he was right or not that it wasn't hopeless doesn't really matter, if he thinks he has a chance during the game he has a right to play on.

Thank you for your interesting thoughts.

You didn't address what I said: If the player doesn't know it's hopeless, then there's nothing wrong with them playing on. I don't know what you don't understand about this.

Actually in your 1st post you also said: 

"Playing on in a hopeless situation and trying to get a stalemate is okay for blitz and bullet games, but for games with a timelimit of three days it's silly."

EDIT: Also, I'm pretty sure if you ask most chessplayers if it's ok to play on in a hopeless position if the player doesn't know it's hopeless then they'd say yes. I'd like to believe chessplayers have that much common sense.

You don't have the option in tourneys anyway.