Caesar49bc wrote:
thx
ziplinekitkat wrote:
ziplinekitkat wrote:
*say*
I'm not comforting but let's just day at least you didn't get checkmated and butchered
If you click on your own post, you can edit and delete it.
Chess Etiquette: Winning on time when you are extremely behind
Sort:
Time clock is a rule like checkmate that's why they are there. Thats how i always saw it or else remove the clock or give increments but a fixed 5 min game is just that. Feelings are irrelevant the clock tocks n ticks
Jul 8, 2019
0
#224
Caesar49bc wrote:
glamdring27 wrote:
Usually where an increment is used you get less base time so it shouldn't change much, except in an end game. Just makes it easier for people who aren't able to manage their time.
Increment wasn't invented for blitz games. It was invented so that when playing classical games, players were less likely to lose on time, and it was needed in order to stop game adjournments.
Once chess engines came on the scene, it was only a matter of time before adjournments would be banished.
What are adjournments?
chadnilsen wrote:
Caesar49bc wrote:
glamdring27 wrote:
Usually where an increment is used you get less base time so it shouldn't change much, except in an end game. Just makes it easier for people who aren't able to manage their time.
Increment wasn't invented for blitz games. It was invented so that when playing classical games, players were less likely to lose on time, and it was needed in order to stop game adjournments.
Once chess engines came on the scene, it was only a matter of time before adjournments would be banished.
What are adjournments?
Paused games that are continued later, usually the next day.
Well I was winning by queen and rook then the game was draw which I think is fair.
Aug 19, 2019
0
#227
Material advantage alone doesn't determine the outcome of a match.
If your position is completely lost, like in a king vs king and queen endgame, I think it is extremely shameful to try and get a win by timeout. That's exactly like breaking the law and getting away by exploiting a legal loophole. For example, the player who won on time exploited the fact that winning on time is allowed and chose to take advantage of it despite the fact that he was completely lost but checkmate was 7 moves away and the winning player had just 3 seconds to execute it. How is that a fair win by any means?
If the game can go either way, then a win by timeout is fair. If the position is completely equal but one player wins by timeout, it is unfortunate for the player who lost but the win is still fine(unless the player who won on time refused a draw offer just so he could win on time.. and yes, I've had that happen to me. The guy even admitted that's what he was going for.)
I've both won and lost by timeout but if my opponent is running extremely low on time but has a COMPLETELY WINNING position, I WILL resign the game when he/she has less than 10 seconds but checkmate is still a few moves away.
One of my friends lost a completely drawn position on time. He offered a draw to his opponent that was repeatedly refused. No points for guessing why.
Aug 19, 2019
0
#228
Nyctophile88 wrote:
Material advantage alone doesn't determine the outcome of a match.
If your position is completely lost, like in a king vs king and queen endgame, I think it is extremely shameful to try and get a win by timeout. That's exactly like breaking the law and getting away by exploiting a legal loophole. For example, the player who won on time exploited the fact that winning on time is allowed and chose to take advantage of it despite the fact that he was completely lost but checkmate was 7 moves away and the winning player had just 3 seconds to execute it. How is that a fair win by any means?
If the player with the advantage is low on time, that means they used up too much time in order to get to that position. So if they run out of time, it's their fault.
Nyctophile88 wrote:
Material advantage alone doesn't determine the outcome of a match.
If your position is completely lost, like in a king vs king and queen endgame, I think it is extremely shameful to try and get a win by timeout. That's exactly like breaking the law and getting away by exploiting a legal loophole. For example, the player who won on time exploited the fact that winning on time is allowed and chose to take advantage of it despite the fact that he was completely lost but checkmate was 7 moves away and the winning player had just 3 seconds to execute it. How is that a fair win by any means?
If the game can go either way, then a win by timeout is fair. If the position is completely equal but one player wins by timeout, it is unfortunate for the player who lost but the win is still fine(unless the player who won on time refused a draw offer just so he could win on time.. and yes, I've had that happen to me. The guy even admitted that's what he was going for.)
I've both won and lost by timeout but if my opponent is running extremely low on time but has a COMPLETELY WINNING position, I WILL resign the game when he/she has less than 10 seconds but checkmate is still a few moves away.
One of my friends lost a completely drawn position on time. He offered a draw to his opponent that was repeatedly refused. No points for guessing why.
I dont understand your analogy. If someone breaks the law and gets away with it because of a legal loophole did they really break the law? The rules of chess apply to everyone equally. If someone wins on time its exactly the same thing as winning by checkmate. The rules are identical for both sides. Either side could win by time, or, either side could win by checkmate. As far as I know there are no rules of chess that say one way of winning counts more, or less, than the other. Some people even win by other means, like the opponent resigning, disqualification, etc. I think the rules count all wins, no matter how it's done, as one point.
Think of it like other competitions are decided. Like sports for example. In a basketball game if team A is up 2 points the entire game and team B is never leading, not even once, should team B lose just because they made a miracle 3 pointer with .01 seconds left to play? The rules say team B wins, even though they were losing, maybe badly, for 99.999% of the game.
Chess is just like most other competitions, time is the most important factor.
Aug 19, 2019
0
#230
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Nyctophile88 wrote:
Material advantage alone doesn't determine the outcome of a match.
If your position is completely lost, like in a king vs king and queen endgame, I think it is extremely shameful to try and get a win by timeout. That's exactly like breaking the law and getting away by exploiting a legal loophole. For example, the player who won on time exploited the fact that winning on time is allowed and chose to take advantage of it despite the fact that he was completely lost but checkmate was 7 moves away and the winning player had just 3 seconds to execute it. How is that a fair win by any means?
If the game can go either way, then a win by timeout is fair. If the position is completely equal but one player wins by timeout, it is unfortunate for the player who lost but the win is still fine(unless the player who won on time refused a draw offer just so he could win on time.. and yes, I've had that happen to me. The guy even admitted that's what he was going for.)
I've both won and lost by timeout but if my opponent is running extremely low on time but has a COMPLETELY WINNING position, I WILL resign the game when he/she has less than 10 seconds but checkmate is still a few moves away.
One of my friends lost a completely drawn position on time. He offered a draw to his opponent that was repeatedly refused. No points for guessing why.
I dont understand your analogy. If someone breaks the law and gets away with it because of a legal loophole did they really break the law? The rules of chess apply to everyone equally. If someone wins on time its exactly the same thing as winning by checkmate. The rules are identical for both sides. Either side could win by time, or, either side could win by checkmate. As far as I know there are no rules of chess that say one way of winning counts more, or less, than the other. Some people even win by other means, like the opponent resigning, disqualification, etc. I think the rules count all wins, no matter how it's done, as one point.
Think of it like other competitions are decided. Like sports for example. In a basketball game if team A is up 2 points the entire game and team B is never leading, not even once, should team B lose just because they made a miracle 3 pointer with .01 seconds left to play? The rules say team B wins, even though they were losing, maybe badly, for 99.999% of the game.
Chess is just like most other competitions, time is the most important factor.
Exactly.
Aug 20, 2019
0
#231
Nyctophile88 wrote:
Material advantage alone doesn't determine the outcome of a match.
If your position is completely lost, like in a king vs king and queen endgame, I think it is extremely shameful to try and get a win by timeout. That's exactly like breaking the law and getting away by exploiting a legal loophole. For example, the player who won on time exploited the fact that winning on time is allowed and chose to take advantage of it despite the fact that he was completely lost but checkmate was 7 moves away and the winning player had just 3 seconds to execute it. How is that a fair win by any means?
If the game can go either way, then a win by timeout is fair. If the position is completely equal but one player wins by timeout, it is unfortunate for the player who lost but the win is still fine(unless the player who won on time refused a draw offer just so he could win on time.. and yes, I've had that happen to me. The guy even admitted that's what he was going for.)
I've both won and lost by timeout but if my opponent is running extremely low on time but has a COMPLETELY WINNING position, I WILL resign the game when he/she has less than 10 seconds but checkmate is still a few moves away.
One of my friends lost a completely drawn position on time. He offered a draw to his opponent that was repeatedly refused. No points for guessing why.
The best you can get with King vs King and Queen is a draw, you can't win on time. But as stated by someone else, if someone takes so long to get into that King and Queen vs King position that they don't have time to win it then they don't deserve a win. Anyone could have a better or winning position if they just show a blatant disregard for their clock in order to achieve it.
Nyctophile88 wrote:
Material advantage alone doesn't determine the outcome of a match.
If your position is completely lost, like in a king vs king and queen endgame, I think it is extremely shameful to try and get a win by timeout. That's exactly like breaking the law and getting away by exploiting a legal loophole. For example, the player who won on time exploited the fact that winning on time is allowed and chose to take advantage of it despite the fact that he was completely lost but checkmate was 7 moves away and the winning player had just 3 seconds to execute it. How is that a fair win by any means?
If the game can go either way, then a win by timeout is fair. If the position is completely equal but one player wins by timeout, it is unfortunate for the player who lost but the win is still fine(unless the player who won on time refused a draw offer just so he could win on time.. and yes, I've had that happen to me. The guy even admitted that's what he was going for.)
I've both won and lost by timeout but if my opponent is running extremely low on time but has a COMPLETELY WINNING position, I WILL resign the game when he/she has less than 10 seconds but checkmate is still a few moves away.
One of my friends lost a completely drawn position on time. He offered a draw to his opponent that was repeatedly refused. No points for guessing why.
This is the biggest load of nonsense I have ever read on his site.
For starters, if you're winning on time your position is never completely lost.
For another, if you have a material or position advantage but you have taken too long to think about your moves then that is poor time managament and you deserve to lose.
I have been in drawn positions were I have 30 seconds left and my opponent has 5. They waste their precious time sending draw requests because its evident that in 4 seconds I will get the win.
What you suggest is not in the spirit of the game at all and actually it is a form of cheating because you aren't playing moves you feel most likely to avoid defeat.
Only a bad sportsman would resign a game where victory is all but guaranteed. Only a bad sportsman would accept a draw when victory is all but guaranteed. This game is about winning and if you play time restrictions it's about winning within that time.
Shame on you.
If you read the basic rules of chess, they have nothing whatsoever to do with a clock. A clock is a mere add on that must be accepted on this site. If a player does not want to gain an advantage from the clock, he has every right not to. If he does, it is perfectly within bounds.
micahbm wrote:
If you read the basic rules of chess, they have nothing whatsoever to do with a clock. A clock is a mere add on that must be accepted on this site. If a player does not want to gain an advantage from the clock, he has every right not to. If he does, it is perfectly within bounds.
The basic rules of chess are that each player is trying to win.
The basic rules of time controlled chess are that both players are trying to win within the constraints of the clock.
Aug 20, 2019
0
#235
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Nyctophile88 wrote:
Material advantage alone doesn't determine the outcome of a match.
If your position is completely lost, like in a king vs king and queen endgame, I think it is extremely shameful to try and get a win by timeout. That's exactly like breaking the law and getting away by exploiting a legal loophole. For example, the player who won on time exploited the fact that winning on time is allowed and chose to take advantage of it despite the fact that he was completely lost but checkmate was 7 moves away and the winning player had just 3 seconds to execute it. How is that a fair win by any means?
If the game can go either way, then a win by timeout is fair. If the position is completely equal but one player wins by timeout, it is unfortunate for the player who lost but the win is still fine(unless the player who won on time refused a draw offer just so he could win on time.. and yes, I've had that happen to me. The guy even admitted that's what he was going for.)
I've both won and lost by timeout but if my opponent is running extremely low on time but has a COMPLETELY WINNING position, I WILL resign the game when he/she has less than 10 seconds but checkmate is still a few moves away.
One of my friends lost a completely drawn position on time. He offered a draw to his opponent that was repeatedly refused. No points for guessing why.
I dont understand your analogy. If someone breaks the law and gets away with it because of a legal loophole did they really break the law? The rules of chess apply to everyone equally. If someone wins on time its exactly the same thing as winning by checkmate. The rules are identical for both sides. Either side could win by time, or, either side could win by checkmate. As far as I know there are no rules of chess that say one way of winning counts more, or less, than the other. Some people even win by other means, like the opponent resigning, disqualification, etc. I think the rules count all wins, no matter how it's done, as one point.
Think of it like other competitions are decided. Like sports for example. In a basketball game if team A is up 2 points the entire game and team B is never leading, not even once, should team B lose just because they made a miracle 3 pointer with .01 seconds left to play? The rules say team B wins, even though they were losing, maybe badly, for 99.999% of the game.
Chess is just like most other competitions, time is the most important factor.
Maybe I wasn't clear on what I was actually referring to with the analogy. I did mention a few scenarios where winning on time is fine. What I was actually referring to when I said "loophole" was the fact that there are players who take advantage of the fact that they can win on time and continue to play on despite the position being down to just a king vs king and queen endgame (the BEST you can get out of a king and queen vs king endgame is a draw if you're the side with just the king.. and THAT is if the opponent terribly blunders) or when the position is a complete draw (like a king and rook vs king and rook.. or a bishop and pawn vs a bishop and pawn) but one player declining the draw offer to win on time.. and I'm NOT exaggerating when I say this stuff happens a lot of the time.
THAT is NOT FAIR at all.
I'm only talking about positions where there's not a chance of winning. Draw by stalemate? Maybe(as the winning player is running low on time and can blunder by forcing his opponent to a stalemate)
Like I mentioned in my comment, I HAVE won on time and I've lost on time too. The majority of the games, I regards them as unfortunate losses. But I've also lost games where I was just one move away from checkmate, had completely drawn positions when my opponent simply refused to accept a draw and even openly said he was doing that so he could win on time etc. Notice that in these situations, the other doesn't have even a remote chance of victory.
How is any of that fair?
Nyctophile88 wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Nyctophile88 wrote:
Material advantage alone doesn't determine the outcome of a match.
If your position is completely lost, like in a king vs king and queen endgame, I think it is extremely shameful to try and get a win by timeout. That's exactly like breaking the law and getting away by exploiting a legal loophole. For example, the player who won on time exploited the fact that winning on time is allowed and chose to take advantage of it despite the fact that he was completely lost but checkmate was 7 moves away and the winning player had just 3 seconds to execute it. How is that a fair win by any means?
If the game can go either way, then a win by timeout is fair. If the position is completely equal but one player wins by timeout, it is unfortunate for the player who lost but the win is still fine(unless the player who won on time refused a draw offer just so he could win on time.. and yes, I've had that happen to me. The guy even admitted that's what he was going for.)
I've both won and lost by timeout but if my opponent is running extremely low on time but has a COMPLETELY WINNING position, I WILL resign the game when he/she has less than 10 seconds but checkmate is still a few moves away.
One of my friends lost a completely drawn position on time. He offered a draw to his opponent that was repeatedly refused. No points for guessing why.
I dont understand your analogy. If someone breaks the law and gets away with it because of a legal loophole did they really break the law? The rules of chess apply to everyone equally. If someone wins on time its exactly the same thing as winning by checkmate. The rules are identical for both sides. Either side could win by time, or, either side could win by checkmate. As far as I know there are no rules of chess that say one way of winning counts more, or less, than the other. Some people even win by other means, like the opponent resigning, disqualification, etc. I think the rules count all wins, no matter how it's done, as one point.
Think of it like other competitions are decided. Like sports for example. In a basketball game if team A is up 2 points the entire game and team B is never leading, not even once, should team B lose just because they made a miracle 3 pointer with .01 seconds left to play? The rules say team B wins, even though they were losing, maybe badly, for 99.999% of the game.
Chess is just like most other competitions, time is the most important factor.
Maybe I wasn't clear on what I was actually referring to with the analogy. I did mention a few scenarios where winning on time is fine. What I was actually referring to when I said "loophole" was the fact that there are players who take advantage of the fact that they can win on time and continue to play on despite the position being down to just a king vs king and queen endgame (the BEST you can get out of a king and queen vs king endgame is a draw if you're the side with just the king.. and THAT is if the opponent terribly blunders) or when the position is a complete draw (like a king and rook vs king and rook.. or a bishop and pawn vs a bishop and pawn) but one player declining the draw offer to win on time.. and I'm NOT exaggerating when I say this stuff happens a lot of the time.
THAT is NOT FAIR at all.
I'm only talking about positions where there's not a chance of winning. Draw by stalemate? Maybe(as the winning player is running low on time and can blunder by forcing his opponent to a stalemate)
Like I mentioned in my comment, I HAVE won on time and I've lost on time too. The majority of the games, I regards them as unfortunate losses. But I've also lost games where I was just one move away from checkmate, had completely drawn positions when my opponent simply refused to accept a draw and even openly said he was doing that so he could win on time etc. Notice that in these situations, the other doesn't have even a remote chance of victory.
How is any of that fair?
"I'm not exaggerating" of course it happens a lot. People play this game to win. If you are going to win or lose on time the position is not drawn.
How is it fair that you agree to a time limited game, dismiss the time element and then complain when you lose on time?
If you don't like time controls, don't play the games.
But certainly don't moan about people doing what they need to secure their best result.
Aug 20, 2019
0
#237
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
Nyctophile88 wrote:
Material advantage alone doesn't determine the outcome of a match.
If your position is completely lost, like in a king vs king and queen endgame, I think it is extremely shameful to try and get a win by timeout. That's exactly like breaking the law and getting away by exploiting a legal loophole. For example, the player who won on time exploited the fact that winning on time is allowed and chose to take advantage of it despite the fact that he was completely lost but checkmate was 7 moves away and the winning player had just 3 seconds to execute it. How is that a fair win by any means?
If the game can go either way, then a win by timeout is fair. If the position is completely equal but one player wins by timeout, it is unfortunate for the player who lost but the win is still fine(unless the player who won on time refused a draw offer just so he could win on time.. and yes, I've had that happen to me. The guy even admitted that's what he was going for.)
I've both won and lost by timeout but if my opponent is running extremely low on time but has a COMPLETELY WINNING position, I WILL resign the game when he/she has less than 10 seconds but checkmate is still a few moves away.
One of my friends lost a completely drawn position on time. He offered a draw to his opponent that was repeatedly refused. No points for guessing why.
This is the biggest load of nonsense I have ever read on his site.
For starters, if you're winning on time your position is never completely lost.
For another, if you have a material or position advantage but you have taken too long to think about your moves then that is poor time managament and you deserve to lose.
I have been in drawn positions were I have 30 seconds left and my opponent has 5. They waste their precious time sending draw requests because its evident that in 4 seconds I will get the win.
What you suggest is not in the spirit of the game at all and actually it is a form of cheating because you aren't playing moves you feel most likely to avoid defeat.
Only a bad sportsman would resign a game where victory is all but guaranteed. Only a bad sportsman would accept a draw when victory is all but guaranteed. This game is about winning and if you play time restrictions it's about winning within that time.
Shame on you.
On the contrary, you ARE part of the problem.
"Only a bad sportsman would resign a game where victory is all but guaranteed"
There's a reason players resign a lost position. Or agree to a draw regardless of how much time is left. Maybe you should try and understand why.
"I have been in drawn positions were I have 30 seconds left and my opponent has 5. They waste their precious time sending draw requests because its evident that in 4 seconds I will get the win."
No. All you're doing is being a "bad sportsman". If the position is completely equal and neither player can try and get an advantage, then the outcome is a draw regardless of the time left for each player.
Aug 20, 2019
0
#238
There's no such thing as 'not fair' in chess unless someone is actually cheating. You sit down at the board (metaphorically, at least) both with the same amount of time and the same pieces and the same rules.
If one person shows a cavalier disregard for their clock to the extent that they are unable to achieve the goal of the game, checkmate, within the time they were given then they don't deserve to win.
It isn't great skill to get a winning position by taking longer to get there than your opponent if he/she used their time sensibly and you used all your time except 10 seconds and then can't finish what you started.
Sportsmanship is another of those airy-fairy things that gets thrown in when players like to force their own definitions of 'rules' that don't really exist onto others. Sportsmanship is playing within the rules of the game. Nothing more, nothing less. If it's over the board then it's not sporting to kick your opponent under the table or spit on the board, but online there's no such thing as un-sporting given people can disable chat, if they want, which is the only place unsporting actions can occur.
People should play longer time controls if they don't want to have to be burdened by playing the game within the time they agreed with their opponent.
Aug 20, 2019
0
#239
Nyctophile88 wrote:
I've both won and lost by timeout but if my opponent is running extremely low on time but has a COMPLETELY WINNING position, I WILL resign the game when he/she has less than 10 seconds but checkmate is still a few moves away.
So you'll resign when you are about to win on time. Suppose the same situation, but then your opponent blunders his queen because he had no time to think about his move? Would you still resign? Kind of the same thing. He was winning even though he is about to lose. It's the clocks fault. Why take a victory like that?
You should probably just resign every game if you are willing to accept your opponents strengths and willing to overlook his mistakes.
Nyctophile88 wrote:
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
Nyctophile88 wrote:
Material advantage alone doesn't determine the outcome of a match.
If your position is completely lost, like in a king vs king and queen endgame, I think it is extremely shameful to try and get a win by timeout. That's exactly like breaking the law and getting away by exploiting a legal loophole. For example, the player who won on time exploited the fact that winning on time is allowed and chose to take advantage of it despite the fact that he was completely lost but checkmate was 7 moves away and the winning player had just 3 seconds to execute it. How is that a fair win by any means?
If the game can go either way, then a win by timeout is fair. If the position is completely equal but one player wins by timeout, it is unfortunate for the player who lost but the win is still fine(unless the player who won on time refused a draw offer just so he could win on time.. and yes, I've had that happen to me. The guy even admitted that's what he was going for.)
I've both won and lost by timeout but if my opponent is running extremely low on time but has a COMPLETELY WINNING position, I WILL resign the game when he/she has less than 10 seconds but checkmate is still a few moves away.
One of my friends lost a completely drawn position on time. He offered a draw to his opponent that was repeatedly refused. No points for guessing why.
This is the biggest load of nonsense I have ever read on his site.
For starters, if you're winning on time your position is never completely lost.
For another, if you have a material or position advantage but you have taken too long to think about your moves then that is poor time managament and you deserve to lose.
I have been in drawn positions were I have 30 seconds left and my opponent has 5. They waste their precious time sending draw requests because its evident that in 4 seconds I will get the win.
What you suggest is not in the spirit of the game at all and actually it is a form of cheating because you aren't playing moves you feel most likely to avoid defeat.
Only a bad sportsman would resign a game where victory is all but guaranteed. Only a bad sportsman would accept a draw when victory is all but guaranteed. This game is about winning and if you play time restrictions it's about winning within that time.
Shame on you.
On the contrary, you ARE part of the problem.
"Only a bad sportsman would resign a game where victory is all but guaranteed"
There's a reason players resign a lost position. Or agree to a draw regardless of how much time is left. Maybe you should try and understand why.
"I have been in drawn positions were I have 30 seconds left and my opponent has 5. They waste their precious time sending draw requests because its evident that in 4 seconds I will get the win."
No. All you're doing is being a "bad sportsman". If the position is completely equal and neither player can try and get an advantage, then the outcome is a draw regardless of the time left for each player.
The problem lies either in your sportsmanship or in your comprehension.
You cannot agree to a timed game, take toon long deliberating your moves and then expect not to be punished when your clock runs out.
What you are doing there is asking for an unfair advantage.
If you know a series of moves will lead to your victory and instead you resign then you are also being a poor sportsman as you are not playing competitively.
Players like you need eradicating from this site.
You are never truly behind if you are ahead on time.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/calculating-piece-value-clock