Aiming for a Win on Time

Originally posted by exigentsky
It was beyond my control as I explained, I don't see this as rudeness.

Of course it was rude. He had to sit staring at the screen waiting for u to move. If he had left and you'd moved, he'd have lost the game.

You should have resigned if you were going to have to be away for so long. Asking him to resign is a no-no. Who said he was trying to win on time, anyway? Maybe he saw that u were in time trouble and wanted to see if that would translate into blunders.

D

Originally posted by exigentsky
LOL, but it is IMO impolite to keep on playing a lost position just because your opponent is low on time, epecially when your opponent had to do something unplanned. If you'll notice, GMs almost always resign in lost positions instead of hoping for a time win. (Unlike an OTB tournament, I was forced to help my parents during the match.)

As for my compl ...[text shortened]... hen you have clearly lost tactically, materially and positionally. Do you think it's polite?

When time controls are agreed as part of the game if I am in a lost position I may not realize it. If it is a tournament I will play on and win with time if I have to. If my opponent has a bad case of the runs and has to use the can that is his tough luck for his bad diet, there is no reason it should affect me. If they aggreed to let you take a break to do what you had to do, they are a saint, the best form for you would have been to resign your game and ask for a rematch at a later time.

It is bad manners and insulting your opponent to ask them to resign in any position, you can however ask for a draw.

RTh

PS
Don't be pissed at your opponent for your poor planning or situation, it's not their fault...it is yours.

Originally posted by exigentsky
LOL, but it is IMO impolite to keep on playing a lost position just because your opponent is low on time, epecially when your opponent had to do something unplanned. If you'll notice, GMs almost always resign in lost positions instead of hoping for a time win. (Unlike an OTB tournament, I was forced to help my parents during the match.)

As for my compl ...[text shortened]... hen you have clearly lost tactically, materially and positionally. Do you think it's polite?

This is a 15 minutes game. Blitz. You're trying to compare this to GM play, that doesn't make sense at all. Time management is very important in blitz. If you waste 7 minutes like you did you'll probably be in trouble, and it's natural for your opponent to try to exploit it, be it by trying to make you blunder, be it by trying to win on time. I've watched quite a few blitz tournaments and even IMs did that when they had the chance, no matter how hopeless their positions were. Nothing unpolite about it.

Asking your opponent to resign, on the other hand, is completely uncalled for. Not only it's disruptive but also bad sportsmanship: he'll resign whenever he wants to. That's his choice to make. If he thinks he still has a chance to win on time, he has all the right to do it. Even if he was completely lost and had no chance to win, not even on time, he could want to play on just to see how you win in that position. Nothing wrong about it.

You won the game, your opponent did nothing wrong. You have nothing to complain about, get over it. If that bothers you so much, try to make sure you won't have to do anything for the next half hour before you start a 15 minutes game. I don't see why make such a big deal about it, though. I've taken breaks from 15 minutes games quite a few times to answer the phone, talk to people and prepare food, 5 minutes is more than enough time to play a blitz game. Specially on Yahoo!

You agreed to play blitz... blitz is not about playing chess so much as it is about playing fast and trying to catch your opponents blunder before you blunder, because the blunders WILL come in blitz.
Blitz is "ALL ABOUT USING TIME PRESSURE TO FORCE YOU OPPONENT TO BLUNDER FIRST". You made an idiotic move by leaving the game (forced or not) you opponent cleverly tried to make you blunder from time pressure, which is what blitz is all about.

Ask your parents if there's anything you should do, as you will be playing chess for the next half hour. If you do that first, you won't be bothered. How's that for a glib answer?

If there were a courtesy standard for online play that requires that players not win on time when their opponent says "I had to do something else, so don't flag me," then guess what would happen.

There would be many people saying "I had to do something else, so don't flag me," and then use all the time they want to think about thier moves.

It's unworkable. The clock is part of the game when it's used. You just have to accept that.

To answer the question about winning on time, NO it's not impolite to try to win on time. They have a rule that says if your clock runs out you lose. How can it be rude to win according to the rules.

If you really think that winning on time is not acceptable, then I suggest that before each game, you assure your opponents that under no circumstances will you flag them, and they can take all the time they want to move. Have you done that? Will you do it?

The clock is there for a reason, and that reason is to force a conclusion of the game within an agreed time.

Have you considered yourself polite for starting a chess game and then asking your opponent to wait an indefinite amount of time while you do something else? Other people have lives, too, you know.

Originally posted by exigentsky
It was beyond my control as I explained, I don't see this as rudeness.

How would you feel if your opponents started doing this to you?

Starting a chess game with an agreed time limit is a commitment. Your opponent does not have to put his life on hold whether the interruption is out of your control or not. He is not obligated to waste part of his life to assist you in your tragedies. He is there to play a game that you agreed to play within the time limit, and that's all he needs to be concerned about. You are taking the position that something out of your control should make your opponent pay the price (staring at a screen waiting on you) rather than affecting you. It's your problem that you were interrupted, not your opponent's problem, and you are the one to deal with it, not your opponent. I think you are being very selfish, or perhaps you have forgotten that there is a person at the other end, and it's not all about you.

I just started a game at yahoo with a 30 minut clock, I made three moves and just messaged my opponent that I had shelfish for dinner and have to go take a dump and I would be right back. I wonder how long he will sit there for?

he he!





JK

Originally posted by exigentsky
I don't think it is particularly polite to ask an opponent to resign and save both of you time, but in those circumstances, it was not all that inappropriate.

That still doesn't answer No1`s question which was

Let me ask you; if you were playing in the finals of an OTB tourney for a $1000 prize and your opponent was up a piece with a won position but only 12 seconds left on the clock, would you resign??

Originally posted by Chakan
That still doesn't answer No1`s question which was

[b]Let me ask you; if you were playing in the finals of an OTB tourney for a $1000 prize and your opponent was up a piece with a won position but only 12 seconds left on the clock, would you resign??[/b]

It doesn't matter. It's a bull question. This was a casual Yahoo! Chess game with no monetary compensation. Unlike an OTB tournament, life can interfere, so one player may be unfairly forced to "waste time."

In an OTB tournament, of course, I would play for a time win. But that is because I have finnancial need, and because it is a serious and competitive event where each player had a fair shot.

Originally posted by exigentsky
It doesn't matter. It's a bull question. This was a casual Yahoo! Chess game with no monetary compensation. Unlike an OTB tournament, life can interfere, so one player may be unfairly forced to "waste time."

In an OTB tournament, of course, I would play for a time win. But that is because I have finnancial need, and because it is a serious and competitive event where each player had a fair shot.

What was the point of playing a timed game if you wanted to exclude the possibility of winning (or losing) on time? Without that threat, the time limits carry no weight. Blitz chess is a very different animal from untimed chess; exploiting the time limits, either to claim a win on time or to cause your opponent to think quicker and blunder where he might normally not, is perfectly valid in every way.

Quit being such a whiny little bitch. You're clearly in the wrong here, both by asking your opponent to resign and by expecting him not to try to win by the rules you both agreed to.

Originally posted by exigentsky
This was a casual Yahoo! Chess game with no monetary compensation.

If it was such a casual event, why did you force your opponent to waste 7 minutes of his life staring at a non moving screen, while you went to drain your parents capheters?

D

Originally posted by vmc303
What was the point of playing a timed game if you wanted to exclude the possibility of winning (or losing) on time? Without that threat, the time limits carry no weight. Blitz chess is a very different animal from untimed chess; exploiting the time limits, either to claim a win on time or to cause your opponent to think quicker and blunder where he might norm ...[text shortened]... your opponent to resign and by expecting him not to try to win by the rules you both agreed to.

Read previous posts if you want to know.