Originally posted by KlingerSome punctuation would be nice... but time is an integral part of chess.
Is it a good thing or a bad thing to stall with other games where you have a offered draw if you are about to win on time before your time runs out on another game. So then instead of draw-win-win/loss-win-win as to win-win-draw?
If you can use it to gain advantage..... do so.
If I understand your question, you are asking what people's thoughts are on stalling in order to win on time.
Personally, I don't think this is in the spirit of the game. I don't even think that it is in the spirit of time control. Time controls were originally implemented to deter this very practice -- so people would not win by outlasting their opponent.
I was playing just the other night (over the board), relatively quick for "regular" time, Game/30, 5 sec. delay. My opponent was up a bishop I believe, my pawns were disheveled. Clearly he had the winning position. However, he had big time trouble. Something like 4 min. on mine, 1 on his. Once it got close to one min. I told him not to worry, I would not claim the game. (It was fun to see him sweating before that 😛).
I suppose people might say that this is different because it is correspondence. However, I still think the same principle holds.
I think the question is whether it's beneficial in terms of your rating to take your wins/losses/draws in a certain order. The answer is it doesn't really matter. You may be able to construct a scenario where it makes a 1 point difference because you happen to be right on a certain rating boundary, but in the long run it just doesn't make any difference.
Originally posted by MrHandI think what you did in that game is against the spirit of the game. It begs for a rhetorical question: Why don't you give your opponents time handicaps from the starting position already?
I was playing just the other night (over the board), relatively quick for "regular" time, Game/30, 5 sec. delay. My opponent was up a bishop I believe, my pawns were disheveled. Clearly he had the winning position. However, he had big time trouble. Something like 4 min. on mine, 1 on his. Once it got close to one min. I told him not to worry, I would not claim the game. (It was fun to see him sweating before that ).
Originally posted by diskamyl[ b ] and / tags must be in your text.
I think what you did in that game is completely against the spirit of the game.
Why don't you give your opponents time handicaps from the starting position already?
edit: I don't know why this is in bold, I can't get rid of it.
I agree that time should be used in "blitz" type games. The games G/30 that my club plays aren't, in my opinion, intended to be blitzes, so, in my opinion, the spirit of the game is who plays the better chess. I'm not advocating for others to play in this manner. This is my opinion that I was sharing.
Originally posted by MrHandyou have every right to play the way you want of course, I too, however want to share my opinion.🙂
[ b ] and / tags must be in your text.
I agree that time should be used in "blitz" type games. The games G/30 that my club plays aren't, in my opinion, intended to be blitzes, so, in my opinion, the spirit of the game is who plays the better chess. I'm not advocating for others to play in this manner. This is my opinion that I was sharing.
I think time is of the essence of the game in long time controls too, it doesn't make much difference if the game is blitz or is played in classical time controls.
so many games even at the very top level are decided in time trouble around moves 30-40.
Originally posted by diskamylfair enough 🙂
you have every right to play the way you want of course, I too, however want to share my opinion.🙂
I think time is of the essence of the game in long time controls too, it doesn't make much difference if the game is blitz or is played in classical time controls.
so many games even at the very top level are decided in time trouble around moves 30-40.
Originally posted by deepthreat22But then we would have to wait for chess to be solved before we could make any "quality" move.
Time controls are like a wager to me. The bet is that I can beat you in the allotted time or make it such that you cant win... It is NOT about quality chess, it IS about outfoxing your opposition within the agreed upon parameters.
I agree that the idea is who can play the best in the time given, but for me, if the game is practically over and I'm in a lost position, I do not care to win on time just by shuffling my pieces around the board with no other reason than to make my oponent chase me until he runs out of time.
Now, if the position is even, I will gladly time him out.
Granted, I am purely recreational. If I was playing in a higher stakes tournament and had a reasonable chance at winning, rest assured, I would be ruthless in timing out my opponent, regardless of the position on the board.
Originally posted by deepthreat22This is called Chess.
Time controls are like a wager to me. The bet is that I can beat you in the allotted time or make it such that you cant win... It is NOT about quality chess, it IS about outfoxing your opposition within the agreed upon parameters.
Both players have the same amount of time.
It's not a wager. The player who makes the best moves in the
allocated time wins.
I was referring to blitz...Specifically 3 0 which is what I like to Play on FICS. Of course during club or tourney 60/40 time controls and longer (or even a bit shorter) One would try to make an optimal move but with 3 0 or 5 0 making a "best move" can and will result in you losing the game more often then not due to time. The key is to make reasonable move consistently, not to find the "best" move because finding that move could take too much time. My FICS handle is greyAzmodius. Look me up.