Easier said than done in a time crunch!
The clock is part of the game. To me, it's like a bishop. Most players try to use their bishops to win. I use the clock. Sometimes I trade my pieces for some clock time, by checking my opponent with them in a way that they can be captured.
To me, this is a kind of chess. If you don't like it, you could use a high time increment when you play.
Interestingly, older players are more likely to find this strategy to be offensive. I think the culture is slowly changing.
To me, this is a kind of chess. If you don't like it, you could use a high time increment when you play.
Interestingly, older players are more likely to find this strategy to be offensive. I think the culture is slowly changing.
It depends on what "ahead on time" means exactly, and what the position is like. The more time my opponent has and the worse the position is, the more likely I'll resign.
If I'm ahead on time, but it's 2 minutes 45 seconds to 2 minutes 15 seconds, and I just dropped a queen to an opponent about my strength, sure, I'll resign.
That's one extreme. On the other, if I have 2 minutes and 20 seconds left and my opponent has 5 seconds, and he has R+2P vs R, then I'm just going to flag him. No other option will be considered.
When a game without increment is played, that time control was agreed to by both players, knowing full well that that means you'd better have enough time to convert any winning position you get.
It's just poor judgment to spend 2 minutes 30 seconds in a 3 minute game getting a winning position if it's a long, technical ending that will require 45 seconds to win.
In a no-increment game, that's a mistake you made, and I will punish you for it if given the opportunity.
Now, there are borderline cases. If I'm up on time with 35 seconds to 30 seconds in that same R+2P vs R, for example, (and this was stated earlier in the thread by another poster) I might accept a draw offer, but I'm certainly not going to resign.
If you play a no-increment game, you have to budget your time wisely. You need to play quickly enough that you have time to convert any advantages you obtain, but not so quickly that you blow the game in a short number of moves.
Finding that balance is difficult, and making a mistake in that choice is every bit as much of a mistake as dropping a couple pawns.
If it's deemed to be very important that "classy" results obtain (in other words, the "fair" result of the position on the board is the result of the game), then you just need to play with increment so that saving time to convert winning positions is not as crucial.
Otherwise, everyone should just live with the results of their time budgeting. It's no less "classy" for me to win on time because my opponent invested too much time early in the game to outplay me than it is for my opponent to win on the board because I invested too little time.
Them's the facts :)
If I'm ahead on time, but it's 2 minutes 45 seconds to 2 minutes 15 seconds, and I just dropped a queen to an opponent about my strength, sure, I'll resign.
That's one extreme. On the other, if I have 2 minutes and 20 seconds left and my opponent has 5 seconds, and he has R+2P vs R, then I'm just going to flag him. No other option will be considered.
When a game without increment is played, that time control was agreed to by both players, knowing full well that that means you'd better have enough time to convert any winning position you get.
It's just poor judgment to spend 2 minutes 30 seconds in a 3 minute game getting a winning position if it's a long, technical ending that will require 45 seconds to win.
In a no-increment game, that's a mistake you made, and I will punish you for it if given the opportunity.
Now, there are borderline cases. If I'm up on time with 35 seconds to 30 seconds in that same R+2P vs R, for example, (and this was stated earlier in the thread by another poster) I might accept a draw offer, but I'm certainly not going to resign.
If you play a no-increment game, you have to budget your time wisely. You need to play quickly enough that you have time to convert any advantages you obtain, but not so quickly that you blow the game in a short number of moves.
Finding that balance is difficult, and making a mistake in that choice is every bit as much of a mistake as dropping a couple pawns.
If it's deemed to be very important that "classy" results obtain (in other words, the "fair" result of the position on the board is the result of the game), then you just need to play with increment so that saving time to convert winning positions is not as crucial.
Otherwise, everyone should just live with the results of their time budgeting. It's no less "classy" for me to win on time because my opponent invested too much time early in the game to outplay me than it is for my opponent to win on the board because I invested too little time.
Them's the facts :)
If I feel like I got outplayed the entire game it's a possibility, just to be nice.
This topic reminds me of a quote ChessWhiz had at the end of his stream: "I play way too much blitz chess. It rots the brain just as surely as alcohol. - Nigel Short"
I've always thought of blitz as; increasing my board awareness, seeing more openings and understanding fundamentals, increasing my calculation speed, better understanding of the natural progression of the game, and more... I then apply this to ChessMaster - or in person OTB. Every Sunday I play a 30/30 against a strong player on ChessMaster or if I can someone online.
Thats my two cents of blitz; because I'm not a Master, I could really care less.
I've always thought of blitz as; increasing my board awareness, seeing more openings and understanding fundamentals, increasing my calculation speed, better understanding of the natural progression of the game, and more... I then apply this to ChessMaster - or in person OTB. Every Sunday I play a 30/30 against a strong player on ChessMaster or if I can someone online.
Thats my two cents of blitz; because I'm not a Master, I could really care less.
Time is part of Blitz but I dont respect any opponent who is CLEARLY losing when they just throw the most obscure and confusing moves on the board as fast as they can, just to try and win on the clock. Thats not the point of chess in my book
I agree jmac, and I see it all too much.
Indeed. The clock is part of the game when there is a clock. The clock becomes a weapon. If the game is an obvious draw and the clocks are fairly equal, the 'classy' thing to do is to accept the draw and not start premoving the king around like a donkey's rear hoping to gain just enough clock advantage to convert a clearly drawn game into a win on time.
That being said, if the position is at all imbalanced and the clocks are imbalanced, the game is going to continue. That's just how it is. If you're losing the position but winning on clock, all you have to do is hold. That may lead to tactically unsound maneuvers in which you attempt to make the position complicated to pressure the time advantage.
Therefore, unless it's quite clear that there is a forced sequence that will result in a decisive victory for your opponent and your opponent has enough clock to easily figure it out, there's no reason to resign a losing position if you are ahead on clock. It isn't a "courtesy" to do so any more than it's "courtesy" to resign after losing a pawn against an equal opponent. Odds are you aren't going to be expected to quit for blundering a pawn anymore than you should be expected to give up any other position you could hold, even if your primary fortress is the clock.
That being said, if the position is at all imbalanced and the clocks are imbalanced, the game is going to continue. That's just how it is. If you're losing the position but winning on clock, all you have to do is hold. That may lead to tactically unsound maneuvers in which you attempt to make the position complicated to pressure the time advantage.
Therefore, unless it's quite clear that there is a forced sequence that will result in a decisive victory for your opponent and your opponent has enough clock to easily figure it out, there's no reason to resign a losing position if you are ahead on clock. It isn't a "courtesy" to do so any more than it's "courtesy" to resign after losing a pawn against an equal opponent. Odds are you aren't going to be expected to quit for blundering a pawn anymore than you should be expected to give up any other position you could hold, even if your primary fortress is the clock.
Clearly, there are two different games being played on this website. Maybe the one half of us should go to lichesswithclock.com so we don't offend the others with our donkey antics. :-)
Actually, I think in fact there are at least 5 different kinds of games being played on this site, and that's not counting the variants. That's why there's so many differences in opinion.
Almost everyone here plays with a clock, unless they are playing a casual / instructional game. That makes game type number 1: casual / instructional. Then we have all the rated games, which generally have a clock. Lichess currently has 3 clock categories, but in reality the "classical" clock the majority of players play what would be considered "rapid." Therefore at least 5 different games.
The question was regarding "blitz" which is a longer clock than lightning. If someone is playing "lightning" I would expect that there would never be a reason to resign even a "lost" game, because the clock is so short; there's always some chance to donkey the king around and win on time. In a regular blitz game, however, it's far more possible for a game to end up in a drawn position with relatively equal clock and relatively no way for either player to make progress. A player in a standard blitz game who premoves his king around endlessly trying to win on time is, as I stated, being a donkey's rear. It's also far more possible to end up in a situation where you realize that you are in a forced line that will lead to an easy mate or have blundered a large amount of material making the situation hopeless even if you have a small clock advantage. Again, in this case, donkeying the king around instead of resigning seems aggravating.
In a lightning game, this sort of thing is far more acceptable because it's part of the game. In a rapid or classical game, the odds of donkeying your king around for a win on time is generally futile because usually there's plenty of clock left for a middle or endgame to finish to some kind of logical conclusion (checkmate or stalemate), regardless of accuracy due to clock pressures.
In the end, though, it's a matter of taste. If your play style is to play every game to the bitter end no matter what, even if that means shuffling your king around the board aimlessly hoping to stump your opponent, then so be it. It's unsportsmanlike under certain time controls and perfectly acceptable under others. I think that's the point of this thread...i.e. to identify which time controls it's acceptable to play like a donkey. xD
Almost everyone here plays with a clock, unless they are playing a casual / instructional game. That makes game type number 1: casual / instructional. Then we have all the rated games, which generally have a clock. Lichess currently has 3 clock categories, but in reality the "classical" clock the majority of players play what would be considered "rapid." Therefore at least 5 different games.
The question was regarding "blitz" which is a longer clock than lightning. If someone is playing "lightning" I would expect that there would never be a reason to resign even a "lost" game, because the clock is so short; there's always some chance to donkey the king around and win on time. In a regular blitz game, however, it's far more possible for a game to end up in a drawn position with relatively equal clock and relatively no way for either player to make progress. A player in a standard blitz game who premoves his king around endlessly trying to win on time is, as I stated, being a donkey's rear. It's also far more possible to end up in a situation where you realize that you are in a forced line that will lead to an easy mate or have blundered a large amount of material making the situation hopeless even if you have a small clock advantage. Again, in this case, donkeying the king around instead of resigning seems aggravating.
In a lightning game, this sort of thing is far more acceptable because it's part of the game. In a rapid or classical game, the odds of donkeying your king around for a win on time is generally futile because usually there's plenty of clock left for a middle or endgame to finish to some kind of logical conclusion (checkmate or stalemate), regardless of accuracy due to clock pressures.
In the end, though, it's a matter of taste. If your play style is to play every game to the bitter end no matter what, even if that means shuffling your king around the board aimlessly hoping to stump your opponent, then so be it. It's unsportsmanlike under certain time controls and perfectly acceptable under others. I think that's the point of this thread...i.e. to identify which time controls it's acceptable to play like a donkey. xD
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.