120 ( +1 | -1 ) Sportive or not? I got this position in an OTB blitz tournament the other day. I had just played the awful 52.a4? under extreme time pressure (both players only got few seconds left, me 1 or 2 sec more) which gives black the opportunity to save the match with well known 3fold rep. motive:
52...Qc1+ 53.Kh2 Qf4+ 54.Kg1 Qc1+ 55.Kh2 Qf4+
56.g3 gaining few more moves, and after 56...Qxf2+ 57.Kh1 Qf2+ 58.Kh2 Qf2+ 59.Kh1 the clock fell on black and I immediately claimed the win. The result didn't change anything for the outcome of the tournament and my opponent was anything but happy about me claiming the win. I have had similar situations many times in blitz matches and always go for the "clock kill". My philosophy is simple, if you can't beat me in 5 minutes or at least claim a draw... you loose. Hmm, but maybe im taking it too seriously? :-) What do you usually do? a) It is correct, go for it no matter what. b) nah, in this case black did merit the draw. Be sportive. c) Only go for it if the result is vital. d) Unforgivable! What the hell were you thinking? Quit playing chess!
71 ( +1 | -1 ) I see nothing wrongThe clock is there for a reason. What fun would a blitz game be if there wasn't time pressure? If your opponent never expects someone to claim a win by time, what are they doing playing blitz in the first place. I play blitz all the time at my school( 2 minutes per side) and when my opponent or I see that one of us is about to run out of time they start forcing captures of pieces, because it takes more time to capture than just to move your king or push a pawn. Playing for a "clock kill" is one of the most important strategies in blitz and should always be accepted.
89 ( +1 | -1 ) Not sure if my opinion actually matters, but...I don't have much tournament experience (close to none, actually), but can't your opponent somehow get the game adjudicated? I really don't know, but is he allowed to pause the clock, get the TD, and have it ruled as an obvious draw?
I would not have declined a draw offer if one was made. I know that the position is drawn, and I can only make so many useless moves before that happens. But I'm not going to go out of my way to help my opponent when he can just as easily get the draw himself (that is, I won't offer the draw). However, I don't like the idea of making useless moves just to waste time -- in fact, I'm pretty sure there's a rule that states you have to still be trying to win on the board (like if there were no queens, you can't play Kh2, Kh1, Kh2, Kh1, Kh2, Kh1...).
So, my conclusion -- I don't like how you made it take as long as possible trying for the 1/2 second win, but it is your opponent's fault for not claiming the draw, so I think it's ok.
26 ( +1 | -1 ) Seems to me...If your opponent objected to clock play, then he could have resigned on the move prior to diagram one. Since the position is easily won for WT there. But He played on hoping for the Clock to save Him! Is it not so? You did make a hasty move into the checks, or it was over :)
44 ( +1 | -1 ) In regular chessHe could have propesed a draw on account of the perpetual and probably got it from the referree. In blitz it's different however, as if or when the times expires if the player with time remaining can claim a win if he has enough mating material. Don't think in terms of sportsmanship, play for a win and don't ask them if their feelings got hurt, time will mend them. Because if you don't play chess to win,then you're not playing a very good game of chess.
31 ( +1 | -1 ) I'll go for c)If it's a question of taking one place higher or lower in the result table, then it's totally okay. If it didn't change anything of the outcome of the tournament, would it have killed you to give him the draw? I don't say that you acted wrong, only I think: who cares if it's a draw or a win, if it has absolutely no consequences?
2 ( +1 | -1 ) In blitzThe clock is the game.
20 ( +1 | -1 ) Thatswhy blitz after my opinion, has very little to do with serious chess, although the pieces move the same way, as in CC :-))
108 ( +1 | -1 ) Cut to the heart of the matter:magna68, you won, pure and simple. Not only was your play within the laws of Blitz Chess as I understand them, your play was within the Spirit of Blitz Chess. My copy of the Laws of Chess (1974, so things may well have changed since) has a section under "Speed-Chess Rules of the U.S.C.F." There, one of the conditions for the drawn game is "if a player demonstrates a forced repetition of position under the conditions of Article 18.2 [of the Standard Laws]". Clearly in Blitz with seconds left, it is a one-shot deal, either your claim is good or you have lost. With seconds left, your opponent, on his move could have said "I claim the draw" or something such, then gone off to see the DOP, leaving his clock running [as in standard chess]. Chances are, his flag drops before he even gets to his feet, but the claim, having been made, stands. It stands until the DOP adjudges the the claim is good [a draw] or fails [your opponent loses]. If he didn't know the laws of chess, that's his problem... Cheers, Ion
86 ( +1 | -1 ) As I understand it ...WBCA rules are a bit different. That someones opponent could claim a draw if the first person were not playing to 'make progress'. However, one can hardly play to make progress when being perpetualed! It would seem to me that under those rules BL could have claimed a draw?! Or just making it to the third rep, which he could have forced, had he but the time. Ive never played WBCA tho and maybe out to lunch ... besides which that info is from the 80's. Is there still a WBCA for that matter?! :) I think when playing online such rules and degree of accuracy in implementation is going to vary widely. Er, wildly rather. !? magna68 Just wondering what rules of otb you were playing under? FIDE or "?"
8 ( +1 | -1 ) magna68Oh and also by otb blitz, did you mean Live Chess , or online otb style play?
86 ( +1 | -1 ) OTB TOURNAMENT Blitzionadowman is partially correct--the significant INCORRECT part is that under most blitz rules (FIDE, USCF, WBCA, JCA), the CLOCK IS STOPPED TO MAKE THE CLAIM rather than leaving the clock to run while you locate an arbiter. This is true in any SD-style event which permits claims to be made: your clock is stopped to make the claim, but if the claim is incorrect, you receive a time penalty (which effectively means you instantly lose in most cases where you felt obliged to make a claim.
If the event does not have an arbiter ("casual" or "casual" tournament blitz), then one simply plays until the flag falls. In the case in point, it did not matter which sort of tournament it was because Black did not make a claim (which MUST be made before the flag falls, of course).
94 ( +1 | -1 ) My choose is b)I my opinion what you did was unfair within the rules.
It's because of such incidents that we have so many rules and that they need to be adjusted so often.
However I saw and heard of worse things. Here is a really bad example:
It was a pawn race for queening and both players were very short of time. Player A's pawn would queen one move too late but he came up with a really nasty trick. He pushed his pawn one and a half fields ahead, right on the border to the next field. On his next turn he moved the pawn one and a half field again thus stealing a move. When his opponent complained he showed real chutzpah. He claimed to have moved his pawn two field ahead irregularily the previous move and that his opponent missed the opportunity to protest then. There was quite a tumult. In the end the referee decided to repeat the game. Guess who won.
40 ( +1 | -1 ) OK......There seems indeed to have been a rule change since 1974. Then it stipulates in the circumstances here discussed, the claimant keeps the clock running, there being no amendment in Rapid Transit (Blitz) games. More than likely the amendment had to be made, as I can see chaos ensuing without it if there were several such claims in a tournament round...
53 ( +1 | -1 ) Absolutely Right, ionadowman!Yes, as time controls got faster and faster and more sudden-death (SD) time controls were used, the old "let the clock run while making claims" procedure had to go because there never are enough arbiters at Open events to watch each game individually. Even at the Olympics, we had only one arbiter for two matches (8 games).
Ah, it makes me feel old to remember the "good old days" of 40/2, 20/1, adjournments, and 20/1 on forever. Of course, I'm not so nostalgic about 14 hour games, especially those lost via time pressure blunders at the 6th time control ;-).