ugh asked in Games & RecreationBoard Games · 1 month ago

shouldn't the rule of time in chess change?

if ur opponent is that idiot who keep playing even though most of all his pieces are out and u have most pieces and u suppose to checkmate him in one or two moves he shouldn't win on time if the time needed to checkmate him just few seconds that not fair rule chess RULES are stupid on time a loser who cant play winning on better player because he was a head in few secs even though he lost all his pieces except ONE ????? that don't make sense chess rules should change don't u think ?

8 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    2 weeks ago

    The point of time controls is to keep one player from sitting there forever without moving. The only way they can work is if the player who exceeds the time control loses the game. What other penalty would you suggest, make him pay money or perform an unnatural sex act?

  • 2 weeks ago

    With in TOURNAMENT RULES, where there are typically strict time controls (which typically have a final control like "Game / 60"), the player who's in the stronger position but is under time pressure can request a tournament adjudicator (or director) to declare the game a draw based on the current status of the board.

    If it's clear that the weaker player does not have any checkmate-viable pieces on the board (as the other player captured them all or has been blocked by other pieces) & is just trying to run out their opponent's clock, they can end the game as a draw.  The adjudicator may reject the request (incurring a 2 minute penalty) OR postpone their decision.

    In more casual play, you'll likely have to get a good argument to force the draw.  If the weaker player calls time & doesn't have checkmate-viable pieces on the board, the cannot claim the win & can only take the draw because their opponent couldn't secure the win.

  • 4 weeks ago

    Duh, Fisher introduced having a set time (60 minutes as an example) and you add time for each move (ten seconds) So if you can play well you do not have to win on time because you do not run out of it and the other guy should be an equally good player. IF you do not like losing on time, play longer games.

  • blank
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    I find the time to be fine.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    If you are too slow, then bad luck!

  • 1 month ago

    I think there's an option (if still there) that you can change that takes the timer out.

  • 1 month ago

    Judging by your grammar, spelling, and personality, I'd be amazed if you EVER checkmated anyone.

    You strike me as a player who loses within the first 5 moves, then flips the entire board off the table out of childish anger.

    A dog could probably beat you.

    • vic_viper_001
      Lv 6
      1 month agoReport

      In the game of "life" you are but a lowly pawn. Your poor attitude, anger problems, and over-inflated ego will always hold you back. You will always be easily replaced and expendable...

  • Yavan
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Blitz is like that. It's the same rule for everyone.

    And no, there's nothing in the rules against trying to run your opponent clock while having a huge material deficit. The clock is part of the game.

    Now there is such a thing as poor sportsmanship. That's when you're playing a slow game, for instance, there's an hour on the clock and they're just refusing to play, hoping you'll run out of patience. You see this sort of thing on the Internet all the time, unfortunately. But in tournament play, it is forbidden.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.