I would report, but I don't know if it's anything other than poor sportsmanship

Only play games with a time increment. Five seconds is pretty good. In my opinion, it was a bit of lack of sportmanship. Well, I'm not sure about that, because you have to be competitive too. No one is obliged to say, "hey, this is your game, win it", just because he/she loses a piece (even a queen). You have to have a mindset to fight until the end and keep playing good chess even in inferior positions.

I know you are a serious player and want to improve. Play slower games and take time to think. If you play only blitz, it is very hard to improve. A good time control would be 15 min + 5, but any time control with a good increment would be nice. It is totally possible to get better here. I started playing here two years ago, I was around 1600, now I am 1900 and I want to grow even more. You just get better with time, study and experience.

yeah don't play bullet or blitz if u want to improve

Your post inspired me to pull this one off:

en.lichess.org/mzu18mk8/white#143

OP complains about opponent using a valid strategy in short time control games. Here are 3 examples of OP leaving the game.

en.lichess.org/h8WGY1VN/black#81
en.lichess.org/quL1a9C9/black
en.lichess.org/hiJTdQgm#0

hitting the resign button demands a lot of effort. According to valid sources 12% of those who try to resign accidentaly misclick and close the browser. Jokes aside, people who whine about others in public are usually the most bad-mannered. #lifeexperience

Wow, so much drama queenness, haha. Some of you guys take chess way too seriously, like if your you know what gonna get shorter if you lose a few points. If I don't enjoy what's happening in the game I just resign, doesn't even have to be a necessarily a losing position. A few imaginary and utterly meaningless rating points not worth wasting my time on something that pisses me off. A bad game is a bad game, I don't want to continue it. You can have your points, won't make you a better player.

As the philosopher (by trade) that I am, let me answer your query in this fashion:

Chess is a game of war. In all throughout the history of war, have you once spotted a dirty tactic that a general put to use to slaughter his enemy? Probably, there are countless examples of this. Now ask yourself: was it morally reprehensible`? Once again, your answer is probably: "yes". But was it... wrong`? No, obviously not, if it ensured a victory. The key word is victory.

No player will accept defeat and will do whatever he can within the means of the rules to avoid a loss. This is the point of this game, the point is to win. Once you submit yourself to the rules at play - you are allowed to use whatever means (within legal bounds) necessary to win.

You may argue that it is unethical or shows a lack of proper conduct - now, while this may have some truth to it, can you blame your opponent?

Regards, z

I have some sympathy for OP, but a limited amount. I personally don't like games without increments, and so even if there are no other games offered, I'll wait, or else offer my own game.

OP's problem is that he's accepting games on terms that he doesn't actually want to play.

It is funny, because I just answered this thread and the same happened to me.



But I thought he did the right thing. I mean, I played well, but I used more of my time and he didn't, so in this kind of time control (fast one) this is a fair trade. This is part of the game if you play blitz with no time increment, you have to checkmate your opponent or bye bye.

Actually this happens in real tourneaments too, the players start to shuffle the pieces like crazy and try to win on time. If you want to play some higher quality chess though (winning on the chess itself) you have to play with higher time controls or, at least, with increments.

Since I wanted just a quick fix of my chess adiction, I chose 3 min with no time increment (which could take forever to end a game), so yeah, I have to live by the fact that someone can win on time with an inferior position. Sometimes you have this wrong idea about chess: "if you have an inferior position, you should resign and bow to your opponent". This myth happens a lot after someone plays a blunder. But who said the other player can't blunder too, leading to an equal position or even superior position again?

I think you improve a lot as a player if you hold your ground in inferior positions and try to win or, at least, make your opponnent's life difficult. One thing that I always do is putting my pieces in a checkmate pattern, just waiting to pull the trigger (I do that in very inferior positions, like losing a queen). It is amazing how people get blind if they are up material and don't see these things.

zyffe raises an excellent point. Clock management is an element of victory and the game is to take the king, not "play better most of the game." Both players agree to the time control and it isn't my responsibility to give someone a win when they make better tactical and strategic moves but leave themselves no time.

A quick aside to resigning-I personally don't abandon games or move randomly but I think I've resigned like twice out of 700 games. Poor sportsmanship or lack of respect? Not from my end, I've had at least 10 "lost" games turn into swindle draws and one or two lost games turn into a swindle checkmate for me. I don't think a lot of players are excellent in the endgame, particularly around my rating. Thus I hardly think it's disrespectful to acknowledge reality and make someone play it out. If they can't figure out the mate, it's a good sign that they need to improve. If I happened to be playing a GM, I'd play it out too, just to see whatever beautiful mate sequence they dream up.