Annoying time wasting

[Brendan O'Gorman]

But rather than play the one legal move or resign, they just let their clock run down for more than 10 minutes to lose on time...What would others do in this situation? Am I being unreasonable to consider my opponent's behaviour to be not very sporting?

Not at all unreasonable to consider your opponent's behavior unsporting. I would have named them adding the date, times and final position.

-- text omitted --

A little light detective work on chess results dot com reveals the culprit.

[MJMcCready]

Walter Browne had a very bad reputation in his day.

[Nigel White]

Not at all unreasonable to consider your opponent's behavior unsporting. I would have named them adding the date, times and final position.

-- text omitted --

A little light detective work on chess results dot com reveals the culprit.

I don't intend to publicly name my opponent, but as Brendan says it is not hard to work out their identity by looking on chess-results.com. Brendan's detective work was made slightly easier by the fact that he has also been playing in the same tournament.

[Paul Habershon]

As this deliberate time wasting is so rare OTB I don't find it hard simply to enjoy my winning position, conceal any annoyance and wait to chalk up the win. I would be scrupulously polite at the end, as though nothing untoward had happened. I certainly wouldn't complain or report anything. Usually such a person's reputation would be well known, so it's not my job to interfere.

I remember a Paignton Congress at Oldway Mansion in the 1960s when I had a trivially won position at adjournment against an elderly gentleman. He was preparing to seal a move, after which we would have to resume play later in the evening. The arbiter (I can't remember if it was Harry Baines or George Simmons) approached, looked at the board and said, 'Perhaps Mr X could consider resigning.' To his credit, my opponent graciously acquiesced.

[Nigel White]

As this deliberate time wasting is so rare OTB I don't find it hard simply to enjoy my winning position, conceal any annoyance and wait to chalk up the win. I would be scrupulously polite at the end, as though nothing untoward had happened. I certainly wouldn't complain or report anything. Usually such a person's reputation would be well known, so it's not my job to interfere.

Normally, I would agree. But for this tournament, if the full time allocation for 60+ moves was used, I would start to be getting worried about being able to catch the last train home.

[Geoff Chandler]

A little light detective work on chess results dot com reveals the culprit.

If you are not too happy about how the game ended and still feeling that way the following day then you post;

'Hi Guys, I played a good game last v (names, tournament), then add the moves, diagram of the final position...'And faced with a mate in one my opponent thought for 10 minutes till their flag fell.'

[Ian Jamieson]

As this deliberate time wasting is so rare OTB I don't find it hard simply to enjoy my winning position, conceal any annoyance and wait to chalk up the win. I would be scrupulously polite at the end, as though nothing untoward had happened. I certainly wouldn't complain or report anything. Usually such a person's reputation would be well known, so it's not my job to interfere.

Normally, I would agree. But for this tournament, if the full time allocation for 60+ moves was used, I would start to be getting worried about being able to catch the last train home.

I played in Guernsey once and due to a mistake making my travel arrangements, I found myself in the position that I would have finish my last round game in two hours so I could catch my flight home. I wasn’t able to win the game in two hours so after two hours I offered a draw in the full knowledge that if my opponent turned down the offer I would have to resign. (I’m not sure whether I would have accidentally blundered a piece first or not but I’ve resigned positions before which the computer thinks we’re level) Fortunately my opponent accepted the offer - he was a junior and perhaps he only needed a draw to achieve his target for the tournament.

[LawrenceCooper]

Years ago a worse version of this would be not resigning a lost position at the adjournment and either forcing your opponent to travel only to win in a couple of moves or, worse still, players no showing for the resumption.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I adjourned a London League game a piece up many years ago, agreed a resumption date, turned up (having driven from Teddington to Bishopsgate, I believe), to find no opponent. I complained to the League organiser, no response, saw him at a later date and he said he saw no reason to answer any communications, so I complained about him to the league, and the only answer was that they saw no reason to discipline the player or the organiser (or pay my travelling expenses). I pointed out it was a good way to reduce the size of the league...

A more trivial case - but rather pathetic, I played an ECF "Arena" event, where if the time runs out, games are unfinished and deleted from the records. I accidentally started one game a bit late, which is my fault, but quickly got a winning position and lined up Philidor's Legacy. After Nh3++, (s)he paused and eventually played the only move Kh1, I played Qg1+, so the only legal response is Rxg1, then Nxf2 mate and the crowd goes wild. S(h)e obviously realised (s)he had 7 minutes on his clock, so just sat there for 6+ minutes and the time for the arena ran out, so no result. Chess.com allows you to block the opponent, so I did, but all this does is not allow them to talk to you. I tried not playing events they had entered but that seemed a bit silly. But what is the point of doing that in an offhand 10 minute event, where the rating matters even less than usual.

This has reminded me of other scumbag opponents, but they don't fit into the "time wasting" genre, so I'll save those for later!

[MartinCarpenter]

A more trivial case - but rather pathetic, I played an ECF "Arena" event, where if the time runs out, games are unfinished and deleted from the records. I accidentally started one game a bit late, which is my fault, but quickly got a winning position and lined up Philidor's Legacy. After Nh3++, (s)he paused and eventually played the only move Kh1, I played Qg1+, so the only legal response is Rxg1, then Nxf2 mate and the crowd goes wild. S(h)e obviously realised (s)he had 7 minutes on his clock, so just sat there for 6+ minutes and the time for the arena ran out, so no result. Chess.com allows you to block the opponent, so I did, but all this does is not allow them to talk to you. I tried not playing events they had entered but that seemed a bit silly. But what is the point of doing that in an offhand 10 minute event, where the rating matters even less than usual.

Now come on - not ideal behaviour but if that's how the conditions of contest work then you really have to blame them not the opponent

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Now come on - not ideal behaviour but if that's how the conditions of contest work then you really have to blame them not the opponent "

I did say it was trivial, but why on earth do that at all? And it wasn't a serious competition, even by chess.com's standards.

[Joey Stewart]

I'm of the opinion that in arena tournaments there are players who make a perverse "sport" of deliberately achieving a losing position in the last minutes knowing that they can just sit it out to frustrate their opponent by denying them a win - it happens far too often and in games where the result won't change the result of the tournament for it to just be occasional bad sportsmanship. As bad as lichess is, they do at least let you finish out arena games to a conclusion after the time expires so all players can do there is avoid giving away arena points but won't save their precious rating.

One exception I do make is when I am in an arena and get paired with an obvious cheat is to purposely drag out my lost position as long as I can until mate is inevitable and then sit on the game - I see that as a public service as I am shielding the rest of the field against this scum as well as reducing the time he gets to play other games and making him less likely to win the event.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Years ago a worse version of this would be not resigning a lost position at the adjournment and either forcing your opponent to travel only to win in a couple of moves or, worse still, players no showing for the resumption.

On occasion, this was refined still further by sealing "Resigns".

[David Williams]

I've no sympathy with time-wasting just to be awkward, but I'm not sure about some of the other instances.

I've had someone offer me a draw after an hour's play in a level position. When I declined, he explained that he had to leave, and got a little shirty when I still refused. What I didn't say, but maybe should have, was that I'd come out for an evening's chess and it was now going to be a complete waste of my time. If he was unable to participate fully he shouldn't have played at all.

And if numbers 10 and 11 in the batting order hold out for a few overs to draw a test match while 300 runs behind they are applauded. Any criticism is likely to fall on the opposing captain for not declaring earlier (i.e. managing his time better). Is that so different to a chess game being null and void if not completed in the allotted time?

[NickFaulks]

Walter Browne had a very bad reputation in his day.

That is a highly unpleasant accusation against a great and deceased player. I don't imagine you can back it up.