? 35 minutes is only "more than 20%"? What was the time control? "So I simply looked at him and the clock one more time, smiled, and walked away to watch some other games for a bit." - for this he could have reported you to the arbiter. Although you do have the right to be late for a game, this is obviuosly unsportsmanlike behaviour (I have personally never seen anything like this).

That's not nice at all. Imagine yourself sitting at ur opponents place? At the beginning of your story you already said that there was nothing to play for, since you had only 2 points. If you wanna freak your opponent out, do it with your moves and not such a childish behaviour..

It's all part of the game, it seems to me. After all, Thomas's opponent, however legitimately annoyed, let it show. This is also childish behaviour likely to have an adverse effect on one's adversary (think about it: it cost Thomas 10 minutes or so on his clock!). For all enemy really knew, Thomas had a legitimate reason not only to be late at the board, but also to remove himself from the scene for a further period of time. The Arbiter would have no grounds whatever for any action against the latecomer. Had there been a complaint, he would have had grounds to admonish the complainant for wasting his time.

I do not have exhaustive knowledge of the USCF rules (this was a USCF tourney), but I do help run tourneys and study the 5th edition of the USCF rules, in preparation for that, on a weekly basis. I'll be years digesting it all. I can say this: I haven't seen *anything* that indicates that a guy has to make any moves within any set of constraints besides those defined by the time controls. Is it childish? Maybe you can say that. If you do, however, you may make yourself vulnerable a foolishly adverse response to behavior that, IMHO, is probably entirely legal. If a player approached me with that complaint, I'd let the 'offender' know that his opponent would like to have someone to play against, sure, but I wouldn't tell him that he *should* do anything. If it turns out there is a rule that directly requires this, I'll comply as a TD -- or if there's a clear principle that the TD should interfere for *every* player concern. I haven't seen the rule and I haven't found basis yet to derive the principle. Please point me to chapter and verse if you've seen otherwise.

I do it all the time. Its simply phsycological warfare. Reply: Thomas - Don't listen to them. Do it. It's perfectly legal, it works and it is not against the ethics of chess either. Take this quote from the famous book Think Like a Grandmaster: Smyslov:"You just go away from the board. You have enough time. Take a little stroll, and let him suffer on his own." Although this quote is taken slightly out of context the meaning is still clear. Just let your opponent who has been waiting for so long get bored to death he will suffer and then play and watch him self-destruct.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what you did, Tom. Is it sportsmanlike, no. But is it legal, yes. Making a habbit of dropping large percentages of your time would be bad for your results and very unsportsmanlike, but forgetting about a round is fine. Your opponent should be able to entertain himself watching other games, so he is not "wasting 45 minutes of my lifetime."

This is OK, but I prefer to get in ...d6 first, myself, leading to a King's Indian. 4...d5 is a Grunfeld, an aggressive "defence".

His Bishop doesn't have the option of Bg4 yet, so normal 5.e4 is the most precise here (you played it next move anyway).

Agreed. Often it is better to wait until after the B has arrived at (in this instance) g4 before advancing h2-h3. This then puts the question onto Black, who often hasn't in fact decided in advance whether to take or retreat until the decision is forced upon him. If you had reason to suppose that ...Bg4 (note that this is applicable to the analogous moves at g5, b4 and b5) is to be feared (e.g. because the pin really is serious) then the time to play the rook-pawn forward is the last moment before the Bishop is about to move there. (Something further to consider: it's not a bad idea to leave the g4 (etc) squares available to the enemy bishop, as, attracted by the pin, the enemy might lace the B there rather than on a more useful square.)

This is actually the more common move. 5...d5 transposes into the Grunfeld Indian. Hard to say which is "stronger" so early. Definitely doesn't deserve a "?".

6...Nc6 is really not very convincing. Usually people play 6...c5 or 6...e5, while 6..c6 or 6...Nbd7 are common too.

This is the reason why I wouldn't play 6...Nc6 without due preparation (...e4, or ...c4). Black's best response here is probably ...Nb8. This is the sort of thin F.D.Yates played in his victory with the Black pieces over no less than Alekhine.

Black had other options (Nb4, Nb8) but White is slightly better in all of them.

9...c5 looks interesting, if White doesn't play 10.dc6 then further b6 Ne8 Nd6 (Knight is a good blocking piece). If 10.dc6, bc6 White still has a small edge but Black can hold.

Possibly Black is attempting to play thematically, as the N's retreat herald's the break move ...f5. It is also possible Black has his eye on blockading at d6 with this N - with due preparation (...b6) of course.

Black can't take on e4 due to doubled pawns on e file, so this is not a good plan.

Probably played in the hope that White would capture on f5. I seriously doubt Black wants to capture on e4 - not any time soon, anyway. But maybe the move is a tad premature. My first quick thoughts on this position suggest ...b6, ...Nd6 and then ...f5. White, however, has considerable potential for Q-side counteraction in the meantime.

How incredibly stupid of him, to play that quickly. Black's time advantage is useless if he makes bad moves.