07 Jan 06
Originally posted by ChaswrayI wrote my reply because you wrote that I thought something I didn't.
And why don't you just STFU!!!! I've read the entire thread. You asked for opinions "ABOUT THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR" in your first post. I gave you mine as others have done. The majority do NOT agree with YOUR BEHAVIOR.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by Natural ScienceYes, that's exactly what my thinking is. Except, while I did not think it was morally wrong or against the rules for my opponent to try and force a win on time, I thought it would have been more respectful to agree to a draw or resign. I thought this exactly because to me winning on time seems a bit cheap and against the intended PURPOSE of the rule, which I think is to change the pace of the game, not the winner of the game. Of course, that does not mean he can't take advantage of the time and win only based on that. After all, for a rule to be followed, it must have some negative consequence when you fail to meet its requirements, but again this does not mean that those consequences ARE the reason for that law or policy.
Let me see if I can sum up what the original poster's thoughts are. The purpose of time controls is to force players to move in a reasonable amount of time, and give them a timeframe to work their decisions around. Time controls were not intended to help one of the players win on time. Fine. Fair enough. You're right, actually.
In baseball, ...[text shortened]... d to help a player win on time? No. Is a player wrong for trying to win on time? No.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by ChaswrayYou wrote that I didn't think a player should be allowed to win on time.
Yeah right, whatever
"Just like the rules regarding castling and en passent, which allow a player to take advantage of them, the rule regarding losing on time allows a player to take advantage of it. "
This implies that I somehow didn't think a player could take advantage of time and win purely on that. Of course, I agree with that.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyYou can take comfort in that fact that I would have agreed to a draw in that situation only. Not in CC or OTB.
Yes, that's exactly what my thinking is. Except, while I did not think it was morally wrong or against the rules for my opponent to try and force a win on time, I thought it would have been more respectful to agree to a draw or resign. I thought this exactly because to me winning on time seems a bit cheap and against the intended PURPOSE of the rule, whi ...[text shortened]... s, but again this does not mean that those consequences ARE the reason for that law or policy.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyAll right well in that case, in hindsight, don't you think it would have been a bit more sporting of you to offer your opponenet a draw BEFORE you left the board to go help your parents? Then if he refuses, and says he's going to wait you out and try to win on time, he's the ass, not you.
Yes, that's exactly what my thinking is. Except, while I did not think it was morally wrong or against the rules for my opponent to try and force a win on time, I thought it would have been more respectful to agree to a draw or resign. I thought this exactly because to me winning on time seems a bit cheap and against the intended PURPOSE of the rule, whi ...[text shortened]... s, but again this does not mean that those consequences ARE the reason for that law or policy.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by dpressnellYeah, that's one way of looking at it. But it boils down to the same thing. Since tiem controls punish excessive time in making moves (unless they are slow time controls and the opposite is true) they force the players to adopt a new pace. Those who do not do so will lose. Thus, players have an incentive to actually change their pace and that's exactly what they do, so the clause about losing on time is usually not going to go into effect, Thus, while the main purpose of time is to modulate the pace of the game, players can lose on time simply so that the MAIN PURPOSE will actually have the necessary support. Just think if players couldn't lose on time, who would follow the rule? Basically, losing on time is just there to support the main purpose of time controls, since without it the goal of regulating pace cannot be accomplished.
I think a better way of summing it up is that:
Time controls are meant to punish excessive time in making moves by causing a win on time.
It's not a side effect of the reason for time controls, it's a direct effect which is specifically called for in the rules.
07 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakSorry, but in a position where you are down a rook plus two pawns(three if you count the undefended pawn I took on the next move), have an unsafe king with little cover, doubled pawns, demolished queenside and very little counterplay, I find it hard to believe that he is merely trying to force blunders. Fritz evaluates that position as more than -7.5. Almost no one, at a rating of over 1450, even on Yahoo! can blunder away such a huge advantage even considering time difficulty.
I've mentioned it before in this thread, but it seems to have been skipped over.
Who's to say the opponent was trying to win on the flag dropping? Surely, if somebody is in time trouble, they become more prone to blunders. That could have been the opponents aim in this instance.
D
07 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Natural ScienceYeah, I agree, and that's what I will do next time. If I ever have to leave a game like that I will offer a draw first after I explain what's happening. It's just that I didn't expect that it would take that long and it is very very hard for me to draw a won position.
All right well in that case, in hindsight, don't you think it would have been a bit more sporting of you to offer your opponenet a draw BEFORE you left the board to go help your parents? Then if he refuses, and says he's going to wait you out and try to win on time, he's the ass, not you.
BTW; If I don't respond to you, it's not because I'm ignoring you. It's usually because I've seen a similar post that I've answered.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by RahimKActually, if I was in his position, I probably would have just resigned because even if I were to win that on time, in my mind it still counts as a loss. I've even done that before, when my opponent ran into time trouble but I was in a terrible position, I have resigned. Maybe if I cared more about my Yahoo! rating I would do something different.
But anyways, If I was your opponent and you asked me to resign, I wouldn't but i would take a draw since i'm a nice person. Now if the role was switched and you were losing but your opponent went away for 5 minutes and came back and asked you to resign would you?
If you would resign then I would have resigned when you asked me too, but how would I know t ...[text shortened]... the role was reversed? Only if your a friend I know ( played chess often with) would I resign.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyMore like a rook and 2 pawns against a knight.
Sorry, but in a position where you are down a rook plus two pawns(three if you count the undefended pawn I took on the next move), have an unsafe king with little cover, doubled pawns, demolished queenside and very little counterplay, Fritz evaluates that position as more than -7.5. Almost no one, at a rating of over 1450, even on Yahoo! can blunder away such a huge advantage even considering time difficulty.
Also, Fritz has it at 5.59. How many points is a queen worth? Blundering a queen only takes 1 bad move, forced upon you due to time pressure.
D
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskySorry I didnt write that, so as you so eloquently told me in an earlier post..."Stop posting if you don't read what you're responding to" I've never said a player shouldn't be allowed to win on time. My gripe is with people who feel their opponent should resign because of whatever reason😠ðŸ˜
You wrote that I didn't think a player should be allowed to win on time.
"Just like the rules regarding castling and en passent, which allow a player to take advantage of them, the rule regarding losing on time allows a player to take advantage of it. "
This implies that I somehow didn't think a player could take advantage of time and win purely on that. Of course, I agree with that.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyWell, since you put it that way, I'll revaluate my opinion, disregarding everything you did.
Here is what I wrote; "Now in my opinion, the guy was abusing the system and just being an asshole. The point of the rating system is to measure your skill not your ability to win on time in losing positions.
But what do you guys think about this kind of behavior?"
Now, considering that I was only referring to my opponent, I thought it was clear tha ...[text shortened]... position?"
Sorry that this was not clear to you. I should have been more explicit.
I see a player who won on time. I don't see anybody asking for a draw, having to do chores, or requestiong a resignation, or making his opponent wait with nothing to do.
From the score I see, that player (he was white?) had QRNB and 5 pawns, which looks like a lot of material to me.
I don't see that he did anything wrong, inconsiderate, rude, or abusive at all.
Thanks for clearing up the ground rules.
07 Jan 06
1 edit
Oh oops, sorry, that was aimed at dpressnell and it was his quote.
But in any case: you did write this "And you were polite? Give me a break and while you're at it go cry somewhere else" and again I wrote that asking him to resign was not polite and now I really think I shouldn't have asked him that.