16 Oct 07
Originally posted by pimpsandwichYou know that little line of text when you click the skull that says something to the effect of.
You've been exposed as a whining hypocrite.
Do not use this unless your opponent refuses to move?
That makes me think the skull is to be thought of as a utility for ending games that are being needlessly extended.
Not for grabbing a win in an otherwise losing situation.
Call me crazy.
16 Oct 07
To all those who say "your flag fell" etc., I say that this is a correspondence chess site, not a vehicle for the world's slowest blitz games. Does ANYBODY pay any heed to that javascript pop-up that advises you NOT to time someone out unless they 'refuse' to move? I too have been timed out in winning positions by players who (at least in my imagination) must have been just circling like vultures, watching the clock run down. In my view, these people are losers, plain and simple. Did you come to play chess or didn't you?
The problem is that the site DOES need a method to end a game when one player has lost interest, given up chess forever, developed amnesia, etc. and I for one can't think of a better implementation than what's there today. It's just that the human factor is sometimes a bit lacking there. 😛
Awesome thread, btw. Truly. 🙂
16 Oct 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30I'd thought that this summed up the issue, back on page two.
Dear Ben Mossberg,
Why, exactly, do you care? As I pointed out in another thread, This is a chess site for fun. We are here to try to better our chess skills and have fun playing a fun game at the same time. Why are you letting this get to you? Anyone who looks through your games will see that one, see your two move mate, and also see on the side ...[text shortened]... n some rematch. Get over it, and pat yourself on the back for a game well done.
Rubberjaw
I am assuming that you haven't read it, so I'm going to re-post it here with a new heading:
Dear DeepGreene,
...
16 Oct 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30Sorry, rubberjaw. I guess I missed the memo that said yours was the final word... 😉
I'd thought that this summed up the issue, back on page two.
I am assuming that you haven't read it, so I'm going to re-post it here with a new heading:
Dear DeepGreene,
...
I'm not one who thinks that my win:loss ratio means anything or that even my rating means anything much--except that a higher rating makes for better opponents. But c'mon... A little competitive spirit means caring just a bit, no?
16 Oct 07
Originally posted by DeepGreeneHmm, so a competitive spirit involves letting your opponent win when there's no reason to? That's a strange definition of competitive.
I'm not one who thinks that my win:loss ratio means anything or that even my rating means anything much--except that a higher rating makes for better opponents. But c'mon... A little competitive spirit means caring just a bit, no?[/b]
Would you give your opponents tips like, "don't take the rook--after that I have a mating combination"? Why not help them out in that way if you're willing to help them out in other ways? Wouldn't it result in a better game?
When you agree to a competition with certain rules, and there's a way to win within those rules, you take if it you're really playing competitively. In fact, another definition of "loser" would be someone who gives away wins to their opponent for no particular reason.
16 Oct 07
Originally posted by DeepGreeneIf a person doesn't move in the alloted time he's basically refusing to move in the alloted time agreed on. That's why the option to claim the win is offered. If one of the players can't move in the time agreed on then they can start playing with longer time limits or use the vacation flag.
To all those who say "your flag fell" etc., I say that this is a correspondence chess site, not a vehicle for the world's slowest blitz games. Does ANYBODY pay any heed to that javascript pop-up that advises you NOT to time someone out unless they 'refuse' to move? I too have been timed out in winning positions by players who (at least in my imagination ...[text shortened]... e human factor is sometimes a bit lacking there. 😛
Awesome thread, btw. Truly. 🙂
16 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by incandenzaA competitive spirit means many things, sportsmanship is part of it.
Hmm, so a competitive spirit involves letting your opponent win when there's no reason to? That's a strange definition of competitive.
Would you give your opponents tips like, "don't take the rook--after that I have a mating combination"? Why not help them out in that way if you're willing to help them out in other ways? Wouldn't it result in a bett ser" would be someone who gives away wins to their opponent for no particular reason.
Once again I will point out that there is a specific line of text saying not to use the timeout unless the other player has REFUSED to move.
That implies that the makers of this system never intended it to be some sort of silly way to escape a certain loss.
You sound like the kind of person who would cheat when if np one was looking and say it's all part of the game. " There was no reason to not cheat and let them win, I wasn't going to get caught, I would have been a loser if I didn't cheat, it wasn't necessary to lose"
Helping an opponent out is one thing, not resorting to a cheap win by taking advantage of a component of the system is quite another.
16 Oct 07
Originally posted by ben mossbergThat's a totally bogus argument. You're talking about doing something outside the rules, while I'm talking about playing completely within the rules.
You sound like the kind of person who would cheat when no one is looking and say its all part of the game. " There was no reason to not cheat and let them win, I wasn't going to get caught, I would have been a loser if I didn't cheat it wasn't necessary to lose"
You can say I "sound like" anything you want, but I would not break any of the rules, nor would I ever suggest doing so.
Your argument is along the lines of saying something like, "You sound like the kind of person who would beat your wife."
16 Oct 07
Originally posted by hamltnblueI agree that the definition of 'refusal' here is entirely subjective. However, by your interpretation, I would have to say that the pop-up is pretty much pointless... Welllll... I guess it *does* have the benefit of preventing someone from timing someone out by accident...
If a person doesn't move in the alloted time he's basically refusing to move in the alloted time agreed on. That's why the option to claim the win is offered. If one of the players can't move in the time agreed on then they can start playing with longer time limits or use the vacation flag.
But in that instance it could as easily say "Are you sure?" Whatever. It would be interesting to get an official RHP stance on the true meaning of that message...