Unfortunately within a week or two this same type of post will reappear. The battle between reality and whining will continue and nothing will be solved. Maybe the admins could add a pop-up whenever someone chooses a 1/0 games that states that by accepting this game the user forfeits all rights to bitching about timeouts.
Originally posted by pimpsandwichYou aren't,,,,, bitching about bitching are you?
Unfortunately within a week or two this same type of post will reappear. The battle between reality and whining will continue and nothing will be solved. Maybe the admins could add a pop-up whenever someone chooses a 1/0 games that states that by accepting this game the user forfeits all rights to bitching about timeouts.
Originally posted by ben mossbergAssuming you are being sincere, then thank you. (And even if you weren't, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were: so thank you anyway.)
incandenza I feel badly for implying you are or would ever cheat, (and by cheat I mean objective ugly cheating).
Originally posted by DeepGreeneThe message could very well mean something like. "We see that you recognize that your opponent has refused to move within the agreed time limits, click here to win a prize"(the game).
I 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...
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...
Originally posted by DeepGreeneno, you should only care about the outcome of competition when there is something at stake.
Sorry, rubberjaw. I guess I missed the memo that said yours was the final word... 😉
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?
For example, a proffessional football player's salary may depend on his productivity in the competion.
The only thing you stand to gain from winning a game on this meaningless free chess site is a few rating points (and I do say a few, considering that the most you can increase is 32, I think).
One need not have the '1' next to his name to gain the thrill of victory on this site.
That is the advantage of playing on sites like this one, rating doesn't matter. We're here to have fun and learn, neither of which require a maximum of 32 points on top of your rating.
And no, sir, I never said my word was final, but is a common courtesy to us who have made our input for you to read over past comments. (unless, of course, we are referring to the Word Association Thread in the general forum... you don't need to read all the way through that one. 😉 )
In reply to the general consensus that if a skull appears you should click it as fast as you can and scoop the win, and in fact it is actually kind of stupid to not do so.
I would put forth the question. Why then is there a skull?
If the skull was meant to be used as a way to win a game, rather than a way to clear out a match which after review and consideration is no longer active.
Then there would be no skull.
Time would finish, and just as with speed chess you would automatically lose. No skull clickery needed.
This is not the case, the skull exists in order to create a dialog between the players, the ultimate goal being to get people to play chess.
That is why there is a line of text reminding you that unless this person is refusing to play you really ought not to clear the game.
So all you of the, "your flag fell" camp.
This is not speed chess. It is correspondence chess.
If going over the denoted time really should be an automatic loss, then ask yourself, why is there a skull?
Are you just trying to be argumentative? Just adjust your timebank, its just that simple. Stop trying to justify. You've won timeout games, we all have, I won one today. I want to play a game within a certain time frame, the system allows for this, if my opponent is unable or unwilling to cooperate I will skull to begin the next game. Stop acting like the jilted would-be lover. your opponent spurned your desire for a rematch and you can't get closure. Call Dr. Phil if you must, but stop trying to explain that what he did is wrong, he was within the rules of a timed game. I believe you mentioned football earlier in this thread, if you wait until after the final whistle to score the winning goal, you get skulled. Period.
Originally posted by ben mossbergIt's your own fault. They don't give you a pass on running out of time in tournaments just because you have mate in 2. Do they?
Game id 3924207
Unbelievable,
I had played Gaskit into a position where he was to be mated in 2 moves and then over the course of the weekend he took advantage of a time out opportunity and claimed a victory. I had been expecting to see his resignation. There was zero opportunity for him to avoid a loss, other than through the very unsportsmanli ...[text shortened]... her when you have been fairly beaten.
[fen]8/1R6/p2N3p/k6p/8/2p5/PPP2PPP/6K1 w - - 0 35[/fen]
Originally posted by AThousandYoungweeeeeeeeeeeelll
It's your own fault. They don't give you a pass on running out of time in tournaments just because you have mate in 2. Do they?
let's say that two GMs are playing and it's come down to a simple book endgame: K+R vs. K
let's say that the GM with the lonely king is just not resigning for fun, and forcing the other GM to play it out.
so they're playing through the book endgame right, and they get all the way to the point of mate in two. both GMs know its mate in 2, and the arbiter knows its mate in two, and every one on earth paying attention to the game knows it's a forced mate in, you guessed it, two.
suddenly, the GM with the rook falls over of a heart attack, and doesn't recover for several weeks. who is awarded the win if the GM who only has a king just sits at the board and waits for his unconscience opponent's clock to run out?
Originally posted by ben mossbergThey give you the option of clicking the skull so you can decide to take it or not. It's your choice.
In reply to the general consensus that if a skull appears you should click it as fast as you can and scoop the win, and in fact it is actually kind of stupid to not do so.
I would put forth the question. Why then is there a skull?
If the skull was meant to be used as a way to win a game, rather than a way to clear out a match which after review and ...[text shortened]... the denoted time really should be an automatic loss, then ask yourself, why is there a skull?
Either way is fine. If you take the skull then you chose to take the win and that is your right.
If you don't take the skull and play on, that's your right too.
Either way is fair play and if someone had me one or two to mate and gave me the chance to time them out then I probably would. I probably would also send them a message saying "Nice game. You had me beat too!. Good luck!". Why would I refuse an opportunity to turn a loss into a victory when it's well within the rules and guidelines of the game?
You are right, it's not speed chess. That's why you have 3 days to move and not 30 seconds.
Maybe it should be an automatic loss. Then you wouldn't have anything to complain about. You simply would have lost.