17 Oct 07
[b]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.A consensus only among those bothered to post in this thread. There are plenty of players here who would have considered it unsporting to take the skull in the circumstances you describe. There are probably many who would not have done it in their early days here but have become have become hardened to it after having it done to them a couple of times.
I presume that taking skulls in lost positions, like murder and adultery, is a lot easier the second time...not that I ever have.
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by MahoutLOL! Well put, Mahout. I've had a note to the effect that "I won't time you out unless I think your dead!" on my profile since the get-go. But after almost a year, I find that something between 40-50% of my losses have been time-outs, and my idealism is starting to tarnish... I may yet be pulled over to the Dark Side. 😀
A consensus only among those bothered to post in this thread. There are plenty of players here who would have considered it unsporting to take the skull in the circumstances you describe. There are probably many who would not have done it in their early days here but have become have become hardened to it after having it done to them a couple of times.
I ...[text shortened]... ost positions, like murder and adultery, is a lot easier the second time...not that I ever have.
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30I honestly wonder how many chess players don't actually care about the outcome of a game...
[b]no, you should only care about the outcome of competition when there is something at stake.
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 ...[text shortened]... ation Thread in the general forum... you don't need to read all the way through that one. 😉 )
In any case, if what you're saying is that it's more important to play/have fun/learn than to win, then that's still a pretty good argument for not always poking the skull.
For what it's worth, I did read the whole thread first, and I do try not to offer redundant sentiments. 🙂
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30That is actually a very interesting question.
weeeeeeeeeeeelll
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 ...[text shortened]... a king just sits at the board and waits for his unconscience opponent's clock to run out?
Does anybody know?
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by MahoutI presume that you're full of crap.
I presume that taking skulls in lost positions, like murder and adultery, is a lot easier the second time...not that I ever have.
If you can't tell the difference in ethics between taking a skull in a game of chess and murder or adultery then it's you who have the ethical problem not those who would take a skull.
When would you suggest it is ethical to take a skull? When your opponent says it's ok?
17 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnWell the point was that if someone had a conscience about taking skulls - or should I say - if someone felt that it was wrong to take skulls, then after taking one they might not feel so bad about it on the second or third time. This ebbing away of conscience was what I was comparing to murder and adultery...not the act themselves. The ludicrously different scale of the bad thing that someone might have a conscience about - skulling verses murder etc. was intended for the purpose of humour and perspective, poking a little fun at anyone getting to serious about this issue. My apologies to anyone who didn't spot the joke.
I presume that you're full of crap.
If you can't tell the difference in ethics between taking a skull in a game of chess and murder or adultery then it's you who have the ethical problem not those who would take a skull.
When would you suggest it is ethical to take a skull? When your opponent says it's ok?
Edit: This is my opinion minus any attempts at humour: - I don't think there is anything "wrong" with taking a skull in a lost position....a bit unsporting?...maybe...depending on the circumstances. I can see how it's annoying. But at the end of the day it's the responsibility of the player to avoid being timed out by keeping to the time controls.
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by MahoutI am sorry that I think I did misunderstand you. I believe there was someone else in this thread that made some kind of reference to murder, etc.. that I might have taken out on you a bit.
Well the point was that if someone had a conscience about taking skulls - or should I say - if someone felt that it was wrong to take skulls, then after taking one they might not feel so bad about it on the second or third time. This ebbing away of conscience was what I was comparing to murder and adultery...not the act themselves. The ludicrously different ...[text shortened]... the responsibility of the player to avoid being timed out by keeping to the time controls.
I think we agree for the most part. I just think there shouldn't be any issue of conscience when taking a skull. It's actually fair play.
It isn't the most glorious way of winning, nor is it a way that most people want to win. It's also an annoying way to lose, but it is absolutely fair.
The only other fair solution is to have automatic timeouts and that would mean no whining because it eliminates the person's choice of timing someone out. I do prefer the present situation though because it allows someone to ask politely for more time and it allows someone to be generous and give more time.
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by ben mossbergI don't know if you had any timebank in the game.
3 days per move is a little different than OTB with a clock though.
If you did, then you used up more time to get into a won position, and then pushed your luck by effectively letting your flag drop. Why should your opponent allow you extra time, when they have played by the agreed controls, which has meant that they have an inferior position?
If there was no timebank, then you chose the time controls to ensure that the game moved along speedily. Then, for some reason, you decided that the time controls no longer applied to you, and you could take as much time as you wanted to move.
D
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI could think of a situation when automatic time outs would be very annoying:
The only other fair solution is to have automatic timeouts and that would mean no whining because it eliminates the person's choice of timing someone out. I do prefer the present situation though because it allows someone to ask politely for more time and it allows someone to be generous and give more time.
When you play against a friend, perhaps even unrated, and the game itself is more interesting than the outcome of it. In this situation you don't mind your friend having zero time left. You just play on, to see what the game evolve into.
I wouldn't like automatic time outs. The choice is essential, and a part of the game.
17 Oct 07
Man, this was exhausting. Only skimmed the last few pages.
I use to play 9-ball billiards with a guy and for some reason, whenever he racked up the balls, I'd get no reaction on the break. After this went on for several game, I asked him about it. His response was: "I leave a space between the 1-ball and the other balls. That way the balls don't break apart."
That's cheating, I said. He said, "I'm always going to look for any edge I can find to win." Last time I played with him.
It's a very philosophical difference. Some play for sport. Some play to win. Neither is wrong. One is just more right than the other ;-)
To those who just play to win or just for score, why don't you just quit chess and take up golf? Then you can hit Kim Jong Il-like scores of 38-under par every single time and feel like da man!
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by FabianFnasI agree myself. I wouldn't want automatic timeouts either.
I could think of a situation when automatic time outs would be very annoying:
When you play against a friend, perhaps even unrated, and the game itself is more interesting than the outcome of it. In this situation you don't mind your friend having zero time left. You just play on, to see what the game evolve into.
I wouldn't like automatic time outs. The choice is essential, and a part of the game.
It would be a "fair" solution to end the whining about people taking skulls though.
I do think the negatives of having the whining and the choice outweigh whatever benefits there might be to having an automatic timout.
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by DeepGreeneof course chess players care about the outcome.
I honestly wonder how many chess players don't actually care about the outcome of a game...
In any case, if what you're saying is that it's more important to play/have fun/learn than to win, then that's still a pretty good argument for not always poking the skull.
For what it's worth, I did read the whole thread first, and I do try not to offer redundant sentiments. 🙂
In the game that started this thread, ben had, and identified, a winning line.
that makes him the superior player.
what does he care if his rating drops a tad?
either way, he was superior...
and I go right back to my original point...
this IS just a free chess site...
it's not like anyone is losing any money over this.
jeez.