3 edits
Originally posted by OhforfI think you have missed the answer in the above posts, it was there:
As I said, I agree with all that. What I was asking was something different: why would anyone ~want~ to stop a game for a timeout after only a few moves if the game is about even, only a couple of hours after the skull appears?
time is a part of the equation and claiming the win in the 5th move is no different than mating your opponent in the 5th move if s/he gives you the opportunity.
would you just ~want~ to keep playing instead of 5.Qxf7# ?
I think you have missed the answer in the above posts, it was there:
time is a part of the equation and claiming the win in the 5th move is no different than mating your opponent in the 5th move if s/he gives you the opportunity.
would you just ~want~ to keep playing instead of 5.Qxf7# ?
edit:
oh well, I've just finished your post and you've said "In fact, whenever anyone makes an obvious blunder that is reversible I always offer them the opportunity to take the move back, since I prefer an interesting game to a stupid win. "
now I understand why you don't understand, but I don't understand why you play chess in the first place if you won't take advantage of blunders. the game is all about not making blunders yourself and taking advantage of you opponent's.
1 edit
Let us compare chess to say, a penalty shoot-out in football. You aren't going to offer the opponent team a second chance when they've missed their fifth penalty kick. 🙂 The whole idea of the game is to get a "winner" and a "loser". If you win a coin toss you aren't going to be offering a second roll either.
Originally posted by Ohforfwhy isn't the game continued after checkmate, until all pieces are gone?
why would anyone ~want~ to stop a game for a timeout after only a few moves if the game is about even, only a couple of hours after the skull appears?
why more cards aren't dealt after passing 21 in blackjack?
why isn't a tennis match continued after 6-0?
because
the game
is
over.
Originally posted by OhforfGame 6365408
I've read a lot of responses above (some sounding irate) that are not at all responsive to my question. I totally agree that (1) I shouldn't have a problem with claiming timeouts; (2) time limits are standard in over-the-board tournaments [which have real rewards, by the way, like cash]; (3) it's perfectly fine and proper for someone to claim a timeout; (4) i ...[text shortened]... a stupid win. But that's just me. I have no problem with people who think otherwise.
You had Black in this position and had just played 19...Qb6. White replied 20.a5?? Naturally, I expected you to kindly remind him that he had hung his Knight, and play something like 20...Qa7, keeping the game interesting. Imagine my shock when I saw that you heartlessly ate the Knight with 20...Qxd4! 😲
=============================
And in this one...
Game 6422622
White plays 19.Bxc7?? and you glibly respond 19...Nxc7. Merciless!
Later on, same game:
White plays 29.Nxc6?? and you reply 29...Nxe1, gladly winning the Rook for a minor piece. Wouldn't 29...bxc6 have kept the game more interesting?
=======================
I'm afraid your personality is much more like ours than you realize.
Originally posted by SwissGambitI guess he's talking about returning to the exact same position. In the examples, the opposing players make pawn moves or capture stuff. Returning to the old position would require exploding RHP's program code.
Game 6365408
[fen]r1b1k2r/5pp1/pqP2n1p/3pb3/PP1Np3/B7/R4PPP/1N1QR1K1 w kq - 0 20[/fen]
You had Black in this position and had just played 19...Qb6. White replied 20.a5?? Naturally, I expected you to kindly remind him that he had hung his Knight, and play something like 20...Qa7, keeping the game interesting. Imagine my shock when I saw that y ...[text shortened]... ======================
I'm afraid your personality is much more like ours than you realize.
2 edits
Originally posted by Ohforfyour sumup also could have been neutral or positive,
I've read a lot of responses above (some sounding irate) that are not at all responsive to my question. I totally agree that (1) I shouldn't have a problem with claiming timeouts; (2) time limits are standard in over-the-board tournaments [which have real rewards, by the way, like cash]; (3) it's perfectly fine and proper for someone to claim a timeout; (4) i a stupid win. But that's just me. I have no problem with people who think otherwise.
You could have said, something like:
1. They have helping natures and want to learn people to follow the rules, so that they and others will benefit from that
2. They have a huge gameload, in which I was adding extra pressure
3. They are people who just follow the rules,
4. My behaviour of not complying to the very easy terms we made,
gives them annoyence. To spare them from further annoyence they timeout.
instead with your choice of words you choose to redicule your opponent.
So, to give it back at you, it seems that
1. When you make a mistake, you tend to blame others since they clearly could have ignored/corrected your mistake.
2. By moving too late, you are clearly enlarging their gameload, however you blame them for mistakenly taken to many games
3. You dogmatize a person or group of persons based on their actions in a insignificant online game,
4. You have a personallity that you blaim your mistakes on others, then complain about their behaviour on a forum.
ps:
I find it amusing that you are so negative about the authoritarian and instructive "character" of a skull-clicker, whilst you found it needed to explain to the repliers that they are not for the full 100% responsive to your question.
Originally posted by heinzkatOf course - but the examples are meant to show the flaw in the rationale behind allowing takebacks. There were means at his disposal of eschewing the 'cheap' win and keeping the positions interesting. The point that the position is not exactly the same is a minor one.
I guess he's talking about returning to the exact same position. In the examples, the opposing players make pawn moves or capture stuff. Returning to the old position would require exploding RHP's program code.
Originally posted by SwissGambitI agree.
Of course - but the examples are meant to show the flaw in the rationale behind allowing takebacks. There were means at his disposal of eschewing the 'cheap' win and keeping the positions interesting. The point that the position is not exactly the same is a minor one.
In fact when both sides allow all blunders to be taken back, all games would score a draw
Originally posted by OhforfI don't want to play with people having a sloppy time management. If they cannot move in time, and thus make the game slow, then I skull him out, and the problem is solved.
The timeout mentality
If we agree to a 3/7 time control, why act as if was really a 21/28 time control? If he doesn't want to play 3/7, then he should only play 21/28.
One thing worse than people not knowing to handle their time controls is people who whines. That his losin is suddenly a matter of moral, and he wins in the morality battle. "I'm better than you because you skulled me out!" Whine, whine, whine. Why don't they play tic-tac-toe instead?
I'm honest to you. In my profile I say clearly that "I never remind, I always click the skull". If you don't like that, don't play with me.