Originally posted by philidor position
... 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.
Because I actually enjoy the playing far more than I enjoy the winning. If I blunder I'm happy to have the game end, but if the other person blunders it's more fun for me if he takes back the move and we can play from a more competitive position; it also makes me feel better about winning, if I do. What kind of satisfaction and you get from winning on a blunder? Now if there were a real title or cash award for winning, you bet I'd click those skulls--post haste!
Originally posted by heinzkat
Let us compare chess to say, a penalty shoot-out in football. ... The whole idea of the game is to get a "winner" and a "loser". ...
So for you chess is like football: war in another form. Fair enough. For me, chess is like reading a book. I derive my enjoyment from the process much more than from the conclusion. If while reading a book I find a mistake in grammar or if I can guess the ending, I don't close the book in the middle and shout, "Aha! I win!"
Originally posted by Ichibanov
To be fair, we all play for different reasons. For some, it's about the process and not so much the end result. For most here, I think it's about competition, but I do understand Ohforf's approach. And after all these responses, I'm sure he understand ours.
Bingo! And yes, I think so.
Originally posted by SwissGambit
Game 6365408
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,...
Because his blunder was a pawn move, which is impossible to take back in an online game, duh.
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.
Because with 19.Bxc7 he took my pawn, which is also impossible to take back in an online game. Ditto 29.Nxc6, which took a piece--impossible to take back. Double duh! But it's nice to know you care enough to be following my games. 😉
Originally posted by MetBierOp
your sumup also could have been neutral or positive.
You're right; I could've tailored my words better to avoid misunderstanding. I didn't mean to denigrate anyone, but I apologize if I inadvertently did so.
Originally posted by SwissGambit
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.
Don't be absurd. Returning to a previous position is one thing. Trying to "counterbalance" a previous bad move by purposely creating other blunders is quite another. I think here you're just arguing for argument's sake, because you'd put so much research and work into your earlier post with all the diagrams, etc. Which I appreciate, by the way. Also, though you didn't find an example, I'm sure that if you looked exhaustively through the hundreds of games I've played you'll find some where reversible blunders were not reversed. About half the time I offer to return a blunder my opponent declines, telling me he'd rather play the game the way it was played. That's a position I respect.
Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, it's not about mentality, if you read between his lines....
I see this sort of crap all the time in online forum postings. People "read between the lines" and insert all sorts of imagined bad motives and ill feelings, and presto there's a flame war. This is a well-known phenomenon. When you read a forum post from someone you don't know personally you cannot hear tone of voice or see facial expressions or other body language, so human nature causes people to infer hidden thoughts and motives according to
their own personalities. Psychologists call this "projection." If you care about accuracy, truth, and civility, then as you gain experience with online communications you should realize that the only way to communicate successfully in that arena is to respond to the poster's actual, literal message, without trying to read into it something that isn't actually there, and to assume, until proven otherwise, that what was posted was "said" with the best possible intent.
Originally posted by mark singler
I dont see he did anything wrong. The time had expired.
I totally agree. I don't think the person who claimed the timeout did anything wrong, or mean, or unfriendly, or anything else negative. Never said otherwise.
Originally posted by acb123
I do take timeouts. I often find that my opponent has been on-site and, for whatever reason, has moved in other games but left ours untouched. I assume they are waiting for the time-out skull to appear and be clicked, so I oblige. The downside is that I now have a rating higher than my abilities, but no doubt that will sort itself out.
Sound thinking; I have no problem with that.
Both clicking the timeout claim and declining to do so are valid responses and perfectly fine, and I have no problem with either. Just as I have no negative feelings toward people who like olives. -- I just don't know why they do. 😉
OK, so I get it: I now know why people claim timeouts, and they're all (well, mostly) good reasons. And, I also think my reason for not claiming timeouts is good as well.