Originally posted by OhforfIs that not the same mentality as taking a skull? 😕
Nah, I don't want to play artificially contrived positions. A game with an obvious blunder taken back is still a game with both sides playing as well as they can, sans obvious blunders. I like that. Your suggested alternatives would not be as interesting to me as, say, just taking the win and starting a new game over from scratch, which is also fine with me.
Originally posted by NowakowskiGiven the limited evidence at my disposal, the most I can show here is that his claim of valuing interesting games and positions over the result is exaggerated at best.
As accurate as this analysis is, (or at least as accurate as Behaviorism
can be) I fail to see Swiss, how you intend on connecting this to actual
mentality. I think while you've done well to provide a counter-weight
to his laisze faire attitude towards time controls, I fail to see how you'll
provide anything lasting against such an apathetic appro ...[text shortened]... sproven.
That said, I enjoyed your posts the very most in this thread.
+1 Rec
-GIN
If his apathy extends to applying the spirit of his own principles, I am limited further. Best I can do there is show that it's weird that someone should sound somewhat emphatic and talk at length about a subject that they're not actually that concerned about.
IMO, there is no 'right' and 'wrong' personality here. Nothing is wrong with taking a more casual approach to the game. The trouble came when casual player started denouncing the more serious players as authoritarian, or easily annoyed, etc. while ignoring the good reasons already provided.
Thanks. I'm glad you enjoyed my posts.
Originally posted by OhforfThe bad news is the timer is ticking.
I just want to take this opportunity to thank [b]everyone who responded for making this very interesting and a lot of fun! 🙂[/b]
If you do not post again within two days skulls will appear
and this lot will click them without thought or mercy.
People take the timeouts for obvious reason.... if your opponents time runs out in an over the board game do you keep playing? or do you take the paper "win"? I think its an obvious reason your opponent timed out and you win simple as that. A win is a win, no matter how, timing out your opponent mating him or he resigns.
Originally posted by MetBierOp
you are welcome, however instead of thanking me, I would prefer receiving a reply 🙂
I did reply to you, on page 3 I think. As I recall I agreed with you about something. Were you looking for a PM? I just don't have time to answer every post by everybody individually. This thread is like... long.
Originally posted by FabianFnas
Me too?
Yes, my Scandinavian friend. You too. 🙂
Originally posted by SwissGambit
Best I can do there is show that it's weird that someone should sound somewhat emphatic and talk at length about a subject that they're not actually that concerned about.
You're confusing my interest in how the human mind works (in which I do have a keen interest) with whether or not someone perfunctorily, consistently, occasionally, compulsively, or lackadaisically claims timeouts (which indeed, I'm not actually that concerned about). But why is your thesis about me personally? Surely, isn't it better to discuss the underlying issue, rather than resorting to argumentum ad personam?
Originally posted by SwissGambit
The trouble came when casual player started denouncing the more serious players as authoritarian, or easily annoyed, etc. while ignoring the good reasons already provided.
*sigh* Well, if you must... As I recall, I said that having an authoritarian personality might be one possible reason (among others) for wanting to claim a timeout. That's a far cry from "denouncing the more serious players as authoritarian," as I'm sure, if you are indeed trained in logic, you will acknowledge. If I said that trying to escape after a bank robbery might be one possible reason for speeding, would you accuse me of "denouncing anyone who exceeds the speed limit as being a thief"?
Originally posted by OhforfYes you did.
I did reply to you, on page 3 I think. As I recall I agreed with you about something. Were you looking for a PM? I just don't have time to answer every post by everybody individually. This thread is like... long.
[/b]
I missed that.
Sorry, I should have read better 😳
Originally posted by OhforfOn the first point, you left out a key part of my quote. The whole paragraph is contingent on "IF he is apathetic about his own principles".
Originally posted by MetBierOp
[b]you are welcome, however instead of thanking me, I would prefer receiving a reply 🙂
I did reply to you, on page 3 I think. As I recall I agreed with you about something. Were you looking for a PM? I just don't have time to answer every post by everybody individually. This thread is like... long.
Original d you accuse me of "denouncing anyone who exceeds the speed limit as being a thief"?[/b]
Your second point would make sense if you had made the statement about authoritarians in a vacuum. But the tone of your opening post strongly indicates otherwise. The last paragraph is just a flagrant bashing of the opponent who timed you out.
Your mind was already made up before you ever posted this thread.
I don't buy that you're motivated by mere curiosity about the human mind.
Originally posted by SwissGambit
On the first point, you left out a key part of my quote. The whole paragraph is contingent on "IF he is apathetic about his own principles".
That didn't seem to stop you from making a sweeping condemnation of me based on my final paragraph (in my first post), the entirety of which is contingent on "IS there a type of person that...."
But if, as you say, your paragraph was contingent upon the conditional, then with respects to the ancient Laconian king, my response is:
"If."
Originally posted by SwissGambit
The last paragraph is just a flagrant bashing of the opponent who timed you out.
See above.
Originally posted by SwissGambit
Your second point would make sense if you had made the statement about authoritarians in a vacuum. But the tone of your opening post strongly indicates otherwise. Your mind was already made up before you ever posted this thread. I don't buy that you're motivated by mere curiosity about the human mind.
Ah, another mindreader blasting me not for actual statements I made, but for opinions about my "tone" based on assumptions about my paragraph that derive from his own mind. Please stop projecting.
Originally posted by OhforfThat didn't seem to stop you from making a sweeping condemnation of me based on my final paragraph (in my first post), the entirety of which is contingent on "IS there a type of person that...."
That didn't seem to stop you from making a sweeping condemnation of me based on my final paragraph (in my first post), the entirety of which is contingent on "IS there a type of person that...."
But if, as you say, your paragraph was contingent upon the conditional, then with respects to the ancient Laconian king, my response is:
"If."
Originally po ...[text shortened]... n assumptions about my paragraph that derive from his own mind. Please stop projecting.
Suuuuure, those are the same. Your question was rhetorical. You'd already identified your man in the previous paragraph, and then started saying "Is...". So, either you forgot who you were just talking about, or it was a rhetorical question. Yeah, sure, that's the same as my "If", which was an attempt to determine exactly what level of 'apathy' Nowakowski was talking about. 🙄
Ah, another mindreader blasting me not for actual statements I made, but for opinions about my "tone" based on assumptions about my paragraph that derive from his own mind. Please stop projecting.
But you did make actual statements. And no, they weren't that mysterious or hard to understand - and it doesn't take a mind reader to see where you were going by making them. So, stop insulting everyone's intelligence here.
Originally posted by Ohforfi came looking fer a threadthot that might address my disappointment with an opponent...
Nah, I don't want to play artificially contrived positions. A game with an obvious blunder taken back is still a game with both sides playing as well as they can, sans obvious blunders. I like that. Your suggested alternatives would not be as interesting to me as, say, just taking the win and starting a new game over from scratch, which is also fine with me.
Game 6601530
itz a tournament game, and we have been averaging two moves apiece, per day...
the game haz progressed quickly, and now it is her last move...
she has been moving regularly in her other games...
and stalling before the final blow in this one...
sigh...
to address your initial post question, about the mentality of "why" someone would click a skull early on in a game...
i, personally, do not know...
the only person who would know iz yer opponent...
you said in the middle somewhere you had sent a PM...
you got no reply???
and,
you have come to tha community at large to seek an answer???
i will take a stab at an answer by using yer words from the post quoted above...
(the game)"would not be as interesting to me"(if i should have to wait)
happy chess!!!
rookie
Speaking of which, I just had another opportunity to click on the skull and of course, I took it. I can’t speak for others, however my mentality is that if my opponent does not move in the specified time limit, then my opponent should lose. There certainly is nothing wrong with this mentality. This is just how I think the game should be played. If you want to be nice and not click the skull, by all means, do so. I’m not that nice. I’ll be nice when I’m not playing Chess. When I’m playing Chess, I play to win.