12 Feb '05 00:14>
I think it would be interesting and perhaps insightful if included on a member's home page was a listing of a number of wins claimed by timeout.
Originally posted by Joe FistBut of course is it really a players fault if people they play choose to be timed out instead of playing on in a lost position?
I think it would be interesting and perhaps insightful if included on a member's home page was a listing of a number of wins claimed by timeout.
Originally posted by MIODudeRight something along those lines. I'm not a very good player myself and I don't have a great deal of victories by timeout but I do have a few. I think its great we have the option of claiming a win if your opponent refuses to move in a fair, certain amount of time. I just think it would more of an accurate representation of a player's true rating.
Actually.. along those lines, it would be nice to know what his rating would be if timeouts were not included .. maybe two separate ratings.. I hate lining up clan challenges, and find out that the guy actually should be 400 points higher but because he didn't move for 2 weeks he's now at 1100..
Originally posted by BuGHoUsEMASTERNormally, I wouldn't think it was at all important to see stats without T/Os, but some idiots actually play to get the T/O.
Why? Does it mean that hes not a better player because you can't seem to get off your ass and make a move?
Originally posted by RagnorakBut of course having a rating without timeouts or similar will not distinguish between those people and the other people who often are forced to time out opponents thanks to them not moving in a lost position.
Normally, I wouldn't think it was at all important to see stats without T/Os, but some idiots actually play to get the T/O.
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=19375&page=1
D
Originally posted by XanthosNZBut of course, we shouldn't be trying to minimise the stats that are available to us either. If we had both available to us, then we could see the true strenght of the jerk who tries to win his games using the T/Os. I believe that we should have loads more stats, like a breakdown of wins/losses/draws against certain rating spreads, eg: 1800-2000, highest rating, average rating, average rating of opponents, etc.
But of course having a rating without timeouts or similar will not distinguish between those people and the other people who often are forced to time out opponents thanks to them not moving in a lost position.
Originally posted by RagnorakPlayer don't win games by T/O. Players lose games by T/O.
If we had both available to us, then we could see the true strenght of the jerk who tries to win his games using the T/Os.
Originally posted by GatecrasherI said the racist jerk tries to win his games by T/O, not that he wins by T/O.
Player don't win games by T/O. Players lose games by T/O.
Originally posted by RagnorakSorry, I hadn't read his post.
I said the racist jerk tries to win his games by T/O, not that he wins by T/O.
Read this and tell me he's not...
Originally posted by MIODudeUnless someone has just won/lost a lot of games on timeouts the ratings should be pretty similar either way. The best things would probably be to know the players peak rating, or to see their ratings chart. Perhaps including this info on the screens to sort out a clan challenge would make it less tiresome than clicking on each player's profile. Or clan leaders could have a manually estimated account of the players strength in their clan that others could look at?
Actually.. along those lines, it would be nice to know what his rating would be if timeouts were not included .. maybe two separate ratings.. I hate lining up clan challenges, and find out that the guy actually should be 400 points higher but because he didn't move for 2 weeks he's now at 1100..