Originally posted by fergalishThe only way round it is to subscribe and then it doesn't matter when people do this. If you don't want to subscribe then avoid 14/28 time limits - 3/7 are about as long as you need. Unless you intend to look at the site only rarely it doesn't make sense with only 6 games to go for time limits that long.
So is there anything you can do when your opponent 'slow plays' you? Game 6598695 My opponent is using almost as much of the 14/28 time as he can. Is there any way to get a game adjudicated - we're talking a material advantage of 2R+p, with no hope of promotion for the losing side? How can I message the guy politely, without "whining"?
I agree that it's annoying when people carry on in games when they're half a chess set behind and slow down to a crawl. If you want to speed things up use the conditional moves feature to pre-program replies to your opponent's most likely moves, or a forcing line if there is one so that your moves are made promptly.
You want to know what's worst? A whiner when your winning! Who saids stuff like you obviously don't know how to play the game, yet goes on and loses twice. Now ratings wise I live in the 1200-1300 range and I consider myself an amateur. This guy had a slightly lower rating then mine at the time and was talking like he was freaking Bobby Fischer. Anyways I let my sloppy, amateurish play do the talking.
No names were mentioned to protect the guilty. You know who you is! 😀
There are different ways to look upon this problem:
1. When you play for a team, you should give all to your team, to make a good result for your team - you can see it often on OTB, that GM must play his game to an end, also when they have a draw on board, but they must play to the end, because there team needs this points. I knot about one situation, where apologise himself by his opponement, because he win a draw-game in this way, because the other made an easy mistake later in this game and loose.
2. When you play against a higher rated player and he do his jobe well, it could be respectfull to resign his loose game before the end.
3. There are some players, who believe they must come in the next-ranking-level. And they do everything to reach it, hopping that tthey can timeout the opponement.
4. When you believe you had a chance on board with a little trick or trap, you should try it.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 16951
Originally posted by Hannilein007what problem? i see no problem... i see 2 people playing a game of chess in the time limits that they BOTH agreed on.
There are different ways to look upon this problem:
i personally would resign the game and move on but it's well within the rights of a player to a. move until they lose by checkmate and b. to use as much time as they want doing so.
if you're not prepared to wait for your opponent to move don't play with long time controls. simples.
Originally posted by trev33Exactly so. I think the "problem" that Hannilein007 was alluding to is:
... it's well within the rights of a player to a. move until they lose by checkmate and b. to use as much time as they want doing so...
A. How to handle it when your opponent is telling you that you're in a lost position and you should resign.
B. How to handle it when you think your opponent is in a lost position but is refusing to resign and/or dragging his feet.
And the answer to either situation is ignore it since you can't really do anything about it anyway and I agree with Hannilein007's point 4. If you think there's any chance of a win or a draw you should go for it, hang in there and play your best game.
Originally posted by AlzheimerThat is right; as a player you never invite somebody to resign - everbody can decide it by himself or by his team.
I personally think it is bad manners to tell your opponent that he/she should resign.
Of course it's annoying when your oppoent plays hopeless positions.
But would you say to your opponent in an OTB game that he/she should resign?
But a player should bring a "healthy-respect" against the other player. When a game OTB is decided (really no chance for a draw) and the other play his game for hours and destroy a good sign of the game, than this is not nice.
Ok as a player you must no, that something can happe, but that is not very nice.
Originally posted by AlzheimerI agree with your general point - it's rude and almost certainly counterproductive to demand your opponent's resignation. Although I do think that there is a considerable difference between OTB chess and correspondence chess from the point of view of the clock. In OTB games you have at most a few hours to complete all your moves. This means that a beaten player with plenty of time can move their pieces around in the hope that a time pressured opponent's flag will fall. To compensate for this it is possible to get an OTB game adjudicated by the tournament director on the grounds that one's opponent is not trying to win by normal means,
I personally think it is bad manners to tell your opponent that he/she should resign.
Of course it's annoying when your oppoent plays hopeless positions.
But would you say to your opponent in an OTB game that he/she should resign?
In a correspondence game it is simply not possible to win in this way. It is utterly pointless to carry on in most cases as your opponent has days to get to a computer. I don't think that arguments based around OTB timekeeping generalize to correspondence games. The nature of the commitment you make is completely different.
As far as opponents who drag out games go, as I can start as many games as I like it's not a problem. I quite like having a few easy games where all I have to do is work out how few moves I can checkmate my opponent in, so really don't object all that much when people do want to draw it out.
I will never send my opponent a message asking them to resign.
Having said that, I still don't see the point of playing on in a hopeless position. I agree that everyone has the right to do it, but it's rather annoying and unnessesary.
If two players rated under 1200 or maybe 1400 are playing eachother in and engame, and one is up a rook or queen, I can see why the other might want play on: There is a somewhat reasonable chance that one player will make a mistake, or perhaps they want to learn more about that position. This is perfectly understandable.
However, when two player rated above 2200 are playing eachother, it seems useless. Kids, lets face it, a 2200 rated player is not going to accidentally stalemate someone. They just won't. Even at my level, which is about 1800, there simply such a miniscule chance that someone will fall for a one move stalemating trap that it seems useless.
Obviously, there are a number of positions in which a material mean advantage means nothing. However, I'm talking about the average position where a player is a piece or two down with no spectacular drawing resource.
I'm not talking about positions where one side is a knight down, but most of the pieces are still on the board, both players have somewhat of an attack, and both still have chances. In such a position it is perfectly appropriet to play on.
No, I'm talking about this type of position:
Sure, black could play on for 25 moves; But Why? What does he have to gain? At any level over 1300, there is virtually no chance that he will outplay his opponent to the point where he can win or draw.
Lets assume both players are rated 1500.
Black is perfectly within his rights to play on, so he does. There are a few things that could happen to make him win or draw:
1. He wins on timeout, probably the most likely. Playing on in the hopes of this happening seems rather useless to me, since most players want to learn to play better chess, and a timeout win will only stimulate his rating. While this will feel good, his rating will fall back to where it belongs withing a few weeks later.
2. His opponent has a mouse slip, and loses his rook, resulting in a possible draw. While black will get that warm fuzzy feeling inside, it certainly won't make him play better chess.
3. He purposely drags out the game and only moves every 21 days, hoping his opponent leaves. Eventually, white, who only has six open slots for games, and doesn't want to play this game for another year, quits. Once again, black gets that warm squishy feeling inside, knowing he was a better player than his opponent.
Personally, I feel it would be silly to play on hopeing for one of those things to happen. Even so, it is not OK for white to ask black to resign.
Game 4254025 Should I have resigned? I'm sure my opponent thought so. Go threw the last 10 moves or so.
This is just one example of why I usually play to the end.
There should be no whining to resign in a game in my opinion. If you think you got the game won, then finish it and win it! in my opinion.
Originally posted by KingDavid403Yes, a perfect example of why to hang in there. Here's one from just a day or two ago. My opponent clearly outplayed me up until that last move...
Game 4254025 Should I have resigned? I'm sure my opponent thought so. Go threw the last 10 moves or so.
This is just one example of why I usually play to the end.
There should be no whining to resign in a game in my opinion. If you think you got the game won, then finish it and win it! in my opinion.
Game 6968101
Originally posted by RopespierreIt's happened to me at least a dozen times in the 3,300 games I've played and I'm sure I have lost as many games through being the one who made the blunder.
It's true, once every thousand games you play, your opponent will make a horrendous blunder and allow you to win. But did the fact that your opponent blundered in any way make you a better chess player?
As to your question whether my opponent's blunder makes me a better chess player, I'd say yes it does, although my reasoning may sound like a bit of a reach. Here goes: in many, many games, I have faced what appeared to be insurmountable odds. Down material, dominated by position, and yet, because of examples like the ones posted here, I do not surrender while a shred of hope remains. If I give up, I lose for certain. If I persist, then maybe, just maybe, I prevail. And that, in my book, makes me a better chess player.