08 Jan 06
Originally posted by GambitzoidWho said anything about "dragging the game out" or "taking absurd amounts of time"? You put me on your blacklist, purely for playing on in a disadvantaged position, and then winning. End of story. Stop lying about me dragging out lost games, to try to stop yourself looking an a$$ and to continue your smear campaign against me.
However, I still think it my right to refuse to play someone who I think will take an absurd amount of time to play a lost position. Being down a queen and hoping for a mouseslip will not improve your chess. I realized that when you start the game you agree to play until mate (or stalemate etc.) or a resignation, but you still have to be prepared to make ...[text shortened]... inning advantage, and that certainly is completely within my rights in choosing an opponent.
From that thread:Ganbitzoid:"Why would you steal, that's right steal, a win from black for such a nice attack. White stalled and stalled and waited for black to blunder... For all we know, black may have been interrupted in the middle of the game and his mouse slipped. He may have children or siblings who bothered him in the middle of the game. He may have been sick.... The point is, white played a stupid, stupid move allowing his kingside to be destroyed and then instead of admitting defeat waited until Black blundered... That is not the way to play chess!!!! Please, I don't care if white won, he won because he was being cheap, dirty, and unsportsmanlike. He stole that game and that's what people who stall do, they are the thieves and criminals of the chess world!"
Btw: here's another game where I played on while down and "waited for a mouseslip". Game 1428837 Just to reinforce my position on your black list.
And how to hell can you say that you don't learn anything by trying to force stalemate? Surely chess is all about playing forcing moves to create the environment where your opponent will make a weaker move? Like in the game above, where I decided to launch an all or nothing attack immediately after loosing my queen. Or in the original game, where my opponent had 1 move that he could make to avoid stalemate.
You're a hypocrite and an A...
Regards,
D
08 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakInteresting game. How did that set-piece position come about, if you don't mind me asking?
Btw: here's another game where I played on while down and "waited for a mouseslip". Game 1428837 Just to reinforce my position on your black list.
Edit: By the way, in the original game, at what point did your opponent have 1 move available to avoid stalemate? I can't see any time in which either side is in danger of being stalemated. Just for ease of reference, here's the game again.
Game 480767
08 Jan 06
Originally posted by Natural ScienceIt was part of this tournament...
Interesting game. How did that set-piece position come about, if you don't mind me asking?
Edit: By the way, in the original game, at what point did your opponent have 1 move available to avoid stalemate? I can't see any time in which either side is in danger of being stalemated. Just for ease of reference, here's the game again.
Game 480767
Tournament 793
You're right. Having looked at it again, stalemate wasn't a possibility, I was trying to get a draw by repetition via perpetual check, when I sacced my rook for his knight. I remember thinking that his options were very limited just before he blundered his queen, but Fritz disagrees. 🙄
D
08 Jan 06
Originally posted by GambitzoidHold the phone. I just reread this.
I guess I'm not as angry as I used to be because first of all I've become much better at converting winning advantages into full points
You're saying that you reacted with such indignation to me not resigning while down heavily in material because YOU personally couldn't convert a won position into a won game?
You make as much sense as that exigentsky (sp? ) fella.
D
08 Jan 06
Originally posted by dpressnellYou are not being logical. Just because I don't think winning on time is a real demonstration of chess skill in no way implies that purposely losing is a better reflection of your chess skill.
So you think a better reflection of my chess skill would be for me to LOSE after my opponent has taken much more time than me to make his moves?
"So, in evaluating now whether it's okay to win on time, we have to evalue the game as if there were no clock at all? How about when a person is down a queen, we evaluate the game as if there never were queens?
You can't eliminate a critical part of the game and still talk about the game in the same way."
It's always ok to win on time, but it may not always be polite. Again, your analogy misses the whole point and does little more than to satirize. A queen is an essential piece of the game losing it is probably the result of a tactical, positional and strategic error. Time on the other hand is not an essential element of the game. In fact some people choose to play without time and a few centuries ago; people never played with time. Time is a factor outside of the game: outside of tactics, outside of positional factors, outside of calculation and outside of strategy. Time was added to make the game more exiting by regulating its pace.
A win on time does not reflect chess skill because it tells us nothing about whether your position was winning or losing, your ability to checkmate your opponent and so on. All we know is that you have managed your time more wisely (critical for blitz play) than your opponent. However, I know no more about your chess ability than I did before.
08 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ChesswickThose sports analogies are not relevant and I am not too familiar with sports anyway. However, maybe I missed something, how about you clearly explain and support each analogy so that I know exactly what you mean.
Is this your opinion of other sports? It seems you would also object to the following behavior in other sports:
1) Walking a heavy hitter in baseball
2) Running down the clock in basketball to hold a won game
3) Intentional downs in football
4) Taking more time between serves in tennis to cool the adrenaline of your opponent that is winning
5) Runn ely too repetitive.
Maybe this will help: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman52.pdf
"You make as much sense as that exigentsky (sp? ) fella. "
Actually, I think I make perfect sense, at least if you understand exactly what I think. Of course if you use strawman arguments, twist words, or fail to undestand context, then, you may be pretty confused.
08 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyI believe it may be you who's not reading posts. Please show me my post that stated I agree with what your opponent did. I don't think you even know what my original objection was. So I'll leave it at that good luck
You have made it clear that you agreed with my opponent's behavior. My opponent's behavior in this case clearly was referring to going for a win on time. If you agree with him, you agree with winning on time.
"Rather than saying that someone's opinion, that you perceive as different from yours, is bullshit."
It is NOT your opinion that is bullshit. ...[text shortened]... avior and then I suddenly used "this" what else could "this" be referring to?
08 Jan 06
Based on many of your posts like "I gave you mine as others have done. The majority do NOT agree with YOUR BEHAVIOR." and "Suck it up or show me the rule that says they should resign because YOU want them to." it is implied that you agreed with my opponent's decision to continue the game and win on time. But how about you just tell me upfront and explicitly what you think so I don't have to rely on implied attitudes and opinions?
08 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyMmmmmm am plenty full of shellfish and am looking for about a 90 minute game to play on yahoo.
Based on many of your posts like "I gave you mine as others have done. The majority do NOT agree with YOUR BEHAVIOR." and "Suck it up or show me the rule that says they should resign because YOU want them to." it is implied that you agreed with my opponent's decision to continue the game and win on time. But how about you just tell me upfront and explicitly what you think so I don't have to rely on implied attitudes and opinions?
Wanna challenge me exigentsky?
RTh
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyI agree with your opponent's decision. I'd do exactly the same in that situation. Once you insult me by asking me to resign it's on for young and old.
Based on many of your posts like "I gave you mine as others have done. The majority do NOT agree with YOUR BEHAVIOR." and "Suck it up or show me the rule that says they should resign because YOU want them to." it is implied that you agreed with my opponent's decision to continue the game and win on time. But how about you just tell me upfront and explicitly what you think so I don't have to rely on implied attitudes and opinions?
09 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by RagnorakWhat I'm saying is that I used to be very angry at people who played on in lost positions because I was commonly losing to them on blunders, however since now I have improved a little and can win those positions (a rook up or whatever) I am not as angry about the issue. And once again, I do admit that I have changed my opinions since that last post which was like a year ago, so bringing up that post is irrelavent. Secondly, I think the game you were playing was not a resignable position. First of all, you were not down too much material, rook for queen, and secondly you had a strong attack on his king. However, had he been able to simplify the game to a rook and king versus lone king I would call that position resignable. Also, you were rated 600 points higher than your opponent and had good reason to believe that you would be able to swindle your opponent. Look at Fischer's game in 60 most memorable games against Walthier, I believe it's game 7 in the book or something, He admits he has a position he could resign in against a stronger player but plays on because his opponent is significantly weaker. That doesn't change the fact that in some positions you should resign. Nobody can force you to resign, nobody should tell you to resign, and it is your right to play on, but you should still resign. That's a normative statement which I feel is very true.
Who said anything about "dragging the game out" or "taking absurd amounts of time"? You put me on your blacklist, purely for playing on in a disadvantaged position, and then winning. End of story. Stop lying about me dragging out lost games, to try to stop yourself looking an a$$ and to continue your smear campaign against me.
From that thread:Ganbitz could make to avoid stalemate.
You're a hypocrite and an A...
Regards,
D
Also, playing for stalemate and hoping for a mistake will make you worse at chess, I believe, because you train yourself not to take into account your opponent's strongest reply. You learn to play for traps and not for good moves. You must admit that playing for stalemate is more about setting up a trap than playing good chess, and I don't think that's a good way to improve.
And also, I understand it is ridiculous to resign upon any disadvantage for then you would resign upon taking the black pieces, BUT, it is still sometimes, (more often than people would think), correct to resign out of respect for your opponent, and respect for yourself.
By the way, you really showed your skill and courage defeating a player rated 600 points lower than you. If that's something you are proud of... well, I don't know I won't judge you.