09 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyIt doesn't matter, I believe asking your opponent to resign is wrong. I know in tournament play, one very good rule is that you can claim a draw to the arbiter if you have a completely dominating position but are within five minutes of your flag dropping. Unfortunately that option would be impossible to implement on Yahoo! and RHP.
Yeah, I know I shouldn't have done that. But remember, i only asked him to resign when it was really just a pointless waste of time and he was only trying to win on time.
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentsky"I think time limits exist to make players adjust their thinking time in either direction, not just faster. Also, people can lose on time, if your flag falls it's game over. I'm only saying that time limits are not meant to make another player win on time and that this doesn't usually happen."
I have never claimed that. Stop distorting my statements.
Congratulations you can't remember what you said back on page 3.
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by Gambitzoid"Completely dominating position" isn't quite accurate. If you are up by 4 pawns, one might consider that position completely dominating, but a TD would be very unlikely to grant a draw. The measuring stick that TDs are told to go by is: could a class-C player draw the position against a master? Even being up a whole rook probably wouldn't get the claim, if there were many other pieces on the board.
It doesn't matter, I believe asking your opponent to resign is wrong. I know in tournament play, one very good rule is that you can claim a draw to the arbiter if you have a completely dominating position but are within five minutes of your flag dropping. Unfortunately that option would be impossible to implement on Yahoo! and RHP.
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZNo unfortunately, you are just incapable of understanding English.
"I think time limits exist to make players adjust their thinking time in either direction, not just faster. Also, people can lose on time, if your flag falls it's game over. I'm only saying that time limits are not meant to make another player win on time and that this doesn't usually happen."
Congratulations you can't remember what you said back on page 3.
I even specified in that post that "if your flag falls it's game over." Making your assertion "But of course if you are running out of time he should resign..." a blatant and false mischaracterization.
If you still don't understand my position, which I'm frankly getting tired of explaining over and over again, if you are confused just reread the thread, lol.
Here's a quote from page 5 which reiterated my point:
"I KNOW AND I ALWAYS SAID THAT IF YOU LOSE ON TIME YOU LOSE THE GAME!!! That was never an issue, just as I said that you can castle whenever you want or take en passant if you feel like it. It doesn't matter. My whole argument was about the interpreted purpose of having a time limit. I don't think that its purpose is to make another player lose on time, sure that can happen, but you have a certain time limit for the simple reason that you want to change the pace of the game."
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyTime just like material on the chess board is a resource you use to help you win the game. Forcing a player to win in their remaining time is a completely valid strategy. If they can't then they didn't make good enough use of their time.
No unfortunately, you are just incapable of understanding English.
I even specified in that post that "if your flag falls it's game over." Making your assertion "But of course if you are running out of time he should resign..." a blatant and false mischaracterization.
If you still don't understand my position, which I'm frankly getting tired of expl ...[text shortened]... tain time limit for the simple reason that you want to change the pace of the game."
09 Jan 06
1 edit
Time can be used as a resource to win the game if your opponent manages his time poorly. However, this is rare and in most cases time is only used to regulate the pace of the game (its intended purpose). For example, if I know I only have 30 minutes of free time, I can play a chess game on a 15 minute time setting.
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyYou managed your time poorly.
Time can be used as a resource to win the game if your opponent manages his time poorly. However, this is rare and in most cases time is only used to regulate the pace of the game (its intended purpose). For example, if I know I only have 30 minutes of free time, I can play a chess game on a 15 minute time setting.
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by Natural ScienceWell, yes that is the technical rule, thank you for clarifying my point. I was thinking endgame with a queen up or something,
"Completely dominating position" isn't quite accurate. If you are up by 4 pawns, one might consider that position completely dominating, but a TD would be very unlikely to grant a draw. The measuring stick that TDs are told to go by is: could a class-C player draw the position against a master? Even being up a whole rook probably wouldn't get the claim, if there were many other pieces on the board.
09 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyWell, spending time with your parents is poor time management from a chess perspective, although from a social standpoint I doubt anyone would disagree with you. However, the point is not award for social skills but for playing chess.
Whether he believes me or not, I told him what I was doing. Anyway, this has no relevance to your previous point which was that I managed my time poorly.