06 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyI've read the previous posts. You think time limits exist to compel people to play faster, but don't think people should be able to lose on time. That's more than a little incoherent. What, pray tell, is going to force anyone to move any faster if losing on time isn't a real possibility?
Read previous posts if you want to know.
06 Jan 06
Originally posted by vmc303You're wrong on both counts. 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. If you are still completely confused, read my posts again.
I've read the previous posts. You think time limits exist to compel people to play faster, but don't think people should be able to lose on time. That's more than a little incoherent. What, pray tell, is going to force anyone to move any faster if losing on time isn't a real possibility?
06 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyThen what's the point of the USCF "Insufficient Losing Chances" rule?
You're wrong on both counts. 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. If you are still completely confused, read my posts again.
06 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyLife can interfere in an OTB tourney, too. Let's say you have indigestion from lunch and spend 15 minutes sitting on the crapper towards the end of the game. In a similar situation with less time on the clock, but a won position, would you ask your opponent to resign when you returned to the board?
It doesn't matter. It's a bull question. This was a casual Yahoo! Chess game with no monetary compensation. Unlike an OTB tournament, life can interfere, so one player may be unfairly forced to "waste time."
In an OTB tournament, of course, I would play for a time win. But that is because I have finnancial need, and because it is a serious and competitive event where each player had a fair shot.
In the face of real financial need, the last thing you'd want to do is play in a chess tournament. The odds of winning are low (unless you're a lot stronger than the field). The most likely outcome is that you'll piss away the entry fee money and 1-2 (or more) days that could have been spent doing more profitable work.
06 Jan 06
[iIf I see one more post whining because their opponent didn't resign when they thought they should I WILL PUKE. Suck it up or show me the rule that says they should resign because YOU want them to. Or better yet GO PLAY ANOTHER GAME!!! I for one am tired of the bitching about people not resigning
But what do you guys think about this kind of behavior?[/b]
06 Jan 06
Originally posted by ChaswrayActually, I never claimed there was any rule about that, only that it would have been more polite to simply accept imminent defeat rather than go for such desperate measures. Furthermore, I was asking what you guys thought about it, I was not trying to whine. However, like salivating rabid dogs you all jumped on me, usually without reading the posts I made. (Clearly reflected by the fact that only after about 10 posts in the thread did you guys realize that I DIDN'T LOSE THE GAME.)
If I see one more post whining because their opponent didn't resign when they thought they should I WILL PUKE. Suck it up or show me the rule that says they should resign because YOU want them to. Or better yet GO PLAY ANOTHER GAME!!! I for one am tired of the bitching about people not resigning
06 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyExcept the Insufficient Losing Chances would make the game a draw and you were calling for him to resign. Face it, you acted impolitely first by asking him to resign. There is only one person who can decide when a player should resign and that's the player himself.
The point of that rule is exactly my point. I'm very glad to learn of that rule.
07 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZI asked him to resign, but after, I offered a draw because of time. It's just that when you bargain, you offer your best offer first. My idea remains valid, time is not meant to decide a game, even though it can. Also, I always agreed that asking him to resign was impolite.
Except the Insufficient Losing Chances would make the game a draw and you were calling for him to resign. Face it, you acted impolitely first by asking him to resign. There is only one person who can decide when a player should resign and that's the player himself.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyAnd you were polite? Give me a break and while you're at it go cry somewhere else😠😠😠😠
Actually, I never claimed there was any rule about that, only that it would have been more polite to simply accept imminent defeat rather than go for such desperate measures. Furthermore, I was asking what you guys thought about it, I was not trying to whine. However, like salivating rabid dogs you all jumped on me, usually without reading the posts I mad ...[text shortened]... that only after about 10 posts in the thread did you guys realize that I DIDN'T LOSE THE GAME.)
07 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by RahimKwhen it comes to yahoo i see it like this. people could have cheated to make high ratings, but all you can do is assume that the people are what they say they are. sometimes they are, sometimes they arent. if they made it where only people with certain ratings could hit certain rooms, it would be better i think. and also when it comes to what the guy who started this thread was talking about, with the time controls, if you were playing, i dont know, kasparov. you were going for the world champ. Now if he had a very low time left on the clock, and the game didnt have much progress on it, would you be the ass hole you mentioned and try to win on time, or would you just say
Who cares, it's just a fun game on yahoo. You know you had him beat, he knows it so whatever. Ratings don't mean squat on yahoo.
I could get a 1600 rating easily on yahoo. Just keep playing in the beginner section and then go to advance and they would think i'm a 1600 player in advanced but really all my points came from beginner.
There are so many ch ...[text shortened]... 20 some games. The only games I lost to were against people with fritz on a faster computer.
" I resign. youre low on the clock its not a fair game cause you dont have much time and youu are winning."?
This has been "The Wise Words of TrallPhaZ,"
-TrallPhaZ😉
07 Jan 06
I would flag him and claim the world championship for myself! It's my precious 🙂
Man, I've flagged IM and GM's in simul games! Its their fault if their time runs out.
But ya i see that the guy was busy helping his parents. I don't think its a big deal because its just yahoo. Everyone cheats on there.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyWhy do you keep saying "time is not meant to decide a game"?
I asked him to resign, but after, I offered a draw because of time. It's just that when you bargain, you offer your best offer first. My idea remains valid, time is not meant to decide a game, even though it can. Also, I always agreed that asking him to resign was impolite.
If you think that, don't play blitz chess.