07 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ChaswrayStop posting if you don't read what you're responding to. I even said I wasn't polite. Also, I told you, this was not about me whining, it was a discussion question. My experience was only a lead in, it was not my purpose for everyone here to laser in on it, instead I wanted others opinions and experiences on the general issue.
And you were polite? Give me a break and while you're at it go cry somewhere else😠😠😠😠
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by trallphazYes, I would say that and I've done it before, though sometimes I ask for a draw if I feel it wasn't impossible to lose for him.
when 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 s ...[text shortened]... h time and youu are winning."?
This has been "The Wise Words of TrallPhaZ,"
-TrallPhaZ😉
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by orfeoAgain, I don't think time is meant to be the deciding factor in chess for who wins or loses, that is not to say that it can't be, but I think that's not the purpose, even in blitz chess. Skill is supposed to be the deciding factor, time is only supposed to force players to adjust their thinking time. I've written this way too many times.
Why do you keep saying "time is not meant to decide a game"?
If you think that, don't play blitz chess.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of repeating myself because most people don't seem to read what I write.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyEach time you said it, it still makes no sense.
Again, I don't think time is meant to be the deciding factor in chess for who wins or loses, that is not to say that it can't be, but I think that's not the purpose, even in blitz chess. Skill is supposed to be the deciding factor, time is only supposed to force players to adjust their thinking time. I've written this way too many times.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of repeating myself because most people don't seem to read what I write.
You might as well get irritated when somebody castles, and say "The castling rules don't mean you HAVE to castle."
Or when somebody makes the "funny" pawn capture, you could say "the purpose of the rule is not to REQUIRE the enpassant capture."
Instead of repeating yourself, how about tellling us how to insure that players move within a given time, but NOT enforce the time limitations. That would be more constructive, don't you think?
07 Jan 06
What doesn't make sense about it?
"You might as well get irritated when somebody castles, and say "The castling rules don't mean you HAVE to castle.""
This is true, in fact, many opt for not castling, the rules for castling only serve as guidelines for when you can castle.
"Or when somebody makes the "funny" pawn capture, you could say "the purpose of the rule is not to REQUIRE the enpassant capture.""
There is no rule requiring en passant capture, again this is just a guideline as to when you can do so. You make the decision.
Your examples make no sense in the context of what you are trying to prove.
"Instead of repeating yourself, how about tellling us how to insure that players move within a given time, but NOT enforce the time limitations. That would be more constructive, don't you think?"
Get a clue. I do think that time limitations have to be enforced. Either you are not reading my posts or you need some serious help with English and critical reading. This is getting ridiculous.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyNow you are going around in circles.
What doesn't make sense about it?
"You might as well get irritated when somebody castles, and say "The castling rules don't mean you HAVE to castle.""
This is true, in fact, many opt for not castling, the rules for castling only serve as guidelines for when you can castle.
"Or when somebody makes the "funny" pawn capture, you could say "the purp ...[text shortened]... some serious help with English and critical reading. This is getting ridiculous.
Just like the rules regarding castling and en passent, which allow a player to take advantage of them, the rule regarding losing on time allows a player to take advantage of it.
I've been reading your posts. It's a copout to fail to tell what standard you are employing by simply saying "you are not reading my posts."
Winning on time is a part of the game, and if you don't like it, you probably should not play chess. It's not unethical, it's not unfair, and it's not rude. You are rude, as evidenced by your annoying behavior of requesting that your opponent resign. If you had done that in a tournament, you would have been penalized by the tournament director.
Your opponents do not exist to make your life easier. They exist to play a game of chess within the rules. That they do so is not good enough for you, they must stare at a static screen while you do something else? This is an obnoxious notion that will certainly get many comments, as it has. You have some growing up to do. You should not expect your opponents to be the ones inconvenienced by the other requirements in your life. Not only do you expect your opponent to put his life on hold to accommodate you, you expect him to resign when you tell him to! Buddy, you have no clue about how rude you are yourself, so you are not qualified to judge anybody else's social behavior.
You have failed to answer my question, so I doubt you want to answer it. Therefore, I'll ask another question. How long do you think your opponents should wait during a paused game while you do something else? Is there an upper limit? Please answer this question, without advising me to read. I've already read your posts, and this has not been addressed. I suspect you will not address it now that it has been asked, but I guess it's worth a try asking.
When you publicly take a stand where you try to shove your standards on everybody else, you had better be ready to back them up with something, whether it be rules, logic, or common decency. If you can't back them up, they usually have no substance and are not worth considering.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskySkill is almost always a deciding factor in any chess game, even those that end with a flag drop. Time management is a skill, and some are better at it than others. And it is especially relevant in blitz chess. If you and I play a game of 5-minute blitz, and you obtain a technically won endgame but use up 4 minutes while I've used up only 2, do I not deserve to win on time if I can hold off checkmate for that 1 little minute that you've left for yourself?
Again, I don't think time is meant to be the deciding factor in chess for who wins or loses, that is not to say that it can't be, but I think that's not the purpose, even in blitz chess. Skill is supposed to be the deciding factor, time is only supposed to force players to adjust their thinking time. I've written this way too many times.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of repeating myself because most people don't seem to read what I write.
I agree wholeheatedly about the "Insufficient Losing Chances" rule, but it should only be implemented in games with longer time controls, not for 5-minute games or 2-minute games.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by dpressnellWell, I think it's simple. If a game timeouts and the opponent has left no message explaining why (s)he can't make a move (and the vacation flag is not up), I try to wait a day or two. Then I claim my win.
Now you are going around in circles.
Just like the rules regarding castling and en passent, which allow a player to take advantage of them, the rule regarding losing on time allows a player to take advantage of it.
I've been reading your posts. It's a copout to fail to tell what standard you are employing by simply saying "you are not reading my po ...[text shortened]... u can't back them up, they usually have no substance and are not worth considering.
However, should the opponent ask me to wait because (s)he's stuck doing something else, I will wait 'til (s)he gets back (if it's within a reasonable time, like a week). No problem.
Of course, there's always the possibility that the opponent couldn't ask me to wait for various reasons, in which case I'll glady offer a rematch to settle it.
What's the problem? 🙂
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by dpressnellI 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.
Now you are going around in circles.
Just like the rules regarding castling and en passent, which allow a player to take advantage of them, the rule regarding losing on time allows a player to take advantage of it.
I've been reading your posts. It's a copout to fail to tell what standard you are employing by simply saying "you are not reading my po ...[text shortened]... u can't back them up, they usually have no substance and are not worth considering.
"Winning on time is a part of the game, and if you don't like it, you probably should not play chess. "
I never diagreed and I've written many times that this was never a problem. I won't even bother reading the rest of your post because it seems like I'm just wasting my time trying to get through you.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by Natural ScienceOh, I see. You're talking blitz chess. I thought it was about games in this very site.
Skill is almost always a deciding factor in any chess game, even those that end with a flag drop. Time management is a skill, and some are better at it than others. And it is especially relevant in blitz chess. If you and I play a game of 5-minute blitz, and you obtain a technically won endgame but use up 4 minutes while I've used up only 2, do I ...[text shortened]... be implemented in games with longer time controls, not for 5-minute games or 2-minute games.
In blitz, it's really simple. Of course you loose if the time runs out, no matter how good you would have played with the clock off. In blitz, it's part of the game.
😕
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyWell, you won't get through me no matter how much you try. 😉
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, su ...[text shortened]... t of your post because it seems like I'm just wasting my time trying to get through you.
Seriously, I agree with you:
"Winning on time is a part of the game, and if you don't like it, you probably should not play chess. "
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyOh, I understand you perfectly.
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, su ...[text shortened]... t of your post because it seems like I'm just wasting my time trying to get through you.
When you tell you opponent to wait while you do something else during the game, he must wait.
When you offer a draw, your opponent must take it.
When you tell your opponent to resign, he must do it.
Does your opponent get to make ANY choices in a game with you?
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyMaybe you don't know how public forums work. You start a discussion, and others continue it. It's very immature to complain that other are now in the discussion you started.
Stop posting if you don't read what you're responding to. I even said I wasn't polite. Also, I told you, this was not about me whining, it was a discussion question. My experience was only a lead in, it was not my purpose for everyone here to laser in on it, instead I wanted others opinions and experiences on the general issue.
Since you are asking for experiences, I'll give you mine.
Many times I've encountered snobs like you when playing chess. I don't play them any more.
Hope this helps.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by dpressnellNo it doesn't and you are acting stupid. I wrote that to explain that my purpose was not to whine about my opponent, but to get everyone's opinions on the general idea. I didn't write or imply that others should not join in the discussion. You are living in your own world, isolated from what's actually happening.
Maybe you don't know how public forums work. You start a discussion, and others continue it. It's very immature to complain that other are now in the discussion you started.
Since you are asking for experiences, I'll give you mine.
Many times I've encountered snobs like you when playing chess. I don't play them any more.
Hope this helps.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by dpressnellWhat the hell are you talking about? You understand nothing.
Oh, I understand you perfectly.
When you tell you opponent to wait while you do something else during the game, he must wait.
When you offer a draw, your opponent must take it.
When you tell your opponent to resign, he must do it.
Does your opponent get to make ANY choices in a game with you?