Originally posted by exigentskyDon't you think it's time to stop making yourself look like a fool?
What the hell are you talking about? You understand nothing.
So you didn't like what people had to say. Guess what. They didn't like your snotty attitude.
It's called the real world. Welcome to it. I suspect you have many other surprises waiting for you.
You came here and asked this question (it's in your first post in this thread):
"But what do you guys think about this kind of behavior?"
People have commented.
Your opponents are not required to subscribe to your loony and vague theory that time controls are meant to make a player move fast but not meant to have a game won on time. They can use the clock to win on time if they want to, and there's nothing in the rules of the game or in commonly accepted standards of decency that prevents them from doing so.
You are not the only person in the world.
Originally posted by dpressnellPersonally I think it is incredibly unsporting for my opponents to win on time against me; after all, the game is supposed to be decided by your moves on the board.
You came here and asked this question (it's in your first post in this thread):
"But what do you guys think about this kind of behavior?"
People have commented.
Your opponents are not required to subscribe to your loony and vague theory that time controls are meant to make a player move fast but not meant to have a game won on time. They can use ...[text shortened]... ds of decency that prevents them from doing so.
You are not the only person in the world.
However, I feel it is perfectly all right for me to win on time because the time rules are part of the game.
Originally posted by exigentskyAnd why don't you just STFU!!!! I've read the entire thread. You asked for opinions "ABOUT THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR" in your first post. I gave you mine as others have done. The majority do NOT agree with YOUR BEHAVIOR.
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.
Originally posted by ChaswrayI think what he meant was "Please comment on what a jerk my opponent was and what a poor helpless victim I am."
And why don't you just STFU!!!! I've read the entire thread. You asked for opinions "ABOUT THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR" in your first post. I gave you mine as others have done. The majority do NOT agree with YOUR BEHAVIOR.
Let me see if I can sum up what the original poster's thoughts are. The purpose of time controls is to force players to move in a reasonable amount of time, and give them a timeframe to work their decisions around. Time controls were not intended to help one of the players win on time. Fine. Fair enough. You're right, actually.
In baseball, when a pitcher throws four balls (pitches that are not in the strike zone that the batter doesn't swing at), the batter is awarded first base. What's the purpose of this rule? Is it intended to give the batter a cheap way to get on base without getting a hit? No. It's intent is to make sure the pitcher throws pitches that the batter can hit. But if the pitcher is wild and erratic, the batter is not going to help him out by swinging at bad pitches. He'll get on base however he can, and there won't be any discussion about how he got a "cheap" base.
So, were time controls intended to help a player win on time? No. Is a player wrong for trying to win on time? No.
Originally posted by Natural ScienceI think a better way of summing it up is that:
Let me see if I can sum up what the original poster's thoughts are. The purpose of time controls is to force players to move in a reasonable amount of time, and give them a timeframe to work their decisions around. Time controls were not intended to help one of the players win on time. Fine. Fair enough. You're right, actually.
In baseball, d to help a player win on time? No. Is a player wrong for trying to win on time? No.
Time controls are meant to punish excessive time in making moves by causing a win on time.
It's not a side effect of the reason for time controls, it's a direct effect which is specifically called for in the rules.
Not to add more to the fire, but given that I've read his replies and find that they seem to be contradicting themselves in the post I thought I might try to offer a distillation.
1) He said he agrees that flag drop means the game is lost.
2) He said that although the above is true he feels that it shouldn't be the motivation in the game to do so.
So, having said that, it seems he has more of a philisophical objection to the rules of chess than the rule itself. I'm going to offer an analogy though...
In earlier wars an army often considerable difficulty sacking a a town that was heavily fortified (e.g. Rothenburg, Germany), so a strategy employed during a siege would be to literally starve them out. If the attacking army was smaller in number they can prevent them from acquiring further resources until they'll have no choice but to surrender. This is why it was always so important to have stores of salt, grains, etc. during a siege. This was common during the 7 and 30 year wars.
I submit that the above starvation situation is analogous to a loss on time. Sure it's more heroic to launch an attack when you are down in number, but whether you starve them out or win by destroying the walls and flooding the town you still win. The end result is all that matters.
IMO
Originally posted by ChesswickIt used to be considered unsporting in a battle to shoot at the enemy commander. Now we send 500 lb. bombs to drop on his head.
Not to add more to the fire, but given that I've read his replies and find that they seem to be contradicting themselves in the post I thought I might try to offer a distillation.
1) He said he agrees that flag drop means the game is lost.
2) He said that although the above is true he feels that it shouldn't be the motivation in the game to do so. ...[text shortened]... the walls and flooding the town you still win. The end result is all that matters.
IMO
Even in nature, animals (like lions) we consider noble prefer to go after the weak prey.
(Actually, the lions don't do it, the lionesses do, and the lions strut up after the kill and take the best meat first.)
Originally posted by ChesswickI've mentioned it before in this thread, but it seems to have been skipped over.
2) He said that although the above is true he feels that it shouldn't be the motivation in the game to do so.
Who's to say the opponent was trying to win on the flag dropping? Surely, if somebody is in time trouble, they become more prone to blunders. That could have been the opponents aim in this instance.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakIt is a good point. "Time trouble" doesn't always mean "he's gonna lose on time." It's a common practice to apply pressure when the opponent is merely "short of time."
I've mentioned it before in this thread, but it seems to have been skipped over.
Who's to say the opponent was trying to win on the flag dropping? Surely, if somebody is in time trouble, they become more prone to blunders. That could have been the opponents aim in this instance.
D
Originally posted by exigentskyWe'll start a game. I'll play white and I'll open 1. d4.....I then want you to resign. OK?
I just played a Yahoo! Chess match about 15 min ago and while I mated my opponent, he tried his best to win... on time. My parents had me help out for about 5-7 min. I explained the situation to my opponent and excused myself from the game.
When I came back, I had just a bit more than 5 min on the clock. I asked for a draw and a rematch, despite knowi ...[text shortened]... to win on time in losing positions.
But what do you guys think about this kind of behavior?
Do you know how long it takes to start a program like fritz and set up the position in fritz and use it to help you during your game? About 2 minutes depending on your computer speed.
If someone told me they would be right back and I was on yahoo, first thing that would come to mind is, I'm going to go get my chess program and I'll be right back. I wouldn't put that past those yahoo users.
But anyways, If I was your opponent and you asked me to resign, I wouldn't but i would take a draw since i'm a nice person. Now if the role was switched and you were losing but your opponent went away for 5 minutes and came back and asked you to resign would you?
If you would resign then I would have resigned when you asked me too, but how would I know that you would resign if the role was reversed? Only if your a friend I know ( played chess often with) would I resign.