07 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskyOkay, I see that the question has changed now.
I think it is generally impolite to try to win on time in a completely lost position, you think it is great. Good, we are both entitled to our own opinions on the matter.
Now, how about you stop your bullshit and sarcastic mischaracterizations about me speaking from the throne in thesky and being much better than you. You know very well that I never cl ...[text shortened]... erent opinion. Are you too immature to accept that not everyone will think the same way you do?
Here's my answer. If you win on time in a completely lost position, then it wasn't a completely lost position. That makes it okay, and I'll take the opportunity to win on time just as if my opponent blundered his queen in an otherise completely lost position for me.
Time management is part of the game. It's my opponent's responsibility to manage his time, and if he BLUNDERS his time, then why shouldn't I take the win, as with any other blunder?
My question is why should one player take MORE time to move, to get into a favorable or winning situation because he took so much time--then why should he not pay the price for that advantage, which would be unfair if the opponent did NOT try to exploit it?
07 Jan 06
The question did not change, your interpretation did.
"Here's my answer. If you win on time in a completely lost position, then it wasn't a completely lost position. "
Time is a factor outside the position. You can play a theoretically lost position and win on time, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a theoretically lost position. Time and position are separate things.
"Time management is part of the game. It's my opponent's responsibility to manage his time, and if he BLUNDERS his time, then why shouldn't I take the win, as with any other blunder?"
It's not that you shouldn't. It is a choice. However, a win based on time does not reflect your chess skill. That's why the whole win is meaningless on the most important level even though it is a valid win.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by exigentskySo 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?
The question did not change, your interpretation did.
"Here's my answer. If you win on time in a completely lost position, then it wasn't a completely lost position. "
Time is a factor outside the position. You can play a theoretically lost position and win on time, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a theoretically lost position. Time an ...[text shortened]... whole win is meaningless on the most important level even though it is a valid win.
07 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dpressnellSo maybe it should go like this....
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?
"Hmmm... I see my opponent is getting dangerously short on time.... I better resign before his flag falls."
Like that?
Dream on!
07 Jan 06
1 edit
.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.
07 Jan 06
1 edit
"You are without a doubt a very arrogant asshole. I have never said it was "great to win on time". Please show me that thread. And where did I say that YOU were speaking from a throne on high? And the thread you answered was not addressed to you. So I'll repeat a statement I DID make earlier ..... STFU"
I think you just showed your true colors.
You don't have to say it was great to win on time, I was just contrasting our opinions, I thought that was clear. While you may not think it is "great" you certainly don't have a problem with it.
Also, you don't have to say that I'm speaking from a throne, you implied. it. "But opponents, and posters, much better than you and I have deemed this rude" "Opponents and posters much better than you and I" is sarcastically referring to me and portraying me as some arrogant snob speaking from a throne high in the sky. This is the same thing as if you had actualyl said it.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by dpressnellLOL, are you replying to your own questions? In that case, I guess I don't have to.
So maybe it should go like this....
"Hmmm... I see my opponent is getting dangerously short on time.... I better resign before his flag falls."
Like that?
Dream on!
08 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by exigentskyIs this your opinion of other sports? It seems you would also object to the following behavior in other sports:
The question did not change, your interpretation did.
"Here's my answer. If you win on time in a completely lost position, then it wasn't a completely lost position. "
Time is a factor outside the position. You can play a theoretically lost position and win on time, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a theoretically lost position. Time an whole win is meaningless on the most important level even though it is a valid win.
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) Running down the clock intentionally in chess to elicit feelings of intimidation
I could really go on and on. None of the above strategies refers to any direct ability for physical play, but the psychological aspects of games often makes or breaks the participants.
You're right though, time is a factor outside the position, but time is nevertheless a part of the damn game. If you can't use your time properly you'll lose no matter how good you think you are, and it's that simple. To suggest that it doesn't reflect your chess skill shows your lack of understanding. A master can't win unless he is successful in all aspects of the game: positional play, tactical play, opening/middle/endgame, and.... time.
This thread is beginning to look entirely too repetitive.
Maybe this will help: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman52.pdf
08 Jan 06
Originally posted by RagnorakWell, yes I have changed my tone a bit. 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. Also, I still believe that one should only keep playing if you feel you have something to gain in terms of learning and improving your chess game. Being down a queen and hoping for a mouseslip will not improve your chess. I'm not suggesting nor have ever suggested that people should resign upon the slightest disadvantage for in that case I would resign upon taking the Black pieces. What I am saying though that is different from the thread you posted, is that I think often times people don't resign because they don't know better, and 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 a mate. 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 and because I realized there isn't much to be done in terms of forcing people to resign. I still believe that resigning in a hopeless position is the best move, playing for stalemate or a blunder will probably make you a worse chessplayer anyway, you are practicing losing and hoping not calculation and rigour. Anyways Ragnorak, I still don't think I would want to play you if I have reason to believe you will drag the game out if I have a significant winning advantage, and that certainly is completely within my rights in choosing an opponent.
Changed your tone a bit, haven't you?
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=14783&page=6
D
08 Jan 06
Originally posted by ChesswickI don't the sport analogies are applicable to the discussion. For example, Walking a heavy hitter in baseball could be seen in chess as giving up a pawn and taking a slightly worse position to avoid tactical complications possibly leading to mate. i.e. This line to avoid the fried liver attack,
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 ...[text shortened]... ely too repetitive.
Maybe this will help: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman52.pdf
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5!?
Taking a pawn loss in exchange for avoiding the heavy hitting fried liver.
Running the clock in basketball is analagous to exchanging pieces away with a material advantage, again perfectly acceptable.
Intentional Downs in football is analagous to the above, perfectly acceptable in chess.
However the 4th one is the one that is relavent. I agree that taking time between serves is a commonly used strategy in tennis, as is the fighting on in a lost position in chess. However, wouldn't it be a little extreme to wait before a serve and only serve when the opponent is distracted by a bird or sneezes etc. Certainly that would be deplorable in tennis, although perhaps not entirely possible to prohibit. Likewise in chess, I feel that playing in a lost position could be seen as merely a show of strength, perhaps a pawn down or maybe two. However when start speaking of pieces (plural) of disadadvantage no longer do we see will power and strength but desperation and lack of class. I think that is really the gist of the question, sure people have the right to play on to the bitter end, but it is most often 95+% of the time beneficial to both players to resign at some point before checkmate. In fact, I think being checkmated is a form of disgrace, either you missed a mate in one (embarrassing) or you simply played with no hope other than your opponent missed a mate in one (pathetic) Whenever I am checkmated I really feel ashamed and angry, although they are of the oversight variety. That is why you should resign, to maintain some shred of dignity.