Originally posted by ShamashIt usually comes down to either resigning all games, or letting them time out. If vacation time isn't enough of a break, there is no other alternative.
well now that brings up an interesting & useful issue.
What Are some effective ways players have taken a break from games here?
Is there a way of taking a break from the site that works (even for non-subscribers) and is less self-destructive than resigning on all boards?
Am wondering, how have others handled this?
Originally posted by ShamashCludi's comment reveal an underlying attitude that is disturbing (or reinforces that his banning was just).
well now that brings up an interesting & useful issue.
What Are some effective ways players have taken a break from games here?
Is there a way of taking a break from the site that works (even for non-subscribers) and is less self-destructive than resigning on all boards?
Am wondering, how have others handled this?
Stop seeking and accepting challenges if you cannot handle the game load.
I don't fault Korch for making a decision to leave the site to handle personal matters. I do find it strange that a player can seemingly handle more than a hundred games, resign all of them, and then garner support from a banned player who believes we have "no responsibility" because we don't "know personally" our opponents. Korch could have found a way to ease his way out of the site if he cared as much as it seemed at one time.
Why have a rating system at all if it is not buttressed by some standards?
Korch was a helpful player that will be missed. Cludi was a pompous poser that managed to generate enough suspicion to get banned.
Both of them have demonstrated fundamental disrespect for honest and respectful play here.
Originally posted by gezzaAlthough most of us take it for granted, in much of the world, fish is a luxury. As the World becomes richer, more and more people forsake starchy staples like rice and potatoes for animals like fish and meat.
What the h*** has that to do with the price of fish?
The more people become addicted to chess, the less productive they generally are. Therefore, the more people who play a lot of chess, the slower the World's economy will grow. Therefore, there will, on the whole, be a lower demand for fish.
Ergo, the more chess flameouts we have and people quitting the game, the higher the price of fish will go. Conversely, the more people stay addicted to chess, the lower the price of fish will be.
Originally posted by sh76Sounds a little fishy to me.
Although most of us take it for granted, in much of the world, fish is a luxury. As the World becomes richer, more and more people forsake starchy staples like rice and potatoes for animals like fish and meat.
The more people become addicted to chess, the less productive they generally are. Therefore, the more people who play a lot of chess, the slower the W ...[text shortened]... ll go. Conversely, the more people stay addicted to chess, the lower the price of fish will be.
Originally posted by sh76Not true. I read an article in Chess Life recommending that chess players eat fish three meals a week as it really is a "brain food". If players follow this well known advice (every USCF member gets Chess Life [or did until recently]), then the more people who play a lot of chess the greater the demand for fish will be. This will lead to a rise in the price of fish, helping the world's fisherman but leading to fish price inflation which will adversely effect populations for which fish is a major component of their diet.
Although most of us take it for granted, in much of the world, fish is a luxury. As the World becomes richer, more and more people forsake starchy staples like rice and potatoes for animals like fish and meat.
The more people become addicted to chess, the less productive they generally are. Therefore, the more people who play a lot of chess, the slower the W ll go. Conversely, the more people stay addicted to chess, the lower the price of fish will be.
EDIT: The article was in the December 2008 issue' "The Grandmaster's Diet" by FM Mike Klein.
Big difference between the two. (Cludi and Korch leaving)
Cludi was baned. Korch left in a moment of bad depression.
No alternative but to resign all his games. It was either that or let
them all time out - it still counts as a win for his opponent.
Resigning all the games got rid them in one swoop and lifted a load
off his shoulders.
Allowing them to time out was not an option. Some of the players
upon learning Korch was 'Chess'd out' may not have clicked the 'skull'.
Not everyone on here is a 'must win at all costs player.' Korch has
many friends on here.
By resigning Korch spared them an awkward moment.
I'm confused about what the issue is. (But I get confused a lot.) Is there a suggestion that someone who has decided to not play on the site anymore has some sort of responsibility to the players he/she is currently playing? I don't care what the reason a player has for leaving but surely ANY reason they have is their right at any given moment without notice. Is it bad sportsmanship to resign a game (which gives the other player a victory)?
I think it was good sportsmanship that Korch mass resigned his games to keep his opponents from having to wait for them to inevitably time out. Either way, the opponent gets the victory - which, versus Korch (regardless of what his rating happened to be at the given time of resignation) would have been unlikely had he kept playing. Everyone wins, except Korch, and he doesn't care anymore.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
Originally posted by Traveling AgainSeriously.
I'm confused about what the issue is. (But I get confused a lot.) Is there a suggestion that someone who has decided to not play on the site anymore has some sort of responsibility to the players he/she is currently playing? I don't care what the reason a player has for leaving but surely ANY reason they have is their right at any given moment wit ...[text shortened]... been unlikely had he kept playing. Everyone wins, except Korch, and he doesn't care anymore.
Anyone that feels the need to leave this site has my permission to resign any games they might have against me. In fact, even if you're not leaving the site you're more than welcome to resign. Come on, you know who you are, resign damn it!
Originally posted by SwissGambitA recent mass resignation by a long-term member led to this exchange:
It usually comes down to either resigning all games, or letting them time out. If vacation time isn't enough of a break, there is no other alternative.
Originally posted by Shamash:
the post: now that brings up an interesting issue.
What Are some effective ways players have taken a break from games here?
Is there a way of taking a break from the site that works (even for non-subscribers) and is less self-destructive than resigning on all boards?
Am wondering, how have others handled this?
a reponse:
It usually comes down to either resigning all games, or letting them time out. If vacation time isn't enough of a break, there is no other alternative.
==============suggestion: =============================
Why not have a feature that in specific circumstances of need allows a player (perhaps a fellow Club member) of similar strength to take over the games of a player who must take a break?
Then we would no longer see, as we just did, an overnight drop in ranking of a tireless competitor who had worked hard in building up his ranking, from #18 to #5,666.
So I suggest finding and making available a fair way to substitute a comparable opponent for a player who must take a break.
*
Originally posted by ShamashSome one else taking over your games when you need a break? Did you read the TOS, we can't suggest moves in games that are still in progress, and you want some other player to take over 😕
A recent mass resignation by a long-term member led to this exchange:
Originally posted by Shamash:
the post: now that brings up an interesting issue.
What Are some effective ways players have taken a break from games here?
Is there a way of taking a break from the site that works (even for non-subscribers) and is less self-destructive than r ...[text shortened]... able a fair way to substitute a comparable opponent for a player who must take a break.
*
Hmm, what if that other person is a cheater and gets you banned 🙄
How did you even think about this idea? 😛
Its that persons account, does whatever he/she wills to 😀
Ema, you are right, I did not think this idea all the way through.
Yet. . .
. . . it's what a businessman does when he takes a government position and puts all his public stocks into a blind trust for someone else to execute trades.
. . . it's what team members do in a relay race
it is Not suggesting moves during the play of a game
Nor would it allow for a Consult.
it is completely replacing a player and completely taking over a large block of games
(It would not apply to me, I struggle to manage even six games, I would never take on a hundred, they would lose their stratgic resonance, like takiing on a hundred lovers at once). I thought of it only on seeing the recent flame-out of Korch.
There are other examples around us.
Imagine the agony Korch must have been going through. I just thought we as civilized beings could provide a more humane way of handling this type of situation.
especially for a popular and respected leader of a clan who has so many well-wishers
After investing his life in almost one thousand games he played over a fifty-month span of time here, overnight he resigned en masse --
And his ranking, an ordinal measure of Life itself for him, fell from 18 to 5,666.