Originally posted by pawntorook4When you look at the game, on the lower right hand side it will say 'Resignation', 'Move timeout', 'Checkmate' etc.
Question for SquelchBelch
How can you tell the difference between a game that was timed out and where the opponent just resigned? I ask cause I don't know, not because I am questioning your opinion. Thanks
Edit: It occurs to me that this may be a greasemonkey enhancement to the site, but I don't think so...
Originally posted by pawntorook4Click on one of the games links then look down the bottom at "game status" & they say "move timeout".
Question for SquelchBelch
How can you tell the difference between a game that was timed out and where the opponent just resigned? I ask cause I don't know, not because I am questioning your opinion. Thanks
Originally posted by Dies IraePM me your password and I will do the deed for you.
I'm in a losing position. He's lower rated than I am. I've had three chances to time this guy out. I can't click the skull. I have hardly any chance of winning. And yet, I can't click.... someone post something so I can click the skull
😉
When that skull comes up it means the person has no regard for you or your time and is saying, you wait for me and I'll play when I'm good and ready. You DON'T count. It's all me me me me me......When the skull comes up, look out, I'm clicking you out.. It,s time to show me some consideration
Game 3083926
I'm a little ashamed of this game. I played horribly, like really really really horribly, and he was so much lower rated than me, so when I got the chance I timed him out.
I felt guilty about claiming a time out at first, untll I noticed that my opponent was busy playing other games while ignoring mine. Could it be because I forked-checked the king and queen with my knight? Maybe not, but I sent 3 reminders and figured that it was a case of bad sportsmanship.
the point is moot, he moved
still, I couldn't bring myself to take a win like that. If I were giving advice, I'd say, "Time him out" but faced with it, I couldn't do it....
this was the 3rd time I let him slide on a timeout. I kept telling myself, if he does it again, he's gone. But here I am, with a losing game. But its an honest lost.
Also, I've played at chess clubs and let people's time run out and said go ahead, keep moving. Or I've let them take back blunders. Whats the point of winning like that? Its just a game and nothing is gained from taking an empty win. A tournament or something, I could see but playing just for kicks, whatever.
Originally posted by Dies IraeWith the time thing, it's up to you. I tend only to time people out if they've left the site, their rating nose dives, or they are obviously stalling to avoid defeat. However I'm not going to criticise people for taking timeouts the moment they're available - certainly now the new vacation system is in place. But this is correspondence chess, timeouts are more to do with what's happening in people's lives rather than imminent time pressure.
Also, I've played at chess clubs and let people's time run out and said go ahead, keep moving. Or I've let them take back blunders. Whats the point of winning like that? Its just a game and nothing is gained from taking an empty win. A tournament or something, I could see but playing just for kicks, whatever.
OTB, it's different as your ability to check the moves you make is severely constrained by the clock - in time trouble it is more or less impossible to calculate so one's position can deteriorate quite a lot simply due to the time aspect. Blunders are the same. If your opponent has failed to understand an aspect of the position then it could either take the form of a niggling problem for them or an immediate catastrophe. Since you aren't going to let them take back to the point where they made the ?! move why let them take back the ?? move? You aren't doing them a favour by letting them off either; if someone is let off the hook every time they mess up they won't stop messing up. I agree that I'd rather win purely on position, but if there are clocks present then it is never purely on position.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYeah but thats why I don't care and let people take back moves. If they want to cheat themselves, thats fine. Some people won't take back moves. But if I let someone take back a move, I'm the one who benefits, as I get more and more practice against harder positions. There's no long term benefits to taking cheap wins.
. Blunders are the same. If your opponent has failed to understand an aspect of the position then it could either take the form of a niggling problem for them or an immediate catastrophe. Since you aren't going to let them take back to the point where they made the ?! move why let them take back the ?? move? You aren't doing them a favour by letting ...[text shortened]... win purely on position, but if there are clocks present then it is never purely on position.
Originally posted by Dies IraeFair point - personally I find my brain switches off when I've won the first time. I won't take back moves myself either - I used to and I'm sure I'm a worse player for it.
Yeah but thats why I don't care and let people take back moves. If they want to cheat themselves, thats fine. Some people won't take back moves. But if I let someone take back a move, I'm the one who benefits, as I get more and more practice against harder positions. There's no long term benefits to taking cheap wins.