To time out of not to time out?

Originally posted by Mixo
Correct. An incapacity for mercy is a symptom of fear, not strength.

I am confused. In the games of the world champions, like Alekhine, Fischer and Kasparov, I do not often see them show mercy to their opponents. What am I to make of their apparent great chess strength, despite their shirking of the temple's teachings?

Originally posted by dazrazmataz
I've decided to time him out. My message to him goes as follows:
I've debated with myself long and hard on this one, even consulting the forum, and have decided to time you out. OK, you are busy, but why have over 200 games in progress? If you can't commit to games, you shouldn't take them on. I enjoyed playing you, until I could only move once a week, ...[text shortened]... know and I'll challenge you.

Thanks for your help. I hope I've done the right thing.

You don't need to feel bad. He evidently doesn't feel bad asking you to continue the game past the agreed-upon time.

Originally posted by Mixo
I've not claimed a skull yet but there's one I wanted to! He timed out against so many others that his rating is 400 less than when we started the game. He returned in time to prevent me being offered the skull so now I'm playing a strong player with no points in it for me to win. 😞

That's one of the few scenarios I take a skull. I'm here to play chess -- and my rating will float and be generally what it SHOULD be. I'm not here to "win" by timing folks out -- I want to actually play chess.

However, neither do I want to start a game with an equal player -- have him plummet in his rating, then when I loose -- I take a big hit. That's not fair -- and I have taken _one_ such skull.

My other two exceptions are tournaments and clan matches....when no vacation flag is set.

But that's me.

Nonny

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I am confused. In the games of the world champions, like Alekhine, Fischer and Kasparov, I do not often see them show mercy to their opponents. What am I to make of their apparent great chess strength, despite their shirking of the temple's teachings?

If you are in a tournament -- like the situation you describe -- you are "trying to win the tournament".

But that's not my mindset here -- well, unless I'm playing in a tournament or clan match.

Any other time -- I'm "playing chess". Sure, I play to win...but winning without playing holds no attraction for me.

By not taking a skull -- I'm not "showing mercy" -- I'm preserving what I came here to do -- play chess. It's for ME that I don't take the skull.

Well....except for the times I do -- as previously described.

Each person must work out their own ethic. If you have the skull -- you have the option -- and if you take it -- you've done nothing wrong.

Nonny

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I am confused. In the games of the world champions, like Alekhine, Fischer and Kasparov, I do not often see them show mercy to their opponents. What am I to make of their apparent great chess strength, despite their shirking of the temple's teachings?

I don't think Kasparov would like to be compared with Fischer. The latter was insane. Besides, as professionals, their career and income depends on winning. For me RHP is just a hobby so I don't mind the odd skull about the place. Maybe those champions would do the same on RHP with no money at stake?

Originally posted by Mixo
I don't think Kasparov would like to be compared with Fischer. The latter was insane. Besides, as professionals, their career and income depends on winning. For me RHP is just a hobby so I don't mind the odd skull about the place. Maybe those champions would do the same on RHP with no money at stake?

Insanity is the bed mate of genius!

Originally posted by Dragon Fire
Insanity is the bed mate of genius!

True. Fischer had a great gift but he's welcome to it.

Originally posted by nonnymoose
If you are in a tournament -- like the situation you describe -- you are "trying to win the tournament".


Originally posted by mixo
I don't think Kasparov would like to be compared with Fischer. The latter was insane. Besides, as professionals, their career and income depends on winning. For me RHP is just a hobby so I don't mind the ...[text shortened]... kull about the place. Maybe those champions would do the same on RHP with no money at stake?

I didn't say 'tournament'; I said 'games'.

Fischer won his first two candidates matches in 1971 by the score of 6-0. He won a US Championship by the score of 11-0 (and 3 points or more ahead of the field, if memory serves). He did not need such a wide margin of victory to win those matches and tournaments. He could have been merciful at the end, coasting home with a few quick draws, secure in the knowledge that nobody could catch up to his score. But that was not his style. He played to crush his opponents, regardless of tournament or match standing.

Even 'casual' games were serious for Fischer. My book of Fischer's complete games records some blitz encounters with GM Reuben Fine. In one game, Fischer opened with the Evans' Gambit and just destroyed Fine in a mere 18 moves. In a casual game!

"Mercy" is a word that is not in Fischer's vocabulary.

Same goes for Alekhine. As John Hillery said, "He was not satisfied by winning the tournament with a small margin, but played every game with a fierce will to win." Alekhine was one ruthless SOB, even when it came to simuls. He would play blindfold simuls without losing a game.

Kasparov, in My Great Predecessors said that he models his style on the play of Tal, Alekhine and Fischer. As far as chess play goes, he not only does not mind comparing himself with Fischer, but emulates him.