Wow! and I thought inflammable was bad.
"Inflammable means flammable? What a country!"
Curiously, there is no similar equivalent to inflammatory.
No, I didnt know. I do know however that looser is an adjective and that the word they should be using is "loser" . It seems the education system is failing miserably.
Just because you use a loser form of the language doesn't make you a looser.
Wait - don't tell me that looser is the British way of saying loser?
People want to get over this 'rude' thing. Rude is what you decide it is, and no one in the world can upset you unless you let them. If the guy has 10 mins he can use them all, if it is a 1 hour game he can use it all. If you are going to get your knickers in a knot over stuff like this then be ready to be upset for most of your life!
Yes, you should be able to wait it out before playing, but it's really terrible of them because if it's a long game you have to spend so much time doing nothing. Nobody should have to wait that stuff out. Some people get mad when they don't say hello, but this is clearly very rude.
certainly not.
Typing is not required education here in the states.
I did however study the "Fred Flintstone" method on my own and am using BOTH of my thumbs!
Now you listen here, son. It used to be required. It still should be, if you ask me.
If you are unable to play the full time of a game, you shouldn't have started the game in the first place!
This is an absurd statement. It's like telling someone who had plans to meet with someone and got stood up "Hey, you've no right to be upset -- you were planning on going out anyway."
You've conveniently overlooked the fact that the agreement extends to more than just the time. You can say that you should be prepared to spend the full amount of time but that doesn't excuse your opponent from fulfilling the playing a game part of the agreement -- and that's really what's at issue here.
lol, you really think I sounded upset? I'm more concerned about you though, after reading these comments:
Relax, this is just a forum where people talk about trivial stuff all the time. Some people don't tolerate rudeness as much as you do. No big deal. We appreciate your "grow-up-and-deal-with-it" pep talks (rich with !!! marks), but try to relax a little because like I said, this is just a forum where people talk about small, random, trivial stuff.
I think we can all agree that waiting out a lost position to lose on time is not in the spirit of the agreement that was made when the game commenced. I notice you've declined to acknowledge the second part of my post.
maybe you're 100% right and he is just waiting for time to run out
Well it certainly appears that small random trivial stuff is right up your alley, so I'll levae you to it! lol
Well, your sarcasm aside, it's good to see that you've calmed down at least. I would also encourage the original poster to calm down too, but he isn't replying to this thread.
Just to point it out...
Saying that the complainer is "too sensitive" does not make it any less rude. It just means that when people are rude that you should not let it bother you.
And I've heard all of the "but it's my time I can use it how I want to" nonsense before.
It is harder to take for people who play the game right and don't do these acts Ozzie. When we do things our way, a lot of us expect to see the same in return. People who present unsportsmanlike, ungentlemen like defeat, annoy people who play it right. I totally understand the author of this thread, because I am annoyed with live chess, because I have been disconnected too many times to continue playing in the future. A sensitive computer will normally disconnect people at a higher rate who are idel.... even if it's the person who is waiting to respond.
People, when you have lost on correspondence chess, I suggest you show honor to your opponent that you were beaten. However with live chess, keep fighting because of time factors... blitz is a crazy game. Play long chess to get better if you play live. That is my personal thought.
Okay, a round of saucers of milk for everyone! (I'm buying).
There's also such a thing as a bad WINNER. In a 3-day-per-move game, I've had the experience of having an opponent suggest I resign when I was a couple of pawns down and still looking for a way to salvage a draw. I played on until I was convinced there was no resource and I was indeed lost. In the rematch I got the upper hand, but my opponent would not resign even when I had King and Queen versus bare king. As a matter of fact, I queened a second pawn and he still would not resign with his bare king looking at 2 hostile queens! Naturally, I made no suggestion to him that he should resign, as he had done to me in a far less obvious position. Maybe he was still hoping for a stalemate, though it seems more likely he just wanted to annoy me as revenge for my not having resigned as quickly as he thought I should in the previous game! There is only one thing to do with such a person: checkmate them and never play them again.
Funny, I don't encounter people in live chess who annoy me by taking the full time of the game. I actually NEVER encounter them.
I cant even count the number of times I was a piece or two down in the middle game, and played on even though my opponent asked me to resign, and went on to winning the game. More often that not, people when they are a peice or two up, tend to take the game less seriously, thus lose. Also many a times I was in a completely losing position, atleast 2 rooks down,(10 pawns) and still managed to win because my opponent was out of time. The only time a person SHOULD resign is when its an unpreventable mate, otherwise just quit your bitching and play the FULL game, or dont play games with indefinate time period. Simple.
But this isn't even what the original post was about. It's about people who abandon their games when the find they're in a lost position rather than playing them out or resigning.
It is still a great post! and it is still spot on!
As usual with this topic (and this topic is very very usual indeed), the key point is your playing level. More experienced players resign a piece or two down to other more experienced players, because they know there's no hope. Those who advocate any other approach...are not playing more experienced players.
TonyDal, I have to disagree with you: Abandoning a game that you've clearly lost so that your opponent has to wait out your clock to record the win is simply inexcusable no matter what your rating.
The fact that you think this is even slightly defensible fits well with my image of you Suggo.