Ok.Slow start.lol
Live chess 2.0
Sort:
Well, I think I know what the top response will be... no disconnections. Though I have never experienced one myself while using Chrome.
Jul 29, 2009
0
#4
I stated in another thread that winning on time alone does nothing. I played several 10 minutes games. Was close several times to a mate and time ran out. My opponent was down by at least 20 points in material and had one way out I didn't have time to fill. He did quick moves diddling with his pawns until he won on time, when clearly I was killing him.
He had NO INTEREST in winning -- just stalling. What does this teach? Really? Does it teach love for the game, strategy, love, art? None of these. It teaches you to waste time.
I had hoped to see lines better and faster by playing faster chess. Everyone I play just stalls. What is the purpose? I think if you run out of time and you are down more than 10 points in material, the person with the material advantage should win (or some variation)
I would also like to see 2 hour games - like you would play like you would at a club or a tournament.
This waiting 3 to 10 days for someone to move is boring. It makes you have about 5 to 15 simultaneous games. If suddenly everyone logs in, you are playing a lot of games and while Bobby Fischer was famous for that, it can be very confusing. You are black in one game, white in another. Games can be very similar and you can confuse strategies and get easily beat by someone playing one or two games. That happened to me this week. My rating went from 1226 to 999 in two days.
I didn't learn much from these loses except that next time I will play slower and annoy people like they did to me.
If you're running out of time in 10 minute games, either move your pieces faster or choose a higher time limit. Complaining about a parameter that you have complete control over is ridiculous.
I am excited for this new version of live chess, and I am sure that everyone is anxious for its successful release
Yeah!!
I hope it gets released in less then 1 week (before i go on vacation for a month)
hehe
Jul 29, 2009
0
#8
Demonstrating consistently that one can win efficiently and in a timely manner when owning an overwhelmingly winning position is not practiced seriously enough. Some of us tend to get sloppy and simply mop up material, letting the sands in the hourglass fall while we simply 'add points' and fail to achieve the stated goal of the game.
A good way to get better at this is the one really intriguing use of chess software: set up a winning position and take the winning side and execute the win against the computer. If you wish - after you improve at it, give yourself ever decreasing amounts of time in such positions.
Jul 29, 2009
0
#9
JollyPlayer wrote:
I stated in another thread that winning on time alone does nothing. I played several 10 minutes games. Was close several times to a mate and time ran out. My opponent was down by at least 20 points in material and had one way out I didn't have time to fill. He did quick moves diddling with his pawns until he won on time, when clearly I was killing him.
He had NO INTEREST in winning -- just stalling. What does this teach? Really? Does it teach love for the game, strategy, love, art? None of these. It teaches you to waste time.
Actually,it does teach strategy.If he sees that your time is running down,and he's in a losing position,what else do you want him to do? Not stall and wait you out,to win the game. Your objective in a chess game is to WIN. What your opponent did was totally clever and i'm sure you would have done the same if you were in that position.
Jul 29, 2009
0
#10
DrawMaster wrote:
Demonstrating consistently that one can win efficiently and in a timely manner when owning an overwhelmingly winning position is not practiced seriously enough. Some of us tend to get sloppy and simply mop up material, letting the sands in the hourglass fall while we simply 'add points' and fail to achieve the stated goal of the game.
A good way to get better at this is the one really intriguing use of chess software: set up a winning position and take the winning side and execute the win against the computer. If you wish - after you improve at it, give yourself ever decreasing amounts of time in such positions.
Well said!
Jul 29, 2009
0
#11
smartens wrote:
If you're running out of time in 10 minute games, either move your pieces faster or choose a higher time limit. Complaining about a parameter that you have complete control over is ridiculous.
I agree smartens! Good point. I wish more people could see this point you made. lol
I think you learn more and appreciate the beauty of the game more from the longer time controls anyway
Jul 29, 2009
0
#13
chessoholicalien wrote:
I think you learn more and appreciate the beauty of the game more from the longer time controls anyway
Agreed!
I would like to see added a way to see a list of online players, with options to challenge, or observe them. Speed up the interface just a tad, those are my 2 cents
Jul 30, 2009
0
#15
Thank you all for your controbutions. they are all good points. keep them coming. :)
Jul 30, 2009
0
#16
Colin2009 wrote: Actually,it does teach strategy.If he sees that your time is running down,and he's in a losing position,what else do you want him to do? Not stall and wait you out,to win the game. Your objective in a chess game is to WIN. What your opponent did was totally clever and i'm sure you would have done the same if you were in that position.
No I wouldn't. Why play chess to stall? Play to win. If I was 20 points down to a player in 9 minutes I would be embarrassed. And it was not one opponent, it was a everyone I played. Get into a position to stall and then stall. It takes a lot of time to play to win.
Jul 30, 2009
0
#17
JollyPlayer wrote:
Colin2009 wrote: Actually,it does teach strategy.If he sees that your time is running down,and he's in a losing position,what else do you want him to do? Not stall and wait you out,to win the game. Your objective in a chess game is to WIN. What your opponent did was totally clever and i'm sure you would have done the same if you were in that position.
No I wouldn't. Why play chess to stall? Play to win. If I was 20 points down to a player in 9 minutes I would be embarrassed. And it was not one opponent, it was a everyone I played. Get into a position to stall and then stall. It takes a lot of time to play to win.
If you can't win in the time given with your enormous advantage, then you are in actuality losing. The clock is part of chess. Playing the clock is absolutely a legitimate strategy; it's something that has to be taken into account. They were justified in their stall tactics, and the evidence to support this is very clear: you overstepped the time limit; they won, so they were right. This is your problem, and one that you'll have to get over.
I would like to see a box each player can check off to let others no if they are a rude or a sore loser, this would save time for all the nice people who do not want to play these people :)
By now you should have been aware that live chess 2.0 is coming soon, although the official opening date isn't known.