18640 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Just had an idea, and maybe it is dumb, but what do you think? The concept is that winning/drawing/losing by resignation should weigh more (in ratings/results) than winning/drawing/losing on the clock.
We all have been in games that were hopelessly won/lost ...except for the clock. I know the clock is part of the game. I regularly win or lose games because of the clock, so I understand people who fight to the end.
However, one thing that bugs me is people that play "systems" - especially in bullet - entirely with the intent to stonewall and run you out of time. It can be effective, but it it lame IMO.
What if a win by mate or resignation (or no move within a given time range) was worth 2 points, whereas a win by the clock only was worth 1.5?
You would have to include some way of "timing out" someone who refused to move in a lost position to make this work or else some people would just not move when they got in a lost position - which would be lamer still.
Not a revolutionary idea, but I wonder if this would have some value in speed chess? Probably not, lame people would still be lame.
Encourage more people to run down the clock, great.
The problem with that is that your rating is not a reward for your performance, it is a reflection of your results.
You can't mess with that without breaking the system.
I have an idea! How about if you are forced to resign if you are down by 5 or more points in material for 2 consecutive moves?
This isn't a solution because a rook or queen sac may be perfectly acceptable.
Then poor Morphy would have lost the Opera game :)
Maybe the system isn't broken, but you could tweak the system without breaking it by adding more value to a "real" win.
I don't want to launch a massive thread about whether checkmates are more valuable than clock wins. I just had this idea that true wins might be more heavily weighted.
Guys... you didn't really think I was being serious, did u? Does no one get the reference?
Most people, if they thought they'd lose less rating points if they lost on time would get get up and go rent a long movie like Braveheart every time they were going to lose, because they'd lose less that way.
As I said, you would have to have some time-out feature to detect if someone was just refusing to move vs. legitimately losing on the clock. If it was the latter, the loss would be weighted to same as a resignation or checkmate.
They have a time out feature already. It's a clock. I don't believe winning on time is worth less than a checkmate in that if you take 6 minutes in a 10 minute game to achieve your desired position and I take 3 that is not my problem. It's yours. If I dispatch your rooks early and you spend the rest of the game listlessly defending inside a shell I shouldn't get penalized because you won't resign.
I got the reference macer, and I thought it was funny. Irony sometimes doesn't work on the internet...
I got the reference, haha.
Play 15 min then or online chess lol
If black blunders their rook in the beginning they will have a lost game, but white might not be able to force checkmate for another 14 moves. Black would be able to spread his remaining time over each of his next 14 moves in order to avoid your new time out feature and avoid checkmate.
its best to fix if its broken but is it really broken?
OK, again, I will restate my point, and you can give me your opinion. I don't think we have a good solution to fix it.
Doesn't it bug you when someone is clearly only playing to win on the clock - not just when they are behind, but even from the beginning?
You know what I am talking about, people playing only hedgehog/bind kind of structures and moving pieces behind their pawn wall, wanting you to take all the risks or actually calculate how to break in to their turtled position.
I guess I just want to punish that kind of play, but it is within the rules.
that is an acceptable meta-game. If you want to punish that type of play, figure out a good system against the opening. #logic
The “fix” is to play games with an increment. As long you move faster than the increment then you’ll never lose on time.
I discovered, at my lowly blitz rating (900's) that I didn't have to play any "real" chess whatsoever: just be safe, make shuffle moves, but as quickly as possible. Won/Lost just as well as if I was trying to play chess. Didn't get me out of the 900's Blitz, but it did turn me off from playing it (maybe someday I'll try playing "real" chess Blitz again).
sicilian defense as a main weapon
by XPLAYERJX a few minutes ago
Chessbazaar's Dubrovnik 4" crimson problem?
by Kycoo 2 minutes ago
Dutch Step method
by Milliern 4 minutes ago
losing on time
by marcosite 4 minutes ago
The "Stappenmethode" Complete Chess Training System
by Milliern 6 minutes ago
A game I should have lost
by DLin2013 7 minutes ago
Bishops vs Knights
by 05jogrady 8 minutes ago
by AngeloPardi 9 minutes ago
Unsound Openings, Testing Chaos Theory
by XPLAYERJX 9 minutes ago
2/28/2015 - Maister - Grozdov, corr. 1954
by 1NaturalDisaster 11 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!