Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Value of time vs. mate/resign wins


  • 15 months ago · Quote · #1

    tmodel66

    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.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #2

    Scottrf

    Encourage more people to run down the clock, great.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #3

    rooperi

    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.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #4

    macer75

    tmodel66 wrote:

    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.

    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?

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #5

    tmodel66

    macer75 wrote:
    tmodel66 wrote:

    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.

    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.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #6

    rooperi

    macer75 wrote:
    tmodel66 wrote:

    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.

    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?

    Then poor Morphy would have lost the Opera game :)

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #7

    tmodel66

    rooperi wrote:

    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.

    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.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #8

    macer75

    tmodel66 wrote:
    macer75 wrote:
    tmodel66 wrote:

    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.

    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.

    Guys... you didn't really think I was being serious, did u? Does no one get the reference?

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #9

    Ron-Weasley

    tmodel66 wrote:

    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.

    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.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #10

    tmodel66

    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.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #11

    denner90

    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.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #12

    whatadisaster

    macer75 wrote:
    tmodel66 wrote:
    macer75 wrote:
    tmodel66 wrote:

    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.

    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.

    Guys... you didn't really think I was being serious, did u? Does no one get the reference?

    I got the reference macer, and I thought it was funny.  Irony sometimes doesn't work on the internet...

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #13

    qrayons

    macer75 wrote: Guys... you didn't really think I was being serious, did u? Does no one get the reference?

    I got the reference, haha.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #14

    chesshole

    Play 15 min then or online chess lol

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #15

    qrayons

    tmodel66 wrote:

    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.

    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.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #16

    Talfan1

    its best to fix if its broken but is it really broken? 

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #17

    tmodel66

    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. 

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #18

    chesshole

    tmodel66 wrote:

    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

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #19

    qrayons

    The “fix” is to play games with an increment. As long you move faster than the increment then you’ll never lose on time.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #20

    LongIslandMark

    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).


Back to Top

Post your reply: