Just had a game, lost to the guy after trying to fight from 2 pawns down. Then I threaten to win a pawn (he could've saved it by protecting it with his king but then losing the right to castle) and he resigns.
But, if you lost the game the game is over. So what do you mean that you lost, then you're threatening? If you lost then you lost.
I'm sorry, 2 seperate games against the same person. First game I was 2 pawns down, I fought for a long time, avoided trades, did everything I could to get a draw but once it was actually hopeless I resigned.
2nd game we were even, I threatened to take a pawn which he would've lost or he'd have been under attack. There was no mating attack and the position still had a ton of play left in it. He resigned rather than fight.
My comment is more that it would be nice to know by a rating whether a person is a type of person who is just going to quit a game just because you get an advantage. I play chess for the fight, not just to win.
So whereas the current rating system predicts relative performance mathematically -- your system would award points based on how closely their play reflects your personal attitude toward the game. All your conditions are completely arbitrary.
Losing a pawn doesn't mean your position is any worse, gambits are an easy example.
There's no way to know whether a person is intentionally running out their clock.
There's no way to quantify "fight like hell" as you likely mean an attitude and not best play.
Well, you do have two things you can use. You can look at the timeout %, and you can look at their last few games.
Also - with that guy you mentioned, are you sure there wasn't some other tactic that maybe he saw and you didn't, where you'd win more than a pawn? Sounds like you were about to put a piece near his king, maybe there was a mate in 5 or something?
Personally, I wouldn't resign only a pawn down unless I saw a clear path towards that pawn's promotion or saw that the situation was otherwise hopeless.
I looked to make sure by viewing the game in Chessbase. Nothing that Rybka 3 could see (of course, he could've thought he saw something but it didn't look that bleak for him).
I guess I was thinking of a quality rating where you can say whether a person was a fun opponent to play on a scale of 1 to 5. But then yes, it's obviously every subjective.
Would love there to be another rating system, one that rates opponents in other ways besides wins and losses. Negative points would go to opponents who drop a pawn and resign or let their clock run out intentionally. Positive points would go to people go down a pawn or two and fight like hell.
Just had a game, lost to the guy after trying to fight from 2 pawns down. Then I threaten to win a pawn (he could've saved it by protecting it with his king but then losing the right to castle) and he resigns.