Flaggers
Sort:
The person that makes sense to me in this thread is Ziryab. Making the valid point that Magnus can’t offer the draw as that would be poor etiquette. And I obviously understand that the rules are the rules so he technically gets the win. It’s the idea of it though, it’s a matter of principle. I simply respect people that resign lost positions instead of flagging. I’m not saying anyone is wrong either. When I started the thread I was frustrated. For the last two days I haven’t been frustrated, just expressing my view on the subject. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that. Anonymous dragon, who has given me so much grief in this thread even said himself, it’s subjective. That’s literally all I’m getting at. That should be case closed right there, right?
Dec 16, 2021
0
#222
@dylanpthomas
You can ask an admin to close the thread. Until then, we keep pounding on the idea. After all, you are not the only one who has ever made this complaint.
I trust that you will gracefully resign when I have one second left and several moves to go before checkmate. Some people do. Even in Arena when they have more time on the clock than Arena has left.
people win due to time pressure all the time, even in classical chess. I'm here to support flaggers.
dylanpthomas wrote:
There’s a couple of great chess players at the bar I frequent. One is about 1800 and the other is about 2100. This is their blitz ratings. They agreed 100% that resigning lost positions is the respectable thing to do, even in blitz. It’s nice hearing that from accomplished players. As a matter of fact, the 2100 player exclusively plays on Lichess because in his experience, there is far more nonsense like refusing to resign lost positions and trash talking on chess.com.
Well the other day, at the library, I was talking to a few super GMs and they all agreed that you're just throwing a fit because you got outplayed. They all agreed that anything within the rules is necessarily not bad sportsmanship, and you probably should have resigned when you made those huge blunders you're for some reason not willing to admit.
dylanpthomas wrote:
#196
I had an extended conversation with that 2100 player about that topic. Lichess ratings vs chess.com ratings. On here, the highest rating I’ve ever had for blitz was about 1515. It’s a struggle for me to get back to 1500. On lichess, I broke 1700 and it wasn’t really that difficult. He was surprised to hear that so he looked into it. He found that it’s normal for there to be a big gap like that at lower ratings but, a 2100 player is indeed 2100 on both apps.
I had an extended conversation with that 2100 player about that topic. Lichess ratings vs chess.com ratings. On here, the highest rating I’ve ever had for blitz was about 1515. It’s a struggle for me to get back to 1500. On lichess, I broke 1700 and it wasn’t really that difficult. He was surprised to hear that so he looked into it. He found that it’s normal for there to be a big gap like that at lower ratings but, a 2100 player is indeed 2100 on both apps.
...that should tell you something about the ratings on each site. If you couldn't make 1500 here...it would necessarily mean the competition here is more stiff, and it is harder to rise in rating. You've shredded your own assertion.
And no: a 2100 player on Lichess is not a 2100 player here, they're lower. About 1900.
I understand your opinion on flagging, but it is within the rules and so you shouldn’t call it unsportsmanlike. I personally think your opinion can be valued, and that if your opponent resigns,it’s a show of respect, but if they don’t, I am not complaining. They beat me on time and I commend them for their time management. Resigning in lost positions is respectful, but not necessary, when you still have a chance (however meagre it is) to beat up your opponent.
dylanpthomas wrote:
#227
I’m not saying anyone “has” to do anything. Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m saying it would be respectable if Magnus shook his hand and said, you got me, good game. You deserve the win, this is lost for me. This thread is getting to a point where I’m literally just repeating myself over and over and over. I respect resignation in lost positions, people disagree with that which is fine. The end.
I’m not saying anyone “has” to do anything. Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m saying it would be respectable if Magnus shook his hand and said, you got me, good game. You deserve the win, this is lost for me. This thread is getting to a point where I’m literally just repeating myself over and over and over. I respect resignation in lost positions, people disagree with that which is fine. The end.
Imagine playing for a team one day. You have a game where you are lost on the board but can flag your opponent who is very low on time. You decide to do a "respectable" thing and resign the game. As a consequence your team loses the match. Would you still call it a good sportsmanship? To me it's a very poor sportsmanship.
dylanpthomas wrote:
#201
It’s not like I’m going to change your mind but, a lot of times flagging is absolutely brainless. The clock is ticking so people start sacrificing a bunch of their pieces, blundering everything. Happens constantly. Comparing that to Formula One racing is pretty ridiculous. I admire the driver striving that hard for the win in the final moments. I do not admire the person playing such a difficult, well respected game in such a poor manner.
Also, the top players in the world flag each other but they are playing real chess in the meantime. I’ve watched plenty of blitz and bullet games between exceptional players. It’s amazing what they come up with in such a short time. Sure, blunders happen even at that level but it’s not mindless nonsense. I teeter between 1400 and 1500 usually on blitz. At my worst I sometimes fall below 1400 and at my best I’ve broken 1500. Comparing blitz players at my level to the greatest players in the world is ridiculous as well.
It’s not like I’m going to change your mind but, a lot of times flagging is absolutely brainless. The clock is ticking so people start sacrificing a bunch of their pieces, blundering everything. Happens constantly. Comparing that to Formula One racing is pretty ridiculous. I admire the driver striving that hard for the win in the final moments. I do not admire the person playing such a difficult, well respected game in such a poor manner.
Also, the top players in the world flag each other but they are playing real chess in the meantime. I’ve watched plenty of blitz and bullet games between exceptional players. It’s amazing what they come up with in such a short time. Sure, blunders happen even at that level but it’s not mindless nonsense. I teeter between 1400 and 1500 usually on blitz. At my worst I sometimes fall below 1400 and at my best I’ve broken 1500. Comparing blitz players at my level to the greatest players in the world is ridiculous as well.
It's not brainless. Repeating it over and over again is not going to make it true nor it's going to make yourself feel better for losing a completely won position because you're too slow. Flagging is real chess despite what you so desperately try to prove by repetition. If they are sacking their pieces with check to take time away and force a response to check is not brainless, there's a purpose. You don't seem to understand that time is a piece like any other one. It's a factor of the game. Regardless if it's bullet, blitz, rapid or classical... people play putting pressure on time in every format, just get over it... I'm 1500 ish as well and I can guarantee you that when I flag or get flagged it wasn't brainless, I know what I'm doing, and I'm subject to blunders as well it is real chess and the moves played have a purpose.
And once again... if it was indeed brainless and you lost to someone making brainless moves it says more about your ability than anyone's sporstsmanship... if that is an issue and you don't want increment or longer time formats, you can tell your opponent your brain is a little slower - nothing wrong with that - and you need time odds. Simple as that...
Why do you keep on cherry picking arguments and repeating the same thing over and over again instead of addressing the arguments that prove you're wrong?
It's not a ridiculous comparison. It's an analogy, judging by the ones you provide I can see why you have trouble understanding them, but it's far from being ridiculous. Max was more than 10 seconds behind until safety car was brought in. Him and Red Bull adapted and changed strategy. Mercedes blundered and made the wrong strategy, last lap Lewis had no tires to defend against verstappen... similarly to what happens when chess players are low on time. The game/race is not over yet, so you keep trying... you or your opponent make a move or respond to a move that allows you to go for a certain strategy... you adapt, find the best strategy and and win. You miss a tactic, you adapt and find another one. You played a weak move or your strategy didn't quite work as planned.. you adapt and find another one. That's what chess is about... poor time management gets punished just as much as poor moves
dylanpthomas wrote:
#208
What happens a lot of the time is I create a position on the board that is absolutely winning, but it can be hard for me to find mates, so I lose on time. And what’s frustrating to me is when the time is neck and neck, and the position is lost for my opponent. They beat me by a few seconds in a position where they absolutely could not win. Like the video you posted. Tell me Magnus is going to win that game…
What happens a lot of the time is I create a position on the board that is absolutely winning, but it can be hard for me to find mates, so I lose on time. And what’s frustrating to me is when the time is neck and neck, and the position is lost for my opponent. They beat me by a few seconds in a position where they absolutely could not win. Like the video you posted. Tell me Magnus is going to win that game…
Absolutely winning is not won... lasker said it, it's the hardest game to win
Have you considered your position is absolutely winning because you burn through more time than your opponent? Maybe you should practice finding those mates quicker... you're saying that is poor sportsmanship that your opponent manages their time better than you - it makes absolutely no sense....
Ask any chess player, any real chess player, it doesn't matter if you win in 4 moves or 200. It doesn't matter if you win by checkmate or your opponent resigning, it doesn't matter if you flag with 4 hours left on the clock or 0.1 second left on the clock. A win is a win
-
dylanpthomas wrote:
#227
I’m not saying anyone “has” to do anything. Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m saying it would be respectable if Magnus shook his hand and said, you got me, good game. You deserve the win, this is lost for me. This thread is getting to a point where I’m literally just repeating myself over and over and over. I respect resignation in lost positions, people disagree with that which is fine. The end.
I’m not saying anyone “has” to do anything. Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m saying it would be respectable if Magnus shook his hand and said, you got me, good game. You deserve the win, this is lost for me. This thread is getting to a point where I’m literally just repeating myself over and over and over. I respect resignation in lost positions, people disagree with that which is fine. The end.
More like Magnus shaking his hand and saying: " you deserve the win, even though your brain is slower and you needed to use more time to get a draw where I am the only one with chances of winning, but very well played you made great use of the time odds i never gave you, scorecard 1-0"
One could argue that it was unsportsman (perhaps even against the rules?) by magnus to talk/curse during the game... but that's about it... everything else completely legit...
You can respect or not whatever you want, but justifying your lack of confidence/ability into converting won positions into victory under time pressure by labeling it as unsportsmanlike because you think you should be rewarded for poor time management does not make it unsportsmanlike and that's a fact not an opinion