Well yeah. But in the above example there is zero chance of you making a mistake. If there are games where it is difficult to get your head back into what is going on and so there is a chance of making a mistake then does this not justify your opponents 'strategy' of slow play? This is what I mean - perhaps they are doing what I was talking about earlier and putting off the move because it's a tough position before eventually trying to play something that at least does not lose immediately or leaves the possibility of a mistake on your part. And if so they are fully justified in not resigning. And also fully justified in using the time allowed by the conditions of the game or tournament. IMO.
"learn to resign when totally outplayed"
Sort:
Jun 28, 2019
0
#43
I dunno. I just take the view that it is what it is. Online correspondence chess, there will be a few guys who try to stall for whatever reason. Right now I'm playing a 1 day per move with a guy who has been dead lost material wise for over a week and it's now mate in 1 after he moves. He has been leaving it until the last hour of his time to move. But it doesn't bother me because I have 170+ other games in progress to look at and the win will be mine tomorrow. Think of the positives - each time you review the progressions you 1. Imprint again in your mind again the tactic or strategic idea which gave you the advantage and 2. Get a nice sense of satisfaction about how you outplayed them.
Jun 28, 2019
0
#44
Yeah that would be annoying, but it's not happening to me and it hasn't been my experience in general over the last few years. Stalling is rare for me to see. Just through a cursory glance...you have 10 daily games in progress, none of which look to me like your opponents should be resigning...
Jun 28, 2019
0
#45
Ziryab wrote:
. . . correspondence chess sans engines.
most unlikely 
Why does anyone care what their opponents say in chat.
Jun 28, 2019
0
#47
Laskersnephew wrote:
Why does anyone care what their opponents say in chat.
Good question...
Jun 28, 2019
0
#48
I make moves when I make moves. If I'm playing a 3-day game I expect to wait 3 days for my opponent to move, whatever the position. I often don't play a move in my daily games until they are flashing up as needing me to move. It's not that I spend 3 days thinking about my move, I just ignore the game for 2½ days because it doesn't require me to make a move. If my opponent wants faster moves they should play live chess or 1 day chess.
It's incredibly difficult on this site to actually find any rules, the only one I see is
'Do not make your opponents wait unnecessarily'
which is a nothing 'rule' because who decides what is unnecessary? Am I supposed to play an entire Daily game like a live game if I and my opponent happen to be online at the same time?!
TheSultan31003 wrote:
IronIC_U wrote:
Stashman72 wrote:
if someone continues to fight until the bitter end, i dont mind. thats what the clock is there for. however...i played someone today who, after blundering let their time run down, 5 minutes, resigning on the last second. i assume theyre hoping we will resign rater than wait. i told him/her that 5 minutes in Germany takes the same amount of time in America...i can wait.
Was it Lasker?
A lot of people are crybabies when they lose....a very common thing these days is to just stop moving their pieces once I have achieved an advantage in correspondence chess. They go to moving at the very last second of the time control hoping you time out or make a mistake. It's such a cowards way of playing chess.
Jeez, there you go again sultan! if it's allowed to be 3 days per move, people get over committed, you aren't really justified to say they are cowards or purposely playing at last minute etc. I think you need to be more careful what you say and stick to hassling the vacationing only.
Jun 28, 2019
0
#50
mariners234 wrote:
It's the classic "If we ignore my bad moves, and only my bad moves, I would have won"
Well sure. That's true for pretty much every game ever played
(Although capitalizing on a dozen small errors only to throw it away in 1 move is legitimately frustrating, that doesn't look to be the case here).
Well said. I have to laugh thinking about all the times I visited the Seattle Chess Club waaaaaaay back in the day when I used to play a lot of OTB chess. I lost track of the times I would overhear a couple of players out in the hallway during a post-mortem. One guy would be showing the game to his friend and say something like "I was totally crushing him until I made this one stupid mistake". First of all, are there any other kind??
Secondly, yeah, it sorta sounds like if you don't count any of my bad moves I would have won............
Jun 28, 2019
0
#51
TheSultan31003 wrote:
How do you feel about the way this player was conducting himself in our game? Do you feel he was justified?
In a similar position, I once entered conditional moves all the way to checkmate.
Jun 28, 2019
0
#52
TheSultan31003 wrote:
glamdring27 wrote:
I make moves when I make moves. If I'm playing a 3-day game I expect to wait 3 days for my opponent to move, whatever the position. I often don't play a move in my daily games until they are flashing up as needing me to move. It's not that I spend 3 days thinking about my move, I just ignore the game for 2½ days because it doesn't require me to make a move. If my opponent wants faster moves they should play live chess or 1 day chess.
It's incredibly difficult on this site to actually find any rules, the only one I see is
'Do not make your opponents wait unnecessarily'
which is a nothing 'rule' because who decides what is unnecessary? Am I supposed to play an entire Daily game like a live game if I and my opponent happen to be online at the same time?!
It means to make your moves in a reasonable time frame. The issue isn't when you make your moves as much as it's about your intent.
I play games against players who are just slow players generally. I have no problem with that. It only becomes a problem when you grind the game to a halt AFTER you have gotten in to a disadvantageous position trying to stall. If the opponent makes a mistake and then you all of a sudden have the time to make your moves now that the game has turned then that person is a douche. The key difference is the consistency. If you are a slow player then play slowly. If you play faster, then play faster. But if you change the frequency of your moves depending upon whether you are winning or losing the game then that is what I have a problem with.
Measures against this have already been taken IE I only join tournaments with no vacation and 24 hrs to move in order to minimize stalling.
But there are tournaments from last year or older that are still in progress that I cannot get out of until the selfish stallers finally decide to make their moves.
God forbid someone in a tournament asks that you actually make a move. If you want to play a game in perpetuity, then go for it, but do it with others that play at that pace.
Changing the speed of play depending on the position makes perfect sense. I'll often play moves quickly if it's a good position or an interesting one because I know what I want to play, while in a difficult position when I can't decide which of the bad options to play I'll delay it. Lots of people put off difficult decisions in aspects of normal life where it's actually important too and make more enjoyable or easier decisions faster.
I certainly don't play on super slowly in ridiculous positions with 0 chance of getting a result though.
I used to have something like 20-30 daily games going at the same time, but I had too many evenings when I just couldn't be bothered and wasn't interested enough so I let all the tournaments slowly die off and just have a small number now to better keep on top of them.
In my last few games my opponents should have resigned but it dragged on. I don t want repeat games. How do I avoid playing these players again in future?
Wow. Just wow.😱
Jun 28, 2019
0
#56
Optimissed wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
TheAdultProdigy wrote:
Rated OTB chess is the only real chess.
Nah. Correspondence chess is the only real chess.
I should say, correspondence chess sans engines.>>>
Don't think so, because you can get people who will spend 20 hours looking at one move. Or more. OTB with equal time is real chess.
I have enjoyed spending 20 hours on one move. Once, I spent the whole weekend going through every game ever published in Informant that had reached our position--about 150.
Agreed, my take on it is that if you can't take losing then dont play. I have 3 games on the go at the moment 2 if them are resignable games and I have checkmate next move which cannot get out with and that was a day ago
Optimissed wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
TheAdultProdigy wrote:
Rated OTB chess is the only real chess.
Nah. Correspondence chess is the only real chess.
I should say, correspondence chess sans engines.>>>
Don't think so, because you can get people who will spend 20 hours looking at one move. Or more. OTB with equal time is real chess.
That's why it is the best chess for learning, not by breadth, but by depth of understanding. If you don't like people spending 20 hours on a move because you *don't* want to spend 20 hours on your own critical moves, then don't play daily chess.
I will say that in 3 day daily chess I have spent a lot more than 20 hours on a critical position in a tight or interesting game.
Play no more than 3 daily games at once, set up them all up on real boards instead of only looking at them when online, and you will see that daily chess is *the* best way to learn:
- opening variations you want to add to your repertoire
- middle game and positional play in general
- theoretical endgames
- analysis during opponent's move
IronIC_U wrote:
Like, if it’s King vs King & bishop, a lot of players might struggle to get a check mate,
I have to agree, a *lot* of players will struggle to mate with K + B vs. K. I would have to say, without tooting my own horn too much, I might even hold a draw vs. Fischer, Kasparov, or Carlsen under such conditions 
...
Is that one of your games? Sure black should have resigned long ago. I guess you have the option to report in such examples. If it was me I would just play it out and each time it's my move I would probably quietly shake my head about them not resigning. The win will arrive in time and I have a lot of other games. But then it has not been a big issue in my games with players frequently doing such things against me so I'm probably more relaxed about just letting it go on the odd occasion it happens.