Honestly, I don't understand the chess.com correspondence chess argument. I can not imagine a more painless feeling than finishing up a game in which you could find the moves with your eyes closed. Why not just think of the game that will take 30 days to finish as a game that "You haven't yet won, but almost certainly will." I don't know, to me that would feel like I won anyway (unless of course I eventually screw up ; but I will assume that won't happen if it's very unlikely). Someone who makes me take 6 months to finish off a "totally won game"... does not cause me pain in the slightest. If I am not interested in the current position where I am up two queens, then I can simply remember the parts of the game that were more interesting.
The only slight problem is perhaps that a game taking longer would mean more time before you could go over the game. Of course it could be argued that if the game lasts 80 moves for example, it wouldn't hurt to go over the first 20 moves or something. It's unlikely it would affect the last portion of the game, and even if it somehow did I would understand. Besides, even if you didn't go over that game until it finished, it's hard to imagine that there wouldn't be other games you finished, or even master games, that you could analyze in the meantime.
Hypothetically, maybe in some scenario it's in my best interest that my opponent resigns as it helps me go over the game more quickly. But it's not about what I think. I would never ask a person to live under the same values as me if the only justification I used for it was "because they are my values." If playing on in some lopsided position doesn't feel like a waste of time to you, who am I to tell you it is? I can only say if it's a waste to me; I can't say it's a waste to you if you find it productive. It's like telling someone whose favorite ice cream is chocolate, that it's actually not their favorite flavor.
And of course, whether that post was clear or not depends on the individual too. To me it all seemed clear, but that's probably because it's my own post. To others, they might not have known what I meant. If it's not clear I could try to clarify parts of it.
I don't care if someone doesn't resign my game, but it is rather annoying when it takes 5 months longer for the next round to start in a tournament because 1 game is left at 14 days / move where the player is down a queen in another game and won't resign.
yeah Im playing someone about 100 points higher rated right now and he just has his king and I have king + Queen... annoying but If he wants to play to mate, then I will oblige.
Yes in my personal case I would resign more quickly if it were a correspondence tournament, as it affects a larger amount of people than my opponent and I.
Nonetheless, I am generally uncomfortable with telling other people what their perfect resignation time is as I feel like it's, frankly, none of my business. I generally don't like saying how someone ought to spend their time even if it might seem unreasonable to me personally.
If the person playing on simply values that .000000001% chance, and is not trying to waste the time of others, then I still respect that. I guess that's impractical -- I don't know -- it's like my genes don't allow me to interfere with or even judge personal decisions that do not belong to me.
Then again, maybe I'm only saying what I'm saying because there isn't money on the line for those tournaments -- in "real" correspondence tournaments, the issue would of course be more serious.
Sigh... I don't know -- I still just don't feel like judging. Look, one would be an idiot to try to make a living off of correspondence chess tournaments in the first place -- go into it realizing that there is the potential for it to take a really, really, long time. If it ends more quickly than you thought, great, but don't count on it.
Besides, if a person is willing to play a game of chess that takes years, I would be surprised that they wouldn't be prepared to wait extremely long periods of time with only slow progression in the game.
I understand that someone might not want to resign in live chess, hoping that the opponent will run out of time, but if someone has only a king left in an "online chess" game, he doesn't resign and he stops playing, so I have to wait two days before he makes a move, that's just a pure stupidity in my opinion.
maybe waiting to see if you get banned .. lol
I said someone.... just theoretically, i didn't offend anyone in particular :)
wohhh, calm down.
I've won many games when I thought it was hopeless to go on. People make bad mistakes when they thought they have already won. I would never drag out a losing situation for days,these were live games.
I am a little tired of this forum. Can someone tell me how to leave?
After the last comment and before you post your reply, there's a box that says "Tracking comments!" Check that off.
Thanks a lot, SmyslovFan! Never give up discussing? Actually I do now. See you guys.
This is very annoying in online chess. I'm currently playing some games where the outcome is NID, i could maybe draw these games if it was a blitz game with 20 sec remaining on my side but in online it is just pointless to play further. Nevertheless, my opponent keeps playing these absolute dead lost positions. I would even win these games blindfolded against Houdini.
Luckily, he doesn't spend 3 days to move because in this case these games could continue for months..
Still,i don't see the point, really.