Should Chess Time Wins be Won for Less Points Given?

Sort:
Avatar of PrpleCherry

I may just be a bad sport in general; but when playing a blitz or rapid game, I feel as if games won by an opponent's loss of time feel somewhat unjustified- or games lost by mere seconds seem all the more crushing. there is a skill to play chess by the clock- especially in bullet, but honestly, it feels more like playing for a glorified draw; as in not much genuine strategy is enveloped in the game's core, and the player isn't learning to play, but learning on how short you can go without playing. 

I dunno; I just think I've won too many games I shouldn't have, and lost too many that were just shy of a pawn to be considered a draw of time vs. Insufficient material. - I would like time-wins to be genuine wins, sure; but have less of an increase in ELO points as it would be if one were to win by checkmate.

Just give me a month when I'm back to playing bullet games; and I'll take a 180 from this thesis.

Avatar of eric0022
PrpleCherry wrote:

I may just be a bad sport in general; but when playing a blitz or rapid game, I feel as if games won by an opponent's loss of time feel somewhat unjustified- or games lost by mere seconds seem all the more crushing. there is a skill to play chess by the clock- especially in bullet, but honestly, it feels more like playing for a glorified draw; as in not much genuine strategy is enveloped in the game's core, and the player isn't learning to play, but learning on how short you can go without playing. 

I dunno; I just think I've won too many games I shouldn't have, and lost too many that were just shy of a pawn to be considered a draw of time vs. Insufficient material. - I would like time-wins to be genuine wins, sure; but have less of an increase in ELO points as it would be if one were to win by checkmate.

 

 

Just give me a month when I'm back to playing bullet games; and I'll take a 180 from this thesis.

 

It's also possible that a player's timeout is due to more time needed to think out the defences in a losing position.

 

And more importantly, if I am one move away from checkmating my opponent and my opponent leaves the game running until his clock runs out, then I would be disadvantaged if my rating gain is lower.

Avatar of PrpleCherry
eric0022 wrote:
PrpleCherry wrote:

I may just be a bad sport in general; but when playing a blitz or rapid game, I feel as if games won by an opponent's loss of time feel somewhat unjustified- or games lost by mere seconds seem all the more crushing. there is a skill to play chess by the clock- especially in bullet, but honestly, it feels more like playing for a glorified draw; as in not much genuine strategy is enveloped in the game's core, and the player isn't learning to play, but learning on how short you can go without playing. 

I dunno; I just think I've won too many games I shouldn't have, and lost too many that were just shy of a pawn to be considered a draw of time vs. Insufficient material. - I would like time-wins to be genuine wins, sure; but have less of an increase in ELO points as it would be if one were to win by checkmate.

 

 

Just give me a month when I'm back to playing bullet games; and I'll take a 180 from this thesis.

 

It's also possible that a player's timeout is due to more time needed to think out the defences in a losing position.

 

And more importantly, if I am one move away from checkmating my opponent and my opponent leaves the game running until his clock runs out, then I would be disadvantaged if my rating gain is lower.

Wouldn't your second example be that of an abandoned game? I would not see a problem with a rating loss in abandonment; as true poor sportsmanship like such is deserving of such a decrease.

Although, I would agree with your first statement, as players would be unrewarded for genuine stradegy, at the expense of their opponent's incompetence.- I just think that time wins be something like 6/7 points, as opposed to a full 8-10 increase  ( being more varied in rapid, of course).

 

It would definitely be easier to assess with public chess, but I could imagine it being implemented within calculated piece points, whereas if a player lost on time, but had a whole queen to spare.

Avatar of eric0022
PrpleCherry wrote:
eric0022 wrote:
PrpleCherry wrote:

I may just be a bad sport in general; but when playing a blitz or rapid game, I feel as if games won by an opponent's loss of time feel somewhat unjustified- or games lost by mere seconds seem all the more crushing. there is a skill to play chess by the clock- especially in bullet, but honestly, it feels more like playing for a glorified draw; as in not much genuine strategy is enveloped in the game's core, and the player isn't learning to play, but learning on how short you can go without playing. 

I dunno; I just think I've won too many games I shouldn't have, and lost too many that were just shy of a pawn to be considered a draw of time vs. Insufficient material. - I would like time-wins to be genuine wins, sure; but have less of an increase in ELO points as it would be if one were to win by checkmate.

 

 

Just give me a month when I'm back to playing bullet games; and I'll take a 180 from this thesis.

 

It's also possible that a player's timeout is due to more time needed to think out the defences in a losing position.

 

And more importantly, if I am one move away from checkmating my opponent and my opponent leaves the game running until his clock runs out, then I would be disadvantaged if my rating gain is lower.

Wouldn't your second example be that of an abandoned game? I would not see a problem with a rating loss in abandonment; as true poor sportsmanship like such is deserving of such a decrease.

Although, I would agree with your first statement, as players would be unrewarded for genuine stradegy, at the expense of their opponent's incompetence.- I just think that time wins be something like 6/7 points, as opposed to a full 8-10 increase  ( being more varied in rapid, of course).

 

It would definitely be easier to assess with public chess, but I could imagine it being implemented within calculated piece points, whereas if a player lost on time, but had a whole queen to spare.

 

The main issue to consider is probably the complexity of implementation, in terms of keeping track of scores, rating points and so on. In online chess like on this site, establishing such scoring systems will probably require much complex programming.