lol
when your opponent doesn't punch his clock...
Sort:
DrCheckevertim wrote:
TheElementalMaster wrote:
Think about it this way:
It were escalated to fighting for the WC.
Winner: Braggin rights, 1 million dollars, and fame.
Loser: Shame, subject of bullies, increduolous comments
If your opponent was going to lose on time would you remind him or no?
Your calls.
A few problems with this argument. First problem is that the stakes are ordinarily never that high. Second problem is that this is not a matter of determing what is right or wrong (especially in situations of lower stakes), it is a matter of being able to justify a wrong by pointing towards potential gains. In other words, in this situation you might be saying "what is one small lapse in sportsmanship when it means I will win a million dollars." I may admit, even in this situation, someone so sportsmanlike and respectful as myself might not remind my opponent of their timer. HOWEVER, I will not later try to justify my action on a moral ground, rather I would acknowledge "yes, it wasn't necessarily the right thing, but I won a million dollars and nobody really got hurt because of it, so I can live with myself..."
First, that wasn't even an arguement. I was just posting a hypothetical reenacment. And, it is like that. Do you want to win rating or no?
(Me, no since I don't belive in tourney chess)
Here's a definition of argument:
"a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong."
It was indeed an argument. 
DrCheckevertim wrote:
Here's a definition of argument:
"a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong."
It was indeed an argument.
"It was indeed an arguement"
lol, so any hypothetical situatuion is an arguement? I didn't even use any evidence, just merely a situation
You do realize this thread was dead 18 months ago at post #5 ?
How or why it was brought back to life only the great Beyondo knows.
TheElementalMaster wrote:
DrCheckevertim wrote:
Here's a definition of argument:
"a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong."
It was indeed an argument.
"It was indeed an arguement"
lol, so any hypothetical situatuion is an arguement? I didn't even use any evidence, just merely a situation
I never said "any hypothetical situation is an argument."
You don't have to outright state your intentions or a clear side when making a pursuasive statement. By framing your hypothetical situation with such bias, though, you may as well have outright declared the "correct" answer. You frame it as if you'd have to be crazy to remind your opponent of their clock. Who would read your "hypothetical" and not think so? In this way, it was an argument supporting one side.
I don't really care for arguing semantics. Even if you don't call it an "argument," your hypothetical leads readers strongly to one conclusion over the other. But your hypothetical is an extreme outlier, it's not representative of normal chess situations and it's not a good way to approach this problem.
DrCheckevertim wrote:
TheElementalMaster wrote:
DrCheckevertim wrote:
Here's a definition of argument:
"a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong."
It was indeed an argument.
"It was indeed an arguement"
lol, so any hypothetical situatuion is an arguement? I didn't even use any evidence, just merely a situation
I never said "any hypothetical situation is an argument."
You don't have to outright state your intentions or a clear side when making a pursuasive statement. By framing your hypothetical situation with such bias, though, you may as well have outright declared the "correct" answer. You frame it as if you'd have to be crazy to remind your opponent of their clock. Who would read your "hypothetical" and not think so? In this way, it was an argument supporting one side.
I don't really care for arguing semantics. Even if you don't call it an "argument," your hypothetical leads readers strongly to one conclusion over the other. But your hypothetical is an extreme outlier, it's not representative of normal chess situations and it's not a good way to approach this problem.
Ok:
1. Did I pick one side or no? No. I just said the stakes are sort of like the tourney
2. I never said either player was down in time or material. I just merely said that he started to lose some time and you wonder if you should tell the truth or no?
(I would pick reminding.)
I concur that if the opponent is very young/old/inexperienced its good to give 1 reminder.
Funny story, last year I played an OTB game where my opponent (adult) kept forgetting to hit the clock, even after I gave a reminder. In a late middlegame where Im clearly ahead but lowish on time he forgets to hit it for 3-4 minutes. Then he realized his mistake and hit BOTH sides of the clock for some reason.... first his side then my side!
I won.
When my opponent DOES punch the clock I say: "Uhh dude you're going to break that..."
I would leave it
Lol M4g1c14n.
Good point prowl.
owltuna wrote:
DrCheckevertim wrote:
Here's a definition of argument:
"a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong."
It was indeed an argument.
No, it wasn't.
I can't help it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
I hate myself when I dont hit the clock!!
I know right.
Oct 3, 2014
0
#37
I have had this come up in tournament play about 3 times. In each case I told them about it once. I did not say anything after that. In each case they began to figure it out after letting the clock run for 15 to 20 minutes. I also won each game over the board.
owltuna wrote:
Ha ha, landloch, I was hoping someone would pick up on that.
No you weren't.
╥﹏╥
I just think a LOT and occasionally glance at the clock, if the player still hasn't gotten it, I wait until I have a more than decent lead, and quietly point to the clock with a pen. If he STILL doesn't... I tell him. (And win after he blunders form time pressure)