Won on time
Sort:
As will be clear from my original post, I agree wholeheartedly with Janus, Manipulated and silentfilmstar. Frankly, I think that the fact that the site claims on our behalf is ridiculous interference.
1. Fotoman congratulations on being able to express yourself so clearly without your inner sexism and homophobia showing through in your posts.
2. Does anyone know how to turn on the auto-vacation time out protection?
Silentfilmstar: I'm not sure if you were alluding to my post or not with your comment about idiots... but I never said that. I don't think it. I wasn't able to see another post that said that either. I'm not trying to be combative, I just disagree that it ought to be an option on rated games.
Manipulated: Your comparison to the three fold repetition does not make sense. If in an over the board game someone's clock runs out, the opponent does not have the option to claim the win or give his opponent more time.
There is nothing wrong with playing just for fun. I don't take my rating all that seriously. I play a good deal of unrated games with some of my closer friends on the site. If chess.com added the functionality to the rated games to decline the win on time, I wouldn't pack up and leave... I would basically just ignore it. I just don't think a really valid reason to add it has been brought up.
Feb 1, 2008
0
#44
Munchkin, it should be on the moment you purchase your premium membership. It's not optional. We can't see any reason why someone would WANT to lose a game on time if they have an option of being placed on vacation by the system (at which point they can come off of vacation whenever they want and continue playing.)
no i can't see a resaon for that either. Its just that i didn't see a turn it on option and i didn't want to time a game out just to see if its working. Thanks for the info.
I just noticed in another forum that Reb endorses a sportsmanship rating on this site. Abuse of that system will surely be just as problematic as abuse of the button to allow more time. While I agree that a sportsmanship rating will be useful, I don't see how one can support rating people on a subjective basis while arguing that the 'delay forfeiture' option will cause messiness in the forums.
Its amazing to me that the staff would even consider a "more time" button, given that there is already an option to play 1 move every 14 days! Now, add to that there is also the option to go on vacation if you think you wont be able to move for a few days, even a couple of weeks, and there is certainly no need for a more time option. I also would think such an option would require quite a bit of work for the prorgammers here. However, if the option is made available I think it should be given only to those players who want it and I dont want it. This would prevent the name calling from players who time out against me if I dont even have the option of giving them more time.
The point of making it an OPTION is that you don't have to use it. And that sums up the entire argument. Nobody loses if the option is added, while some benefit from it. Basicly the current policy is to make me claim my games so nobody will whine when other players claim theirs. I'd say that's a rather grotesque interference in what is after all MY business. Make me claim so you don't feel bad when you claim? It seems to me that that is more weakhearted than not claiming.
mathijs wrote:
The point of making it an OPTION is that you don't have to use it. And that sums up the entire argument. Nobody loses if the option is added, while some benefit from it. Basicly the current policy is to make me claim my games so nobody will whine when other players claim theirs. I'd say that's a rather grotesque interference in what is after all MY business. Make me claim so you don't feel bad when you claim? It seems to me that that is more weakhearted than not claiming.
Why would I want an option I dont intend to use? If I have the option and some opponent times out he will probably pitch a fit like a child and call me names for NOT giving him more time. If I dont even have the option to do so then he has to direct his fit in another direction. Look, this happens all the time on other servers with the takeback option......I NEVER give takebacks but I can if I so desire. Often when some opponent wants a takeback and I refuse (ALWAYS) they curse me and even my family. The same thing will happen with the more time option and thats why I do not wish to have it. Let those who want it have it , I dont care, they arent serious chess players anyway but dont give it to those of us who do not want it for the reason(s) I just stated.
Reb wrote: silentfilmstar13 wrote:
To the players against having this option available,
I've noticed that many people on this site seem to be against ideas that do not negatively affect them in any way. The ideas only apply to the people who will wish to use them. What is the point in arguing against it? Is it to make sure that everyone takes internet chess as seriously as you do? I doubt I'd ever use the button, were it there, but it would be a nice addition for those who want it. Most of us are here for fun. It makes me wonder who the losers really are.
You are completely wrong here as sooner or later there would be some guy who loses on time who gets upset that the winning player refused to give him more time. So, this option would just create more problems and ill feelings.
well said
I say again: who here is weakhearted? Those who dare to chose ( on a chess site for god sake) or those who want the choice to be made for them so don't have to take responsibility.
mathijs wrote: I say again: who here is weakhearted? Those who dare to chose ( on a chess site for god sake) or those who want the choice to be made for them so don't have to take responsibility.
You havent even played any games here, so why do you care anyway? The rules in chess are the rules and there is no "choice" to be made. Takebacks and giving more time to an opponent that has run out of time, or is about to, is against the rules in chess. There are people who like to play by the long established rules of chess and I am merely one of them. Maybe chess com should just offer games with no time limit at all? Both rated and unrated..no time limit for those who dont wish to play by the rules of chess.
Reb wrote: mathijs wrote: I say again: who here is weakhearted? Those who dare to chose ( on a chess site for god sake) or those who want the choice to be made for them so don't have to take responsibility.
You havent even played any games here, so why do you care anyway? The rules in chess are the rules and there is no "choice" to be made. Takebacks and giving more time to an opponent that has run out of time, or is about to, is against the rules in chess. There are people who like to play by the long established rules of chess and I am merely one of them. Maybe chess com should just offer games with no time limit at all? Both rated and unrated..no time limit for those who dont wish to play by the rules of chess.
I haven't played here yet, but the discussion is interesting. By the way, on an other site (www.chesshere.com) where I play there is this option (it is recommended there by the site; I strongly oppose that recommendation).
In response to your actual argument; first of all in over the board chess you have to actually claim a flag fall. But even if that were not the case, the rules regarding time are incidental to the rules of chess itself (unless you wish to argue that a game where a flag fall is not claimed is not a chess game). Not claiming a does not break any rules that are fundamental to the game itself.
What I am advocating is simply that a player have the option to not claim. So far I have seen two arguments against this case; the first that it is against the rules (as I have stated above: not against rules that are fundamental to chess) the second that giving this option will result in a lot of whining by players who lost on time outs. As I stated before, this is a cowardly argument, because you want the site legislation make decisions for you so you don't have to be responsible. But, being a coward myself, I sympathize, so let me remark that on this other site where I play, no significant problems have arisen.
Finally, regarding Reb's not wanting the option even if it becomes available; that boils down to wanting the option to have the option to claim, which is clearly the same as just having the option to claim. But not wanting that option you'd simply make the choice for all your games at once (assuming it's irreversible) instead of one game at a time. You can do that yourself too (there is no site rule neccesary for that).
Cheers John (cyanlloyd), I'm glad that you mention it. I just lost 4 games in a row because I couldn't make it to a computer in time. I've lost around 200 points. The worst one was against DonVito, a match that was in a position waiting for him to resign, probably mate in 10 or something like that. I agree with silentfilmstar in one sense; a player that feels he shouldn't have won a game should have the right to offer it in hindsight to the other player. On the other hand NM's right; Timed games are part and parcel of rated chess.
Anyway, fact is that I lost the games because of my own time management. You won the game because you were on top of time. At the moment the vacation option allows games to be paused but only if you have no moves to make in any of your games. I can't even suggest that the vacation option be opened so it can be used by those with moves to make as this would open things up to exploitation by players needing more time. The solution: I'll just have to work my way back up. It's no big deal as at the end of the day we're all on here to have a bit of fun.
I disagree with this request. Chess.com does not need the feature. Vacation mode and time settings are ample backup to prevent time losses. The biggest issue is that most players put way too much stock into ratings. Forget the rating and just play chess.
well I rememberd that there is a button or an option where you can put your self on vacation if you need more time.
All of these solutions are something that player 'A' can do. In the event that player 'A' doesn't do these things, is there something player 'B' can do, if he so chooses? No. Perhaps we shouldn't stop somebody from killing himself because there are suicide hotlines and help groups.
I love making dramatic analogies. People argue that I can't draw a comparison between such things when, really, the logic is the same in both scenarios.
arigalt wrote: well I rememberd that there is a button or an option where you can put your self on vacation if you need more time.
Arigalt.
The vacation button is not there if you need more time as you can only go 'on vacation' when it it not your move. In effect you're giving your opponents more time. Some might argue, that being able to do this without having to request it of your opponent, is unfair.
0
#59
EvansGambit wrote: arigalt wrote: well I rememberd that there is a button or an option where you can put your self on vacation if you need more time.
Arigalt.
The vacation button is not there if you need more time as you can only go 'on vacation' when it it not your move. In effect you're giving your opponents more time. Some might argue, that being able to do this without having to request it of your opponent, is unfair.
So you're saying you can give your opponents more time by going on vacation? I guess that eliminates the need for the add more time button.
how about this idea, if you feel that your opponent is won and it doesn't seem like they are going to make a move, then just resign and that way you don't have to feel like you got an unfair win, nor does your opponent have the right to say he had an unfair loss. If you wish to be that nice, then that is your perrogative.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.