you confuse me chris
I'm not confusing you.
then what are you saying about this whole thing here ?
I said what I said, mostly agreeing with who I agreed with. Very clear.
agreeing with melvin , right ?
Good God, is it not obvious ?
Don't make me come in there!
lol, you guys haven't realized that their wasting their own time
Anyway, since their trying to play lose-lose, they want you to feel bad so don't fall into their trap!
Well I have yet to experiment on these few options:
1) Practise Cat & Mouse: Protect everything, manuever, manuever more and place your pieces ideally on their perfect squares, protect your weaknesses
2) Practise Endgame Technique: Sac the exchange on everything(Q for R, R for P
), promote to N&B, and practise your N&B tech on them( with a queen or two helping of course!
)
ok, just kidding on those 2( front one is true) , I know they won't respond to your moves
Those people have some problem with them, so maybe it's best to block them( definitely if you're playing long time controls)
But then again some people on Blitz take Verrrrrryyyyyyyyy long to make moves, but i think their thinking, so either side of the argument can be true
However, you should probably block rude people and slow movers if you want fast games
another BS from you imdeviate, wolfwind it will detect it if you did it repeatly, you won't get flagged for it if you only did it once in a while.
I agree with JohnnyRocco. I have no problem at all with a player legitametly taking a long time to think and move. The bad apples are the ones who just stop playing but want revenge on their opponent by making them waste real world time for the win. It is difficult to fathom the pettiness involved in wanting to take revenge on a player halfway around the world that you will never see and never know. But there it is.
And I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. I don't like "bad apples" in chess (or my diet, for that matter). I'm not condoning the behavior of players who actually walk away from a game and let the clock run out. It's rude and unsporting, and of course they should just resign. But that is not the issue I am addressing here. The issue is whether or not a chess website should attempt to regulate a player's conduct based on a perceived intention derived from the actual game itself....
Yes, but thats not the topic of the thread, so lets not conflate the two.
Playing to the end is different from abandonment:
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=221394454
...12 moves reached after about 2 minutes. Happily only a 10 minute game and not, say, a 1 hour game? Exactly why I wont play longer than 10 minutes. Its an easy solution, unfortunatly I don't consider 10 minute games to help me much as a chessplayer, they are just mild entertainment.
But actually playing a lost position through, to mate? Thats fine with me. No one is under some obligation to resign at someone else's convenience. But if you are done with the game, be a human being and click resign.
another BS from you imdeviate, wolfwind it will detect it if you did it repeatly, you won't get flagged for it if you only did it once in a while.
Listen to yourselves! Actually defending this ridiculous idea, that the software can devine what's going on in a player's mind and then, insult to injury, pass judgement on it. IMDeviate is right: the site owners have the right to use such a system. Their purpose is to attract and maintain membership. If enough users complain because they had to suffer the "hardship" of waiting for their opponent to use all his alotted time, it's understandable they would try a way to streamline the experience. But that doesn't make it right. These people who are complaining don't seem to understand the concept of a "clock" game. Their arguments are absurd: "My opponent didn't resign when I wanted him to, so he's a jerk." Who's the bad sport there? Imagine defending this idea in some other kind of competition........ It's the bottom of the ninth, the score is 25-0 with two outs. Is the team that's batting "rude and unsporting" because they don't concede the game and walk off the field? If the next batter gets two strikes and then hits a string of foul balls, is he a "jerk" for not striking out faster and ending the game so everybody can go home? I've seen basketball games where one team is ahead by 25 or 30 points with a couple of minutes left on the clock. I've never seen them arbitrarily stop the clock and call it quits. I especially like the sentiment some posters expressed: "I have better things to do than wait for some jerk to let his clock run down because he has a losing position...." Well, then go do those other things and don't get involved in a chess game you obviously don't have time for. Remember what Donald Byrne said after his "game of the century" with Fischer? "At the very moment when I resigned, most of the players in the room believed I had a won game!"
I think you are deliberatly not getting it.
The team that continues to go up to bat is NOT the analogy.
The analogy would be if the losing baseball team, after being badly outscored in the second inning, sits in the dugout and refuses to come out , causing the opposing team and the fans to sit there and wait them out for the next 3 hours, until nighttime when the umpire finally calls the game a forfeit.
That would be a proper analogy. Now defend this team's actions.
i agree that melvinbluestone is either intentionally not getting it and twisitng the arguement in order to prove that he/she is right and everyone else is wrong- or perhaps he/she engages is this type pf behavior and so he/she feels compelled to defend it to the end no matter how obviously against the ideas of fairplay and sportsmanship it is. perhaps he/she needs a good flogging to improve morale
I could say the same thing to you, like why do you feel like complaining about the fair play policy (when is working), that is stopping peoples from deliberately disconnecting when losing, aborting games because they just want to play white all the time.
I think that if you are not interested in playing your opponent that you should man up and let them know asap.
People time out their games in online chess, where the time controls can be many days per move and you blokes are complaining about people timing out in speed chess. When you win a game, are you not happy to win ? Or do you just habitually complain for the sake of having something to complain about ?
I absolutely do not care, at all, when my opponent times out in online 3 day-per-move chess.
Why?
because I am not forced to sit there for three days at the keyboard. I am off doing other stuff. He times out eventually, I win, no big deal.
But if its a 1 hour game, and my opponent blunders in the first 30 seconds and does not resign, but instead goes off to watch TV or something, I am left having to sit there, for one hour, waiting (I can't leave, because I have no idea if he is about to make a move or not).
Online chess - Letting it time out because you are angry is no big deal at all. I don't care because I am off watching the Texans game or something.
Live chess - Is wasting my time. I have to sit there and babysit my game for the next hour, when I could be watching the Texans game. Play or resign.
Of course, I wont be wasting the hour, since I stick to 10 minutes because of this scenario. I would love an hour game with honorable opponents.
fischer did it for psychological warfare and then came back and gave spassky a sweet spanking
another BS from you imdeviate, wolfwind it will detect it if you did it repeatly, you won't get flagged for it if you only did it once in a while.
kco needs to go easy on the Foster's.
People familiar with chess and/or technology know I'm right.
As of today's date, no software on this planet can detect the intent of a player...especially not half way around the world. The "fair play policy" is based on parameters set by chess.com. That's great, if the parameters make sense then most of the time they will ensnare only poor sports.
Problem is, as I've said before, the parameters will also capture normal chess behavior, effectively changing the rules of chess. Dumb.
Ooops - my clock just ran out in a 1 minute game and I'm a piece down but I had mate on my next move. I've been flagged.
Like I said, BS.
The programmers seem to have picked good parameters. You aren't flagged just for timing out. I think it is a ratio of time used for last move vs. games time controls. It's working very well and it surely hasn't caught very many honest users. It probably hasn't caught any honest users.
im new with the clock and just got familiar with it but im learning
There's another important point to be made here, and it may be why some players are supporting chess.com's mind-reading software (aka the"fair-play policy"). I've played many games where I've gone up a piece or two early on, even a queen, and got annoyed when my opponent didn't resign. But then, somehow, I managed to get in trouble, and occasionally, even lost the game. Sometimes I just made blunders, but sometimes I just misjudged the position. My "annoying, obviously lost" opponent got the win. As the saying goes, it's not over 'til it's over. Is it possible these people supporting this policy just don't want to do the work and convert their "overwhelming advantage" to a win? They don't want to run the risk of blowing a "won" game.
If your opponent was making moves, then obviously your opponent was not letting the time run out.
Why are you having such a hard time understanding what this thread is about?
I was playing in the HS Nationals in 1990, and our 4th board left a hopelessly lost game and went to the hotel lobby and watched 'the A team' until his flag dropped.
The thread title should make it plain what the thread is about. I don't see that it can be argued over. Everyone can read it.
I have no idea why you call it splitting hairs when its the whole point. We are here to play chess. If my opponent is playing then so am I. If my opponent has abandoned the game and gone bowling, then I am no longer playing.
How much does your chess improve when your opponent leaves and you sit for 30 minutes waiting for the time to run out?
another BS from you imdeviate, wolfwind it will detect it if you did it repeatly, you won't get flagged for it if you only did it once in a while.
kco needs to go easy on the Foster's.
People familiar with chess and/or technology know I'm right.
As of today's date, no software on this planet can detect the intent of a player...especially not half way around the world. The "fair play policy" is based on parameters set by chess.com. That's great, if the parameters make sense then most of the time they will ensnare only poor sports.
Problem is, as I've said before, the parameters will also capture normal chess behavior, effectively changing the rules of chess. Dumb.
Ooops - my clock just ran out in a 1 minute game and I'm a piece down but I had mate on my next move. I've been flagged.
Like I said, BS.
The programmers seem to have picked good parameters. You aren't flagged just for timing out. I think it is a ratio of time used for last move vs. games time controls. It's working very well and it surely hasn't caught very many honest users. It probably hasn't caught any honest users.
Nobody knows for sure what parameters are being used, but yes you can get flagged for timing out.
I know that, I said "You aren't flagged just for timing out.", as in "The sole reason for being flagged is not timing out."
And since nobody knows for sure what parameters or even what data is being looked at...(for example you'd think the clock AND position on the board would be relevant compared with the level of each player, rather than just the clock) I'm not sure how you can say it hasn't caught honest users.
I'm just guessing here, but I don't think chess.com takes the board position into account because of the reasons you mentioned. I think they look at the ratio of time spent on the last move before timing out vs. total alloted game time, but again, I'm just guessing.
When people professing innocence gripe in the forums about being sanctioned, how do you know 100% of them are lying?
Probably some of them are...but all of them?
Most forum posts about fair play seem to be because of bad/laggy internet connections, and remember that you have to get flagged many times before you have restrictions applied. I've violated the fair play policy two or three times, for what I think are good reasons, but this isn't enough to get restricted. Honest users shouldn't get flagged more than 2-3 times per 50 games. (50 is just an arbitrarily chosen number that seems reasonable to me). What I'm trying to say is that very very few, if any, honest users will get restricted.
There's another important point to be made here, and it may be why some players are supporting chess.com's mind-reading software (aka the"fair-play policy"). I've played many games where I've gone up a piece or two early on, even a queen, and got annoyed when my opponent didn't resign. But then, somehow, I managed to get in trouble, and occasionally, even lost the game. Sometimes I just made blunders, but sometimes I just misjudged the position. My "annoying, obviously lost" opponent got the win. As the saying goes, it's not over 'til it's over. Is it possible these people supporting this policy just don't want to do the work and convert their "overwhelming advantage" to a win? They don't want to run the risk of blowing a "won" game.
I raised that same possibility in multiple prior posts.
Players who think they are winning but don't know how to convert will complain the other side won't resign/is stalling.
Players who think they are winning but they're really not, will complain the other side won't resign/is stalling.
Players who think they are winning and might be winning but don't have enough time left on the clock will complain the other side won't resign/is stalling.
I could go on...but this possibilities are so basic I just don't get why people still complain when they should be out there winning games. If they were really winning that is.
It seems there is a small cadre of people who either didnt read the thread title or just dont get it.
IMDeviate, try rereading the OP and see if it relates, in any way, to your off-topic response.
agreeing with melvin , right ?