I give up. I was wrong and I admit it. I have no point and I am arguing over a point that is missing the point.
My point is that it's the rules of the game. You will eventually win. Take a deep breath and bask in the knowledge that you have just broken the spirit of a 5 year old kid that is about to start crying uncontrollably because the pain of losing his 167th game in a row to you is ripping his little heart out.
My point is that it's the rules of the game. You will eventually win. Take a deep breath and bask in the knowledge that you have just broken the spirit of a 5 year old kid that is about to start crying uncontrollably because the pain of losing his 167th game in a row to you is ripping his little heart out.
I believe that's the life story of Hitler, so yeah, be careful.
Is this admitting you were wrong! LOL
"Perhaps I should rephase.."
Yeah, that's an addmission!
I am thinking maybe you need to go back and read my posts again...your comprehension is not what you might think it is. I was never really arguing your points and their validity(of which both are stupid but that was a side), I was saying to make a statement making out that there are only TWO reasons as to why someone would behave in this manner is stupid!
BTW Losing only has one o!
My point is that it's the rules of the game. You will eventually win. Take a deep breath and bask in the knowledge that you have just broken the spirit of a 5 year old kid that is about to start crying uncontrollably because the pain of losing his 167th game in a row to you is ripping his little heart out.
I believe that's the life story of Hitler, so yeah, be careful.
Which side was Hitler on? Was he crushing the five year old or was he on the receiving end of the irrepairable psychologically damaged kid that becomes Jason in Halloween 208?
So are there more than the two reasons you gave out there that might explain this behaviour?
Maybe, maybe not, but you have yet to enlighten me...
You are just being oblivious for no reason.
Oblivious to what exactly? Can you quote what I have missed here?
I could, but I would just be wasting my time talking to someone as stupid as you.
You guys are getting to brutal for me. I'm taking this one off my tracking list. Oh my virgin eyes will never be the same.
Uuuuuggghhh you are wasting my time with rampant unchecked stupidity.
Breathe, guys . . .
Anthony, I don't mind explaining things when they need to be explained. But if everytime anything you say that someone disputes you require them to take you through it with baby steps so that you understand...all too tedious. I also don't believe (well I don't want to) that you are that stupid.
What I pointed out was painfully obvious, and in short time I believe you saw that too, so why should I go through the hassle of explaining it to you? Is it to try and save face by hoping there is some sort of error you can jump on in my explantation?
CPawn: I'm just trying to cut down on people who let their clock run. It annoys me and i know it annoys others as well. You might not agree but I would rather post about it and hopefully gather momentum for maybe a change instead of letting jerks be jerks...
CPawn: I'm just trying to cut down on people who let their clock run. It annoys me and i know it annoys others as well. You might not agree but I would rather post about it and hopefully gather momentum for maybe a change instead of letting jerks be jerks...
Who decides what being a jerk is?
What change? How do you think it will change?
The next topics Suggo is going to troll about:
1: What is a jerk?
2: Change? What? How?
You don't consider these reasonable questions?
Well, at least you contributed as I think you have provided an answer to the first question.
Glad to help!
Actually, you probably shouldn't really be glad to be a good example in this case! But I suppose you wouldn't be such a fine example then hey! lol
I always find it amusing when a Live Chess player begins a 60 0 with an opponent he/she does not know, then starts ranting in chat when his/her opponent actually takes a minute to think about a move.
Of course, this is not the problem referred to in the start of this thread. We all know that the chess etiquette of new (don't know proper behavior)/rude (the one-move-from-checkmate crowd)/cheat-intent (get the win by d/c) players leaves something to be desired. The chess.com community can work with the first group to educate them, block the 2nd, and perhaps eliminate the 3rd if their behavior crosses clear bounds.
I'm hoping that the end to technology-induced disconnection losses promised in LC2 and beyond will reduce the driving force for folk to use the d/c as a means of going for the full point.
But, aside from a true seconds-per-move option which many would NOT opt for (I know I wouldn't), I'm not sure how we ever stop folk from simply bailing when the clear handwriting of their loss is on the wall. It even happens in OTB settings, though there the TDs have some discretion about how to handle truly rude behavior.
Gouryella, I have a solution for you. Instead of playing a "20 minute game". Try playing a "5 miute game" with "bonus time" added to the clock. You'll need to experment to see what combination of timer setting and bonus time works for you. But the idea is that each time you move, the bonus time is added to your clock. So, if you set the bonus to 60 seconds, every time you move, a minute is added to your clock. If you've se the bonus time to 15 seconds, then that's how much time you've added. By finding your own settings you'll be able to play a game that will, on average, be of similar length to your 20minute games, but will have the advantage that your opponent will run out of time faster if he's just stalling...
So are there more than the two reasons you gave out there that might explain this behaviour?
Maybe, maybe not, but you have yet to enlighten me...You are just being oblivious for no reason.