Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. Subscriber Very Rusty
    Treat Everyone Equal
    04 Jan '07 05:02
    Why would someone stay in a game with a Rook, Two pawns, & King of course....Against a Rook, Knight, + Five Pawns & king? With no chances of promoting a pawn??...Perhaps someone can explain it ?
  2. Donation !~TONY~!
    1...c5!
    04 Jan '07 05:05
    Because people don't like to lose. This has been brought up many times. Just forget about it.
  3. 04 Jan '07 05:14
    Originally posted by Very Rusty
    Why would someone stay in a game with a Rook, Two pawns, & King of course....Against a Rook, Knight, + Five Pawns & king? With no chances of promoting a pawn??...Perhaps someone can explain it ?
    He might think your rating will rise shortly, so if he stays in the game he'll lose fewer points when he finally resigns.
  4. Standard member spud2048
    Rooney 8
    04 Jan '07 05:25
    Originally posted by Very Rusty
    Why would someone stay in a game with a Rook, Two pawns, & King of course....Against a Rook, Knight, + Five Pawns & king? With no chances of promoting a pawn??...Perhaps someone can explain it ?
    Some people do this to manipulate their rating.

    For example, lets say your playing someone who's 200 points below you and you end up in a position you really can't win from.

    Some people decide to play as slow as they can from this lost position, hoping their oponents rating will continue to rise, so that when they eventually decide to quit they will lose less points because their opponent has gained potentially many points during the stalling.

    In theory you can drag a game out many months (depending on the time settings).

    This could be avoided if the total points handed out was decided by using your rating when you started the game rather than your rating at the end of the game.

    I'm not sure this is a good idea though because games can last months and your rating at the start of the game SHOULD be less accurate than your rating at the end of the game because you will have completed more games at the end (if you see what I mean).

    Spud.
  5. Subscriber Very Rusty
    Treat Everyone Equal
    04 Jan '07 05:25
    Originally posted by Ramiri15
    He might think your rating will rise shortly, so if he stays in the game he'll lose fewer points when he finally resigns.
    Now that sounds like a logical explanation....!!! I just never thought of that...Just about a few points!!
  6. Subscriber Very Rusty
    Treat Everyone Equal
    04 Jan '07 05:27
    Originally posted by spud2048
    Some people do this to manipulate their rating.

    For example, lets say your playing someone who's 200 points below you and you end up in a position you really can't win from.

    Some people decide to play as slow as they can from this lost position, hoping their oponents rating will continue to rise, so that when they eventually decide to quit they will l ...[text shortened]... game because you will have completed more games at the end (if you see what I mean).

    Spud.
    Yes, I see what you mean and thank you also !
  7. Subscriber Very Rusty
    Treat Everyone Equal
    04 Jan '07 05:39
    Actually that could backfire, if I happen to lose a few games, is going to put me closer to his/her rating , therefore, more points instead of less
  8. Standard member spud2048
    Rooney 8
    04 Jan '07 07:26
    Originally posted by Very Rusty
    Actually that could backfire, if I happen to lose a few games, is going to put me closer to his/her rating , therefore, more points instead of less
    Yes it can backfire.

    But look at your opponents progress graph and win/loss ratio.
    This usually gives you a very accurate indication which direction their points score will go over the coming weeks/months.

    Also people do it for less sinistar reasons, such as they may be on 1480, have 2 or three games they know they will win that will take them over the 'magical' 1500 level, so they will stall their losses until they get 1500, so its an achievement, then take the losses.

    Spud.
  9. 04 Jan '07 07:59
    Originally posted by spud2048
    For example, lets say your playing someone who's 200 points below you and you end up in a position you really can't win from.

    Some people decide to play as slow as they can from this lost position, hoping their oponents rating will continue to rise, so that when they eventually decide to quit they will lose less points because their opponent has gained potentially many points during the stalling.
    Exactly this happened once for me.

    I entered a tournament and one of the members in my group had 1250 points. He had a quick win with on of the others so I looked into this game and a few others that he had won. I found out that he was playing really good and was worth a rating far higher than this. I would eventually lose, of that I was sure.

    I decided to drag the game. I moved at the latest possible hour of each move. And I was right: His rating rose beyond mine and climbed further. Not before he had a rating of 2000 my game was lost.

    I lost only a few rating points for this game, instead of losing 30 points if I would let him finish me of quickly. By the way – I won all the other games and if it was not for this player I would progress to the next round.

    Sometimes it is worth dragging the game. Sometimes is not just about a few rating points.

    …and there are other reasons as well.
  10. 04 Jan '07 08:22
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Exactly this happened once for me.

    I entered a tournament and one of the members in my group had 1250 points. He had a quick win with on of the others so I looked into this game and a few others that he had won. I found out that he was playing really good and was worth a rating far higher than this. I would eventually lose, of that I was sure.

    I de ...[text shortened]... game. Sometimes is not just about a few rating points.

    …and there are other reasons as well.
    Maybe I would do this also, but I would not go so far to wait until the last possible hour. And I also wouldn't want to hold up a tournament round by playing slow.

    Adje
  11. Standard member spud2048
    Rooney 8
    04 Jan '07 08:33
    Originally posted by adje
    Maybe I would do this also, but I would not go so far to wait until the last possible hour. And I also wouldn't want to hold up a tournament round by playing slow.

    Adje
    You right but......

    Some people have been known to deliverately resign 100's of games in a day to enter a tournament with a limit of lets say 1300.

    So you end up playing against someone you will have virutally zero chance of beating, who could be rated 300 points less than you, now that is not fair.

    The tournament entry formula has been changed (I think) to try to stop people doing this.

    I think the formula is something like
    (current rating + highest rating) / 2

    But still a drop from 2000 to 1000 overnight in their current rating will break this formula, and people do it.
  12. 04 Jan '07 09:21
    Originally posted by adje
    Maybe I would do this also, but I would not go so far to wait until the last possible hour. And I also wouldn't want to hold up a tournament round by playing slow.

    Adje
    No, exactly, neither did I.
    If this game would hold up the whole tournament I would give it up.

    And this guy, he was new to RHP and had a lower rating that he should have anyway. It wasn't artificially low, he had just not had the time to find his correct rating yet. No shame of his.
  13. Standard member Dragon Fire
    Lord of all beasts
    04 Jan '07 10:18
    Perhaps he thinks you don't know how to win it, will blunder and he will get a back rank cheapo.
  14. 04 Jan '07 15:10
    Maybe he just wants to see how you beat him. Maybe he hopes he will learn something from the experience.
  15. 04 Jan '07 15:33
    Originally posted by twiceaknight
    Maybe he just wants to see how you beat him. Maybe he hopes he will learn something from the experience.
    Exactly that, or how does one learn?