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

Only Chess Forum

  1. 10 Jul '11 19:47 / 2 edits
    I was wondering if it was misleading to state as many RHP profiles do, that the clock is part of the game. It is part of the game obviously that if your clock runs out and a skull appears, you will lose if your opponent claims the skull. However, it doesn't really seem to be part of the game as a factor in chess-playing ability as in OTB chess. The clock is definitely part of the game in OTB chess and quite often a factor among club players and masters, as it is a measure of one's ability to to be mentally nimble and agile in chess strategy. In contrast, I wonder about the meaning of a clock with regard to correspondence chess.

    It seems, the clock is not really part of the game in this RHP correspondence chess in the true sense but in a technical sense unrelated to chess. For example, I think of RHP game load and personal commitments outside of RHP as dwarfing the RHP clock.

    In other words, the appearance of a skull is generally more indicative of a player's game load and/or personal demands outside of RHP, and not really indicative of the player's chess or mental ability, such as it is in OTB chess. In correspondence type chess such as RHP, the clock is not really part of the game of chess but more about issues unrelated to the game of chess?

    With that said, however, I will claim the RHP skull relentlessly without exception.
  2. 10 Jul '11 20:09
    I don't agree with you. The timeout is the player's own choice.
    It is your own responsibility to keep your game load manageable. And if you have stuff to do outside RHP then don't play a 1-3 day timeout without time bank.
    I personally have one game running with a 1/7 timeout, the rest is 3/7 and over.

    Both players agree about the clock pre-game and therefore it is part of the game.
  3. 10 Jul '11 20:12
    If the clock's not part of the game, why have time limits at all?
  4. 10 Jul '11 20:35
    Originally posted by yashin
    I don't agree with you. The timeout is the player's own choice.
    It is your own responsibility to keep your game load manageable. And if you have stuff to do outside RHP then don't play a 1-3 day timeout without time bank.
    I personally have one game running with a 1/7 timeout, the rest is 3/7 and over.

    Both players agree about the clock pre-game and therefore it is part of the game.
    I think you actually agree with moon, but don't know it yet. :-) Because the arguments you give are not related to a player's chess ability.

    If a CC player would only focus on 1 game, without caring about other games or his personal life, I think it wouldn't matter whether he plays it 1/0 or 3/7. None of us invests 24h full-time on thinking over 1 move...

    Ciao,
    T
  5. 10 Jul '11 22:56
    Originally posted by Erekose
    If the clock's not part of the game, why have time limits at all?
    In RHP, while a clock is not really part of the game of chess, it is a site interaction limitation unrelated to the game of chess that is needed. Otherwise the contest could go on for infinity (and some almost do anyway) with players dragging out moves or not moving at all.

    When I sit down and play an OTB game with a clock or an online game with clock set at 1 hour or 30 minutes, for example, the clock is part of the game of chess. For example, I may rush a risky move or take a less-complicated tactical or positional route to conserve time. In contrast, such is not really an issue in correspondence chess when you have days or a week to move. After all, you can spend hours on each move.
  6. 10 Jul '11 23:00 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by yashin
    I don't agree with you. The timeout is the player's own choice.
    It is your own responsibility to keep your game load manageable. And if you have stuff to do outside RHP then don't play a 1-3 day timeout without time bank.
    I personally have one game running with a 1/7 timeout, the rest is 3/7 and over.

    Both players agree about the clock pre-game and therefore it is part of the game.
    I agree that the timeout settings are the player's choice.

    However, I guess my thought was that in correspondence chess, where each player is given days or a week for each move, it is not really part of the game of chess. Instead, the RHP clock and timeout settings are more about managing the site relationship and interaction between the two players, and has really nothing to do with chess strategy, and little or no influence in the "game" of chess.

    As an analogy, if a player agrees to certain site rules in an OTB tournament, and if a TD forces a forfeit on a player because the player smoked a cigarette in the bathroom or used obscene langauge, it is part of the chess game in the sense that the player lost because of their actions, but it is not really part of the "game" of chess in terms chess strategy and ability.

    Likewise, if one loses on a timeout in RHP, the lost is because of their actions in not managing game load or personal commitments outside of RHP, for example, and not really because of their chess playing ability under time pressure.

    It just seems that the many RHP user profiles that state that the clock is part of the game is a little misleading. Again, it is technically part of the game in the sense that if you mismanage your life and let a skull appear, you can lose, but there is little or no connection to the "game" of chess.
  7. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    10 Jul '11 23:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by moon1969
    I was wondering if it was misleading to state as many RHP profiles do, that the clock is part of the game. It is part of the game obviously that if your clock runs out and a skull appears, you will lose if your opponent claims the skull. However, it doesn't really seem to be part of the game as a factor in chess-playing ability as in OTB chess. The clock ss?

    With that said, however, I will claim the RHP skull relentlessly without exception.
    Very well stated. I think the only true question is what constitutes "part of the game".

    I suppose the time controls are "part of the game" in the sense they are part of the rules of competition on the site, but I think you are right on the money in that the time controls have no real bearing on a person's ability to play the game.

    In that context, I think we could go a little further and use this line of thinking to explain why ratings on the site should be considered more tenuous and questionable than OTB ratings, precisely for that reason.
  8. 11 Jul '11 00:04
    Originally posted by Paul Leggett
    I think we could go a little further and use this line of thinking to explain why ratings on the site should be considered more tenuous and questionable than OTB ratings, precisely for that reason.
    True. Good insight.

    I noticed there can be big differences (I mean really big) in ratings for a player in correspondence versus standard OTB timed games versus blitz time controls.

    For me personally, I don't think I utilize the increased time availability in correspondence as compared to a 3 or 4 hr OTB game, for example. I tend to have plenty of time to move in either setting.

    Instead, my boost in correspondence rating compared to OTB rating is likely my relentless extensive use of games databases? I am actually quite shallow in opening knowledge and tend to just play principles in OTB openings. I am trying to remedy that some with learning openings via current study and RHP play. I knew a lot more about openings 30 years ago as a teenager than I do now.
  9. 11 Jul '11 08:24
    Time is part of the game because, all things being equal, the greater the amount of time to analyze the higher the level of play. That's why they have time odds games. The extra amount of time compensates for the disparity between players. Honestly, a fairly average player could beat Kasparov if he had unlimited time to analyze and Kasparov had to make his moves in seconds.

    Your idea that because things unrelated to the clock have a greater effect than the clock so that means the clock is irrelevant is wrong. That's like saying a basketball game isn't a test of basketball ability because players can be affected by off the court problems. It just sounds like excuse making. Its the player's responsibilty to find time controls they can manage and that maximize their abilities the same way blitz players choose 5 minute games over 4 minute games.

    In general things that dominate a player's time will even out over the course of a lifetime. While it is true that ratings can get inflated or deflated based on use of time that's just the way it is and why correspondence is different than OTB.
  10. 11 Jul '11 16:57
    Originally posted by savage4731
    Time is part of the game because, all things being equal, the greater the amount of time to analyze the higher the level of play. . . . While it is true that ratings can get inflated or deflated based on use of time that's just the way it is and why correspondence is different than OTB.
    I wasn't really making any excuses. I was just making the point that correspondence chess, by definition, is without any signficant time controls. Thus, when RHP users state on their profile that the clock is part of the game, it is misleading, because it is not really part of the game. After all, each player generally has days to make each move. There is no time pressure.

    In contrast, in OTB or blitz, the clock is definitely part of the game.
  11. 12 Jul '11 00:55
    It's part of anyone's PARTICIPATION IN chess games on RHP.
  12. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    12 Jul '11 01:03
    Originally posted by savage4731
    Time is part of the game because, all things being equal, the greater the amount of time to analyze the higher the level of play. That's why they have time odds games. The extra amount of time compensates for the disparity between players. Honestly, a fairly average player could beat Kasparov if he had unlimited time to analyze and Kasparov had to make hi ...[text shortened]... sed on use of time that's just the way it is and why correspondence is different than OTB.
    With me, using books, especially for the opening and the endgame, definitely help in CC, but the biggest difference for me is that my blunder rate is far far less in CC.

    I have noticed in my OTB play that I miss things when there are sustained middlegame operations, and they tend to be superficial, like "Oh, I missed that my knight was hanging after I made my last move" kind of stuff.

    I rarely do that in CC, although I still have my moments.
  13. 12 Jul '11 03:40 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by moon1969
    I wasn't really making any excuses. I was just making the point that correspondence chess, by definition, is without any signficant time controls. Thus, when RHP users state on their profile that the clock is part of the game, it is misleading, because it is not really part of the game. After all, each player generally has days to make each move. There is no time pressure.

    In contrast, in OTB or blitz, the clock is definitely part of the game.
    I'm not saying you're making excuses. All I'm saying is what it sounds like.

    Correspondence DOES have time controls and time pressure. That's essentially why I've quit playing correspondence. I don't have the free time. You have a given amount of time to move in correspondence (just like OTB) . The only difference is that in correspondence the time control is longer . All that correspondence changes is how deep you can look into the position . To think that 3 days is enough to fully analyze a position to the point that you can confidently say that time controls have no effect is just wrong. There are positions that have analyzed for centuries by GMs and even engines that are still unclear. If that wasn't true chess would be a boring game.

    Your only point seems to be that because real life interferes with a chess player's time that that renders time controls obsolete. But doesn't that happen in OTB too? Don't people have to go to the bathroom and eat? You wouldn't say that an OTB game isn't a test of chess skill because one player had to go to the bathroom and another one didn't - yet that's pretty much what you're saying about correspondence.
  14. 12 Jul '11 03:49
    Originally posted by Paul Leggett
    With me, using books, especially for the opening and the endgame, definitely help in CC, but the biggest difference for me is that my blunder rate is far far less in CC.

    I have noticed in my OTB play that I miss things when there are sustained middlegame operations, and they tend to be superficial, like "Oh, I missed that my knight was hanging after ...[text shortened]... made my last move" kind of stuff.

    I rarely do that in CC, although I still have my moments.
    That was essentially what I was saying. The longer someone has to analyze the less likely they'll be to make a mistake and thus the better they'll be.
  15. Standard member ChessPraxis
    Cowboy From Hell
    12 Jul '11 04:42 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by moon1969
    I was wondering if it was misleading to state as many RHP profiles do, that the clock is part of the game. It is part of the game obviously that if your clock runs out and a skull appears, you will lose if your opponent claims the skull. However, it doesn't really seem to be part of the game as a factor in chess-playing ability as in OTB chess. The clock ss?

    With that said, however, I will claim the RHP skull relentlessly without exception.
    Wins by timeout 28 (17.28% )
    Losses by timeout 0 (0.00% )
    You just need to get burned a few times yourself to change your mind.😛