- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by moon1969IMO, the ability to pick a game load which you can comfortably handle is as much a part of correspondence chess as the ability to divide your two hours between opening, middle and end game is part of OTB chess.
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?
Richard
1 edit
Originally posted by Shallow BlueInteresting point. Good analogy for time managment in correspondence versus OTB.
IMO, the ability to pick a game load which you can comfortably handle is as much a part of correspondence chess as the ability to divide your two hours between opening, middle and end game is part of OTB chess.
Richard
One thing about personal demands outside of and unrelated to chess is that such demands generally do not apply time pressure in an OTB game whereas they quite often apply management pressure in correspondence chess, whether you have a game load of 1 or 100. Though it should generally be easier to deal with such with a small game load.
I could see where choosing a game load of only one game in RHP would generally absolutely render the clock moot, and the clock would thus should plainly not be part of the game? At least for the player with one game load.
If someone experienced any time pressure with a RHP game load of one, then maybe they really do not have the situation in life to play chess.
Originally posted by Paul LeggettOh ya, same for me too. I do blunder less in CC, especially with a reasonable game load.
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.
Originally posted by savage4731True, good points. I know what you indicate about letting correspondence chess take a lot of time. For me, it can be even to the point of ignoring work and personal stuff.
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 c ...[text shortened]... ther one didn't - yet that's pretty much what you're saying about correspondence.
Originally posted by ChessPraxisI am glad to see I have never timed out. I just don't feel the time pressure. It's just easy for me to log on and make a few minutes if needed. I might actually feel cramped if I had a lot of 1/0 games, or if I started kind of just ignoring RHP most of the time instead of checking it almost every day like I do.
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.😛
Originally posted by moon1969Perhaps we should refer to a clock for OTB play, but to a calendar for CC play...
Interesting point. Good analogy for time managment in correspondence versus OTB.
One thing about personal demands outside of and unrelated to chess is that such demands generally do not apply time pressure in an OTB game whereas they quite often apply management pressure in correspondence chess, whether you have a game load of 1 or 100. Though it shoul ...[text shortened]... a RHP game load of one, then maybe they really do not have the situation in life to play chess.
Originally posted by Paul LeggettYou read my mind. I have been trying to think of a word for the RHP time controls. "Clock" didn't seem to be a good fit. "Calendar" seems a better characterization.
Perhaps we should refer to a clock for OTB play, but to a calendar for CC play...
"I claim skulls because the calendar is part of the game."
My original thought, which may be way off or a contradiction, is that the RHP calendar may be part of the "game" but not really part of the "game of chess"?
A loss due to a calendar rule in correspondence chess is analagous to a soccer team forfeiting a game because they didn't show up for the match? Maybe. Maybe not.
Originally posted by moon1969The soccer analogy makes sense.
You read my mind. I have been trying to think of a word for the RHP time controls. "Clock" didn't seem to be a good fit. "Calendar" seems a better characterization.
"I claim skulls because the calendar is part of the game."
My original thought, which may be way off or a contradiction, is that the RHP calendar may be part of the "game" but not reall ...[text shortened]... eam forfeiting a game because they didn't show up for the match? Maybe. Maybe not.
In OTB, if I win on time, I have a sense of accomplishment because I know the other person could not resolve the struggle on the board in the allotted time. He was right there in front of me, he was working at the board, and he was not equal to the task.
When I click a skull here, for all I know, the other guy could have been in a tornado, forgot to pay his internet access bill, just got served divorce papers, or he could even have died, God forbid--there's just no telling. In any event, I have no idea if it was the game itself or something completely extraneous that caused the result.
In my mind, at least, that is the difference I see.