I've experienced some games where my opponent has, through perfectly legitimate means, dragged our his or her loss. My question is, WHY? There's no rationale for it. Consider:
If you have a pending loss and a pending win, take the loss. Your rating is currently lower and you'll lose fewer points. And when you cash in your win, you'll gain more points. It's simple math.
On the other hand, if you go after the win first, to "get points so that you can pay for the loss," then when you _are_ forced to take the loss, you'll lose more points because you're more competitive vis-a-vis your opponent, rating-wise.
So don't drag out the losses. It's irritating, and it doesn't buy you anything.
End of mini-rant.
Originally posted by CrawlIceExceptions:
I've experienced some games where my opponent has, through perfectly legitimate means, dragged our his or her loss. My question is, WHY? There's no rationale for it. Consider:
If you have a pending loss and a pending win, take the loss. Your rating is currently lower and you'll lose fewer points. And when you cash in your win, you'll gain more point ...[text shortened]... the losses. It's irritating, and it doesn't buy you anything.
End of mini-rant.
-Your opponent stands a real chance of giving stalemate if they make an absentminded or drunk move.
-You have a queen battery, perpetual, or cheap shot on board that might come into play if your opponent makes an absentminded or drunk move.
That said, down a rook or more with zero compensation does mean time to resign.
Regarding your point about ratings, are you sure win-then-loss isn't equivalent to loss-then-win in an ELO rating system? You'd think they'd account for that.
Originally posted by CrawlIceIf your PC explodes I may win on time.You didn't think about that,did you? 😉
I've experienced some games where my opponent has, through perfectly legitimate means, dragged our his or her loss. My question is, WHY? There's no rationale for it. Consider:
If you have a pending loss and a pending win, take the loss. Your rating is currently lower and you'll lose fewer points. And when you cash in your win, you'll gain more point ...[text shortened]... the losses. It's irritating, and it doesn't buy you anything.
End of mini-rant.
Some might not realise they're lost.Some might hope you blunder into mate or a stalemate trick pops up.Some even think it's rude to resign (that one always baffled me).
And some are just jerks.
Originally posted by CrawlIceWhile I certainly appreciate the OP's point, here is an interesting counterpoint, where I was the victim!
I've experienced some games where my opponent has, through perfectly legitimate means, dragged our his or her loss. My question is, WHY? There's no rationale for it. Consider:
If you have a pending loss and a pending win, take the loss. Your rating is currently lower and you'll lose fewer points. And when you cash in your win, you'll gain more point ...[text shortened]... the losses. It's irritating, and it doesn't buy you anything.
End of mini-rant.
Please don't do that as the Knights Sump only holds 20 spare Knights.
17 are already out and if you take the remaining three then some other players
will not be able to promote to Knights and have to wait till your game ends.
There are plenty of Bishops in the Bishops Sump, take those.
Current Sump Standing.
Spare Queens being used = 56 left = 144
Spare Rooks being used = 21 left = 79
Spare Bishops being used = 2 left 18
Spare Knights being used = 17 left 3
I don't know why they only put 20 Knights in the sump but it's
too late to add anymore.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Surely you jest. There's no way the actions of one game impinge on the playing of another.
Please don't do that as the Knights Sump only holds 20 spare Knights.
17 are already out and if you take the remaining three then some other players
will not be able to promote to Knights and have to wait till your game ends.
Double-checking my guesses:
I've tested the following scenarios:
You're at 1600, playing two 1700 players, losing to one, winning on one.
Taking the loss first, then then win, saves you one point.
That's less than I figured. It also works to one point if you're at 1600, playing two players at 1500, losing to one and winning to one.
If the differential is 200, say you're at 1600, playing two players at 1800, losing to one and winning on another, the points saved are 2.
So the differential to taking your losses before your wins appears to be about 1 point per 100 points of rating differential, other things being equal.
Okay. So it's really not worth it. Can I cancel this thread? 😉
Originally posted by CrawlIceTaking the loss first doesn't always save you points. Try 1400 vs. 1800. It's a wash.
Double-checking my guesses:
I've tested the following scenarios:
You're at 1600, playing two 1700 players, losing to one, winning on one.
Taking the loss first, then then win, saves you one point.
That's less than I figured. It also works to one point if you're at 1600, playing two players at 1500, losing to one and winning to one.
If the diff ...[text shortened]... things being equal.
Okay. So it's really not worth it. Can I cancel this thread? 😉
Originally posted by CrawlIceYour point doesn't need the ratings math to be valid.
Double-checking my guesses:
I've tested the following scenarios:
You're at 1600, playing two 1700 players, losing to one, winning on one.
Taking the loss first, then then win, saves you one point.
That's less than I figured. It also works to one point if you're at 1600, playing two players at 1500, losing to one and winning to one.
If the diff ...[text shortened]... things being equal.
Okay. So it's really not worth it. Can I cancel this thread? 😉
Ultimately, knowing the right time to resign is a function of knowledge, experience, and character, and threads like this can be a useful introduction to chess etiquette for new players, especially for those whose experience is confined to internet contact and have never been to a club.
There's also a certain cathartic value to venting occasionally in the forum, and we all take our turn from time to time!
And I have to add, sometimes we get some pretty funny games where people promote multiple pawns in ridiculously winning positions and set up neat mating patterns and other such nonsense just to make a point. That's entertainment!
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by CrawlIceI'm afraid that's simply not true. If I'd resigned all games in which I dropped a piece as soon as I dropped it, I'd have lost more games. In one, my opponent even gave the piece back, but then donated the exchange as well. I won that one, after "having" to resign.
So don't drag out the losses. It's irritating, and it doesn't buy you anything.
In fact, if I'd paid bl#@dy attention in all games in which I dropped a piece, I'd have won even more of them 😕.
Richard
Originally posted by greenpawn34Still celebrating your birthday? 🙂
Please don't do that as the Knights Sump only holds 20 spare Knights.
17 are already out and if you take the remaining three then some other players
will not be able to promote to Knights and have to wait till your game ends.
There are plenty of Bishops in the Bishops Sump, take those.
Current Sump Standing.
Spare Queens being used = 56 left = ...[text shortened]... 3
I don't know why they only put 20 Knights in the sump but it's
too late to add anymore.
Or, maybe if you hold on, your opponent will lose from a "won" end game position in a comedy of errors. It's a conundrum really.
[Event "Open invite"]
[Site "http://www.redhotpawn.com"]
[Date "2011.07.04"]
[EndDate "2011.07.06"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Pi3"]
[Black "SmittyTime"]
[WhiteRating "1516"]
[BlackRating "1376"]
[WhiteElo "1516"]
[BlackElo "1376"]
[Result "1-0"]
[GameId "8538764"]