- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199255
I can't prove it, and it's no big deal, but I suspect that I'm playing against somebody who is deliberately dragging the game out hoping I'll miss the three day limit and claim the win - in a game that he or she has clearly lost. This is the second time I've had this feeling.
The first time I had accidentally accepted a game with a 24 hour limit. I had the game won but the individual started waiting for 23 hours to make each move. I had some computer problems and couldn't get online one day and didn't get on until a couple of hours after my move deadline past. My opponent had already claimed the win, despite being way down in material in the endgame.
Right now I'm a rook up against a player rated high enough that he or she would probably resign in an over-the-board game. This player lets the three days lapse, while moving in other games throughout those three days, and then moves. I figure he or she is hoping I'll go on vacation then claim the win.
I suspect that this strategy is rewarded often enough to make it worth their while (not considering that life itself is too short, but that's another story). I don't really care that much. I'm not hear to play for a high rating.
I enjoy this site and I intend to subscribe with my next paycheck. This issue is not a big deal, but I do find it mildly annoying.
Has anybody else encountered this? I should note that I don't know for certain that this represented a strategy. I just find it odd that the games slowed down once my win was clear.
Originally posted by KunsooFire back.
I can't prove it, and it's no big deal, but I suspect that I'm playing against somebody who is deliberately dragging the game out hoping I'll miss the three day limit and claim the win - in a game that he or she has clearly lost. This is the second time I've had this feeling.
The first time I had accidentally accepted a game with a 24 hour limit. I had ...[text shortened]... d a strategy. I just find it odd that the games slowed down once my win was clear.
Capture the rest of his material then underpromote your remaining pawns and mate him with something like four knights.
Originally posted by Ramiri15hehe, seen someone doe that in OTB (underpromote when opponent refused to resign a clearly lost game) it was fun to watch the 1850 promote all his pawns, sack his queen and rook, then checkmate the 500 with 8 knights...
Fire back.
Capture the rest of his material then underpromote your remaining pawns and mate him with something like four knights.
- Joined
- 29 Aug 06
- Moves
- 6848
Originally posted by KunsooI looked at your in-progress games and it's possible that you're misinterpreting this... I've played QK vs K and it was clear to me he was hoping I would mess up and stalemate.
I can't prove it, and it's no big deal, but I suspect that I'm playing against somebody who is deliberately dragging the game out hoping I'll miss the three day limit and claim the win - in a game that he or she has clearly lost. This is the second time I've had this feeling.
The first time I had accidentally accepted a game with a 24 hour limit. I had ...[text shortened]... d a strategy. I just find it odd that the games slowed down once my win was clear.
Another possibility... I complained of the same thing to my wife. She plays here as well and is far below me in skill. She thought it odd that I would "expect" resignation. She outright claimed to me that she almost never does herself because she is aiming to learn from the experience. ie. how not to lose won games.
Some people complain that I am such a guy playing slow. And sometimes I am. But not with bad intent. I'll explain:
When I have a high game load, I tend to drag certain games. When I chose what games I'll respond to I have to prioritize certain games: Those with a low time left goes first.
Then games that are fun to play. Often winning games that I can finish rather easy and then ease my game load.
The hard ones often need rethinking again and again, especially those I don't easily find the next move, and those where I suspect I can find a salvage move in a seemingly lost position.
Then we have the boring games. I tend to down prioritize them. In certain stages in certain games they are plain boring. With a lot of strategy thinking (that I'm not good at) and with no tactical possibilities (which I find rather fun).
Other games I down prioritize is the ones where my opponent is far underrated. If a 2000-player has lost all his games in time outs and now have 1000 in rating. If I lose quickly I lose 30 points of rating. If I'm able to wait until he has regained his true rating I lose only a few rating points.
Then we have the games where the opponent is steadily complaining about how slow I am or how bad I play, increasingly impolite, trying to get into my nerves, then I tend to slow down the game - only because it is not fun to play with him.
Once I entered a tournament Tournament 1614 with 21/21 in times. (That's slow!). There was a clear warning: "** Only for those not in a hurry. **". After a while one of my opponents started complaining how slow I played. I responded politely that this was the conditions of this particular tournament. After a few more increasingly rude in-game comments I told him that I'd put him into my ignore list and did so. Now I haven't heard of him since.
Why accepting games with time conditions you don't like? The opponent has his right to use up all the thinking time he wants. You don't have to accept games that are too slow for you, you can even delete the game within before the third move with no rating loss whatsoever. If you like quick games then play games with 1/0 in thinking times. If you're afraid to be timed out, then play games with higher time bank. There are all possibilities for every one.
I am so tired of people trying to make me play faster and of people telling me to resign the game. That makes the game boring and as a consequence I play slower.
I am a subscriber. I can play more than enough games at the same time. If an opponent play too slow to me, I just start another game with anyone else. I can always be busy with games.
But if if my maximum limit is just six games, I would like to play the quickly as possible. It those times I wasn't a sub I hated those games, going and going with the slowest pace possible. I didn't want anything more than these games to finish, without me losing of course.
My advice is to those who have six games and six games only to subscribe. It isn't that expensive. And you can enter tournaments, clans, sieges and everything that RHP offers. And you will not complain of waiting the games to roll.
Originally posted by FabianFnasMakes sense to me.
Some people complain that I am such a guy playing slow. And sometimes I am. But not with bad intent. I'll explain:
...
My advice is to those who have six games and six games only to subscribe. It isn't that expensive. And you can enter tournaments, clans, sieges and everything that RHP offers. And you will not complain of waiting the games to roll.
I am a n00b here, but I've been enjoying the site quite a bit and will probably subscribe soon - because then it can suck my entire life away instead of just most of it.
😉
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199255
Well, again, if they were playing slow from the beginning, it wouldn't bother me. But it seemed to slow down once the game was essentially over.
Anyway, maybe I'm misinterpreting. I haven't complained to the player and don't intend to. I'll give him/her the benefit of the doubt.
Originally posted by FabianFnastelling non-subscribers to subscribe if they can't stand the opponent not resigning in totally lost games doesn't deserve to be considered as an argument.
But if if my maximum limit is just six games, I would like to play the quickly as possible. It those times I wasn't a sub I hated those games, going and going with the slowest pace possible. I didn't want anything more than these games to finish, without me losing of course.
My advice is to those who have six games and six games only to subscribe. It ...[text shortened]... ieges and everything that RHP offers. And you will not complain of waiting the games to roll.
I find it non-sense. look at this game for god's sake: Game 3372271
she has a lone king left on the board where I have a rook, bishop and several pawns going to promote and she won't resign until I send messages that get "increasingly annoying". actually, not resigning in totally lost positions is more annoying than anything. it's obvious that I won't stupidly stalemate her or anything (considering the level of my play in the game).
there was no single reason not to resign there except to annoy me and create not-over-the-board discomfort. I hated that player and that game. and I hate and will hate anyone who does the same.
Originally posted by diskamylPerhaps she was waiting for you to lose the p rating before resigning in the hope that so many rating points would not be lost.
telling non-subscribers to subscribe if they can't stand the opponent not resigning in totally lost games doesn't deserve to be considered as an argument.
I find it non-sense. look at this game for god's sake: Game 3372271
she has a lone king left on the board where I have a rook, bishop and several pawns going to promote and she won't resign u ...[text shortened]... t. I hated that player and that game. and I hate and will hate anyone who does the same.
I would do that.
Originally posted by diskamylIt wasn't intended to be an argument, only a friendly advice to those wanting higher excitements in plaing chess at RHP. I have no arguments whatsoever to behave unfriendly by dragging games, not at all.
telling non-subscribers to subscribe if they can't stand the opponent not resigning in totally lost games doesn't deserve to be considered as an argument.
I find it non-sense. look at this game for god's sake: Game 3372271
The game of your example is totally unacceptable behaviour. Is this one was one of six games only that would decrease my engagement of productive plaing at RHP by approx 16%. I am a sub so I can start another game and let the unfriendly opponent have his fun, I wouldn't care.
My posting was only my point of view to those complaining that I play slow. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why play a 21/21 game as it was a 1/0 game? Playing within the rules concerning thinking times, is not wrong.
Originally posted by Dragon FireI see, so there is a single reason to do that. well, it doesn't still seem ethical to me. there's a risk that's been taken: to play a provisional player that could be 800 or 2000, and that should be it.
Perhaps she was waiting for you to lose the p rating before resigning in the hope that so many rating points would not be lost.
I would do that.
so I understand the motivation behind that annoyment is still not-over-the-board. to my opinion, it's "legal" to make life for the opponent as hard as possible on the board, the rest is just like hairpulling or pinching in a box fight.
you shouldn't do that.
Originally posted by FabianFnasFabianFnas, I don't want to look hostile, but I again will disagree 🙂 .
My posting was only my point of view to those complaining that I play slow. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why play a 21/21 game as it was a 1/0 game? Playing within the rules concerning thinking times, is not wrong.
I agree with you in saying that people who can't stand slow games shouldn't accept slow game challenges, but the argument "playing within the rules concerngin thinking times, is not wrong" is not true all the time.
societies are societies not only because there are laws that make it obligatory, people also have figured out ways of living together, helping to reproduce social life, by ideologies (which include morals, traditions, etc.). so I think it's still possible for someone's actions to be absolutely right on paper, according to rules, but also wrong and unethical as hell.
Originally posted by diskamylIt's a game pure and simple. They are entitled to make you mate them if they so wish. I can understand it would be frustrating if you want to get on with another game, but still it's no excuse for rude messsages- now that I do hate.
I see, so there is a single reason to do that. well, it doesn't still seem ethical to me. if she'd be in the same winning position and I'd be on the edge of getting out of provisional rating to a 800 rating, I'm sure she'd do anything she could to checkmate me before that happens.
there's a risk that's been taken: to play a provisional player tha ...[text shortened]... e rest is just like hairpulling or pinching in a box fight.
you shouldn't do that.
In response to the first poster, sometimes if I am losing I may slow down to concentrate on the game and see if I can find a way out for a few moves. This would probably appear as if I'm dragging the game out, although I tend to only play clan games against subscribers so it's not an issue.
Sometimes it's worth hanging on, because mistakes are made-
Game 1556694
Originally posted by diskamylYou should never ask your opponent to resign. It's as rude as carrying on in utterly lost positions. She plays the game as if it's blitz, which is a mistake as it's correspondence chess, but that's her perogative. In blitz making your opponent run out of time is a reasonable way of winning so she's trying that here. Since the game was probably 1/0 she had some hope of gaining a 'win' by timeout. Not resigning in utterly lost positions is something lower rated players do. It's just something you have to put up with, you can avoid it by being selective with your opponents - most players over 1,500 resign when more than a piece down so only accept games from players with a rating higher than that.
telling non-subscribers to subscribe if they can't stand the opponent not resigning in totally lost games doesn't deserve to be considered as an argument.
I find it non-sense. look at this game for god's sake: Game 3372271
she has a lone king left on the board where I have a rook, bishop and several pawns going to promote and she won't resign u ...[text shortened]... t. I hated that player and that game. and I hate and will hate anyone who does the same.