I'll milk every bit of the three days I have to move when I'm struggling through a complicated middlegame. But, once I've reached a technical win, my opponent cannot move fast enough for me. Now it's all about rating.
So when the game isn't going well for you, your strategy is to stall and to make the game last as long as possible. If you are in a winning position you want to play the rest of the game that day.
If everyone played with this low level of sportsmanship, all games would take forever. When you want to play, your opponent would milk all three days.
I think that's crap and a rather low class thing to do.
I don't think it's as bad as all that. You're given that three days (or one day, or seven days) for a reason, and there's nothing low about using it. If I'm in a sticky position, or complicated middlegame, I will often take the whole three days to choose my move. This isn't a desire to shaft the other guy - it's a case of looking at the board at different times, in different states of mind, waiting to spot the move I need to make. It's correspondence chess - time is the watchword. if you want quick results, you may be happier playing blitz or joining a fast play tournament.
I understand the impatience when you've achieved a technical win and your opponent won't just get it over with, but look at it this way: you've got him beat. I'm perfectly happy to let him stare at a futile board for ten days if he wants, because I know I'll get the win when his time runs out.
If you are actually using the time to make your decision that one thing. But you usually don't need 3 days to make a decision. If you consistantly use 3 days even though there is an obvious best move just because you are in a losing position, then that's wrong.
As I said earlier, if everyone adopted this form of play, I don't think anyone would appreciate it.
It has happened that I don't play as fast as my opponent want me. But I have the right to use whatever time we have agreed upon. And I don't have to answer any questions about why I use the time.
It can be a complicated situation that I have to have a good sleep over. It can be that I prioritize other games, games that is of no importance to my opponent. It can be that I have a buzy life outside RHP, and I don't want to move if I don't have to. It can be that he has a artificially low rating and I don't want to lose 31 points when I have the opportunity to lose only 1 point just by playing slow. Or a lot of other reasons I don't wish to declare.
But I do prioritize games if my opponent is a non-sub and only have tops 6 games going. If my game is the last one in the current round of a tournament. I know my opponent pretty well and enjoy playing with him. Or some other reasons I don't want to declare.
Bottom line - if we agree of 28/28 in times, then it is 28/28. Don't even try to persuade me to play as it was a 1/0 game or ,worse, a blitz. If you try, then you're on my ignore list until the game is finished.
I can use my time any damn way I please, picking up daisies, watching bad movies or dressing up into a 3m lobster suit and chasing old ladies in the park. it's MY time, not my opponent's.
Originally posted by Eladar So when the game isn't going well for you, your strategy is to stall and to make the game last as long as possible. If you are in a winning position you want to play the rest of the game that day.
If everyone played with this low level of sportsmanship, all games would take forever. When you want to play, your opponent would milk all three days.
I think that's crap and a rather low class thing to do.
I'm really surprised with those who think that prolonging the game just because you are losing is an acceptable practice. I guess it is because you can have as many games going that you please. If I didn't have a limited number of games, then I might have the same point of view.
Edit:
Are you illiterate, or do you misread on purpose?
Perhaps if you said, "when one side has a clear advantage" instead of when you have the winning position I would not have made these remarks. You only seem to want to play if you are in the winning position. Slow play if not.
Originally posted by Eladar I'm really surprised with those who think that prolonging the game just because you are losing is an acceptable practice. I guess it is because you can have as many games going that you please. If I didn't have a limited number of games, then I might have the same point of view.
Originally posted by Eladar So when the game isn't going well for you, your strategy is to stall and to make the game last as long as possible. If you are in a winning position you want to play the rest of the game that day.
If everyone played with this low level of sportsmanship, all games would take forever. When you want to play, your opponent would milk all three days.
I think that's crap and a rather low class thing to do.
Not really. If the time is 3/?? I can move instantly or take 3 days.
Obviously if I am struggling I wll take closer to the 3 days or even if I'm not struggling but want to check my "winning" options out carefully.
If I have an "easy" win then, of course, I move quickly but now is also the time when I am most likely to make errors.
Either way does it matter my opponent can take anywhere between 3 seconds and 3 days and I don't mind.
Of course if I'm losing I might just resign as its not worth the hassle.
Originally posted by wormwood I can use my time any damn way I please, picking up daisies, watching bad movies or dressing up into a 3m lobster suit and chasing old ladies in the park. it's MY time, not my opponent's.
I'm not sure about the latter. Isn't that sexual harassment?
Originally posted by Eladar I'm really surprised with those who think that prolonging the game just because you are losing is an acceptable practice. I guess it is because you can have as many games going that you please. If I didn't have a limited number of games, then I might have the same point of view.
Edit:
[b]Are you illiterate, or do you misread on purpose?
Perhaps ...[text shortened]... marks. You only seem to want to play if you are in the winning position. Slow play if not.[/b]
Are you utterly incapable of recognizing that "complicated" most often means even or unclear?
Originally posted by Eladar So when the game isn't going well for you, your strategy is to stall and to make the game last as long as possible. If you are in a winning position you want to play the rest of the game that day.
In point of fact, I was thinking of a particular game when I started this thread. As Game 5186071 was then still in progress, it was not appropriate to reference it clearly. My opponent had the grace to resign in the hopeless position.
Of course, I was also thinking of the common tendency to think about the game when it is close--and spend a lot of time--and to think about rating when one player has a decisive advantage (when the superior player wants to blitz to a finish).
Why don't you show us where the game wasn't going well for me? There were some difficult moves to be sure.
Impatience
06 Aug '08 22:15
Back to Top