Originally posted by EmLaskerIf you know his reason to stall the game, and you find it ungentleman-like, then you have your answer yourself.
Say you're losing to an opponent who's lower rated, but you don't want to lose, so you stall the game.
I'm not gonna mention who it is, but just keep in mind if you read this
But if you don't know his reaons, then you will have no clue about his gentleman-like-ness, not at all. He may (or may not) have the best of reasons to do it. You can only guess, and guess only.
However, it's within the rules of RHP to do that. So why be upset about it?
Originally posted by EmLaskerNo, but are you sure that your opponent is stalling the game in the hope that it will eventually go away - or is it still conceivably losable for you? Have they got dozens of obviously lost games where they aren´t moving, but are moving in games they´re winning or at least drawing.
Say you're losing to an opponent who's lower rated, but you don't want to lose, so you stall the game.
I'm not gonna mention who it is, but just keep in mind if you read this
I have a couple of games against weaker (or at least lower rated) opposition where my position is inferior to losing and I´m playing slowly, but not ridiculously so, because the positions are difficult. This is identical with the behaviour I show towards stronger players when they are beating me (and even more so when I am beating them). Your opponent is also entitled to test your technique if converting the win is not straightforward.
What I do not do is carry on with utterly lost games - there´s no point: I´ll resign if I think the position is losing. If that is what you mean then I agree with you, people will insist on carrying on in games when they´re half a chess-set down, presumably in the hope of engineering higher peak ratings for themselves. It´s a complete pain as it messes up my game management and they tend to resign loads of games in bulk, so often you don´t get the ratings points for your win.
Maybe ratings should be abolished altogether, (and only kept internally to make tournament groupings etc. work) or only published a few times a year with the average rating over that period quoted. That way this kind of ratings engineering would become impossible and people would be less likely to pointlessly drag out games.
Originally posted by EmLaskerCould be almost anybody on this site, it's a very common crumb-dumb tactic.
Say you're losing to an opponent who's lower rated, but you don't want to lose, so you stall the game.
I'm not gonna mention who it is, but just keep in mind if you read this
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI agry with you. I wish I can make use the given time limit if my positions are inferior and even drawing chances are slim. The objective is to give the best moves to secure at least for the draws. If I fail or my game cannot be saved then I resign as fast as possible. I don't like to struggle to save the games that cannot be saved. It is a waste of time. Better start with the new one.
[b]No, but are you sure that your opponent is stalling the game in the hope that it will eventually go away - or is it still conceivably losable for you? Have they got dozens of obviously lost games where they aren´t moving, but are moving in games they´re winning or at least drawing.
I have a couple of games against weaker (or at least lower rated) opp ...[text shortened]... Your opponent is also entitled to test your technique if converting the win is not straightforward.
Originally posted by EmLaskerI have lost count of how many games that i have played slowly once in trouble, only to come back and win/draw through my opponent not matching the depth of analysis i'm putting into the game. Obviously i'm not talking about playing out hopelessly lost positions, i'm referring more to complex or highly tactical positions mainly...
Say you're losing to an opponent who's lower rated, but you don't want to lose, so you stall the game.
I'm not gonna mention who it is, but just keep in mind if you read this
Don't go to sleep! They could be putting hours into each move. 😉
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSounds like a good idea on the surface but would allow people to manipulate their rating a lot easier. Anyone who resigns 100 games before the update can go and enter banded tourneys below their true level...Besides, i like the ratings as they are and i think most people enjoy the small buzz of watching the graph go up... 🙂
Maybe ratings should be abolished altogether, (and only kept internally to make tournament groupings etc. work) or only published a few times a year with the average rating over that period quoted. That way this kind of ratings engineering would become impossible and people would be less likely to pointlessly drag out games.
Originally posted by EmLaskerIn my humble opinion, if your position is clearly lost, and you are badly out gunned on material, then resign. I know it's not a happy situation to face, but it's better than stalling. 😏
Say you're losing to an opponent who's lower rated, but you don't want to lose, so you stall the game.
I'm not gonna mention who it is, but just keep in mind if you read this