Originally posted by PhlabibitI understand the point you are making, but I don't think that's the whole picture. Your reasoning shows that if you play a finite number of games and then stop then you will have a higher rating at the end if you resign your lost games earlier rather than later. So your rating at retirement will be higher if you are a prompt resigner. But maybe not at all points during your career, which is what most players care about.
You read it wrong... or perhaps I wasn't clear.
resigning a lost game HELPS your rating. If you draw it out, and win a couple more games in the meantime... you lose more points when you finally do resign.
I'll read what I wrote and see if I miss-spoke.
P-
I wrote it right, give it another read.
Let's take an example. Players A and B have the same rating, and play identical games against identical opponents, except that player A resigns a game promptly, whereas player B drags it out for an extra month. For the month after player A resigns, he will have a lower rating than player B. Thereafter, other things being equal, he will have a higher rating, for the reason you state, and this will last for much more than a month (although if they have identical results, in the long term their ratings will converge again). So it seems A is better off, as you suggest, except for a short interim period. However, if by the end of the month there is another game which A has resigned but B is dragging out, then A will have suffered a further ratings hit which B has not (yet), and A may have the lower rating for a bit longer yet.
Although in theory the losses will get B eventually, in practice if he plays a lot of games and drags all the losses out, it may take years before he's worse off than A.
I hesitated to point this because I don't want to encourage B-like behaviour. But equally, I don't think anyone should abandon games which they still have a slight chance of saving because they think losing slowly is worse than losing quickly.
I don't think I did misread your previous post incidentally. What I meant was, losing always hurts your rating, but you were suggesting resigning hurts it less than losing later. I guess the reason you thought I misunderstood was because you were coming at it from a different angle: presumably, you would say resigning doesn't hurt your rating, because if you're lost the damage has already been done.
Originally posted by B52EWOI don't like players dragging out definately lost games but a game is only definately lost when you have no chance of any counter play or pulling a cheapo and your opponent knows how to win it and has demonstrated that he knows how. Until then play on, you are well within your rights.
If it's your game against bilipiton that you're refering to, you most definitley are drawing the game out.
... and use ALL your time, including your time back, if he wants to be abusive.
Originally posted by d36366I am only talking about games that ARE lost, keep in mind. I don't want users to give up quickly... I want them to realize the math shows that dragging out a lost game can hurt their rating.
I understand the point you are making, but I don't think that's the whole picture. Your reasoning shows that if you play a finite number of games and then stop then you will have a higher rating at the end if you resign your lost games earlier rather than later. So your rating at retirement will be higher if you are a prompt resigner. But maybe not at all poi ...[text shortened]... ning doesn't hurt your rating, because if you're lost the damage has already been done.
Now, you do have a good point... but the good point is a 50 50 shot. Is this player going to be rated higher after dragging a game out... or rated lower?
I still think the best action is to resign your lost game, and move onto a game you can win. I'm not going to drag a game out in hopes that a 1400 rated player will be rated 1600 by the time I'm finished slowly moving through a lost game.
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitAnother good reason not to drag out a lost game is that it saps your moral constantly coming back to it. It is better to spend times analysing games you can win than waste time and games you have already lost.
I am only talking about games that ARE lost, keep in mind. I don't want users to give up quickly... I want them to realize the math shows that dragging out a lost game can hurt their rating.
Now, you do have a good point... but the good point is a 50 50 shot. Is this player going to be rated higher after dragging a game out... or rated lower?
I ...[text shortened]... d player will be rated 1600 by the time I'm finished slowly moving through a lost game.
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitI agree with you, however I have played some who, even when you tell them the projection of how the win will transpire, they still refuse to resign, and even slow the pace to a crawl to avoid the finality. My solution was to join this site so I didn't care if the game was taking up space since I could have as many games as I wanted. Most of these complaints are from non-subs who are frustrated with the 6 game limitation.
NO!
NO!
NO!
It is up to biipiton to finish the game. Prove this user can mate. Once the trap is set and there is 3 or so moves to mate forced, the game is over. Not a move sooner.
It is ridiculous for a user to scream they've won when they need to force a mate in this game.
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitThe point I was making had nothing to do with the opponent's rating changing during the course of the game. I didn't mean that A and B would play each other, but that they would both play the same opponents.
I am only talking about games that ARE lost, keep in mind. I don't want users to give up quickly... I want them to realize the math shows that dragging out a lost game can hurt their rating.
Now, you do have a good point... but the good point is a 50 50 shot. Is this player going to be rated higher after dragging a game out... or rated lower?
I ...[text shortened]... d player will be rated 1600 by the time I'm finished slowly moving through a lost game.
P-
However, to see what difference it makes in practice, I ran a simulation. Two players, starting at 1600 ratings (non-provisional) played other players always rated 1600. They played one game every day, and the results were one third wins, one third draws, and one third losses. However, player A finished all games on the day they started. Player B finished all his wins and draws that day, but dragged all his defeats out for an extra 30 days. The difference it made was as follows:
Player A quickly settled down, unsurprisingly, into a pattern where his rating oscillated between 1589 and 1605.
Player B initially raced up to 1715, after one month, because initially he was winning half his games and drawing half, but never losing. However, once his initial losses started to kick in his rating started to come down. By the end of the third month he was running only a couple of rating points ahead of player A. By the end of the fifth month he was in exactly the same range as player A - 1589 to 1605.
This is admittedly not an exhaustive exercise, but the initial results suggest the following conclusions:
1. In the short run, dragging your games out will give you a modest ratings boost.
2. However, any benefit will reverse itself pretty quickly. In the long run it doesn't seem to make any difference to your rating whether you are a quick or slow resigner.
Therefore, I suggest the following: forget about the ratings impact - it doesn't make any difference either way in the long run, resign when you feel it is appropriate. My personal test is "would I ever fail to win from his/her position?" - if no, then resign.
Originally posted by d36366When I did the test I just considered a player who had 5 lost games, and 5 won games. I wasn't talking about spreading out the wins like you did.
The point I was making had nothing to do with the opponent's rating changing during the course of the game. I didn't mean that A and B would play each other, but that they would both play the same opponents.
However, to see what difference it makes in practice, I ran a simulation. Two players, starting at 1600 ratings (non-provisional) played other player ...[text shortened]... y personal test is "would I ever fail to win from his/her position?" - if no, then resign.
You clumped all the lost games at the end however.
If you have some time, resign all the lost games first and let me know if it's a slightly higher rating.
P-
Originally posted by shortcircuitThat is what I said about 6 game complainers. Get a star, or suffer.
I agree with you, however I have played some who, even when you tell them the projection of how the win will transpire, they still refuse to resign, and even slow the pace to a crawl to avoid the finality. My solution was to join this site so I didn't care if the game was taking up space since I could have as many games as I wanted. Most of these complaints are from non-subs who are frustrated with the 6 game limitation.
As for the person that is dragging a game, depends how far they are going to do this. If they are down a piece, they might be thinking... not stalling.
If they have no chance at all, that is their problem. I still believe resigning a lost game right away is better. Move on to the games you can win. Sometimes someone will show me an end, and they get it wrong. I tell them I'll continue. I've even drawn a couple of them.
P-
If you don't like it, tough. Put him on the ignore list and never play him again
I personally think that both sides are in the wrong
1. The player with the clearly better position (meaning easily winning material such as being 2 pieces, a rook, a queen, etc. up) is probably being a bit rude in flat out telling his opponent to resign
2. The losing player (in my opinion) is even WORSE for having no etiquette whatsoever and wasting both his and his opponent's time.
Either way, neither is doing anything illegal
I have had people drag games out before when they have clearly lost (e.g. when I have actually worked out a mate in a few moves). Playing fast and when they see they are about to be mated they slow down considerably. It is frustrating and probably not being very nice, but still within the time controls and still is their right. You just need to play the game out.
In more complicated positions where you are down in material or have a positional disadvantage, it is quite reasonable to slow down and try and work out a way to recover though.
Originally posted by YUG0slavwrong - it is still up to the winning player to win... this is like a football team losing 5 - 0 and walking off the pitch or a boxer losing all rounds and not coming out for the 12th... players make mistakes, if a player can not be bothered to win the game then he doesnt deserve to win
If you don't like it, tough. Put him on the ignore list and never play him again
I personally think that both sides are in the wrong
1. The player with the clearly better position (meaning easily winning material such as being 2 pieces, a rook, a queen, etc. up) is probably being a bit rude in flat out telling his opponent to resign
2. The losing pl ...[text shortened]... and wasting both his and his opponent's time.
Either way, neither is doing anything illegal
Originally posted by eatmybishopAgree.
wrong - it is still up to the winning player to win... this is like a football team losing 5 - 0 and walking off the pitch or a boxer losing all rounds and not coming out for the 12th... players make mistakes, if a player can not be bothered to win the game then he doesnt deserve to win
I say - all within the rules are okay. Whining about slow games, no resignation, and all, is bad etiquette.
Is it better to change the rules? Like "You have invited someone to a game with 3/7 in times, but if you're not responding each move within one day then you lose." or "You are a pawn under, therefore you lose." Hell no!
As long as you're within the rules, no one may complain.
If someone's complaining, use the ignore List and delete him from the Ignore List after the game.
Originally posted by PhlabibitAgreed, I was pointing out why he might be feeling frustrated by it, not claiming it was justification. What he certainly has no excuse for is the reportedly abusive nature of the messages.
If someone is worried they only have 6 games, that is their problem. They could have more if they want to be a paying member. 6 game limit is no excuse to rush someone or harass a user who is in the position of the game shown.
I agree nothing more should be said about a game in progress, but I don't think I've said anything this player doesn't already know. They would have resigned by now if they DID think the game was over.
P-
The guy you are playing is obvioulsy just another internet wimp who gets aggressive becuase of the anonimity of the internet, I am pretty sure he wouldn't act like that at his local chess club, if he did to me I would be offering to resolve it in the car park man to man (I am very polite and courtious until someone starts acting in this way). If I was you I would tell him this and do not let his stupidity change your game plans.