"please don't time me out"

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Good point.

But I think we have already clarified on this forum that some players on this site are impervious to anything outside of narrow confines of the rules.

A polite and reasonable request from the people who built and run the website that they enjoy so much is not going to change their minds.

With all due respect to Russ and Chris and the good work they have done on this site, they are not experience chess players. In serious games, time controls are enforced, and no one questions it.

It is RHP that is the anomaly in the chess world on this issue.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I had a skull clicked against me once just a few mins after the timeout. As I thought it had been a really interesting game up to this point, I asked the opponent why he had been so quick to do so. Had I misread the game?

The response was something along the lines 'I was really enjoying it as well and was looking forward to seeing how it would turn out.'

Weird.

You were cognizant of how many minutes it took him to crush the skull. It's fascinating that people can time such things down to the minute and yet fail to move before their time expires.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
You were cognizant of how many minutes it took him to crush the skull. It's fascinating that people can time such things down to the minute and yet fail to move before their time expires.

I had no opportunity to get to a computer due to seriously disrupted travel plans. I knew when the time would expire but could do nothing about it. I saw when the game had ended and worked out the skull must have been clicked very quickly.

But it's also fascinating that some people seem to find the pleasure of clicking a skull greater than that of playing a game of chess that they are enjoying to its natural conclusion.

And, as I say, a bit weird.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I had no opportunity to get to a computer due to seriously disrupted travel plans. I knew when the time would expire but could do nothing about it. I saw when the game had ended and worked out the skull must have been clicked very quickly.

But it's also fascinating that some people seem to find the pleasure of clicking a skull greater than that of ...[text shortened]... game of chess that they are enjoying to its natural conclusion.

And, as I say, a bit weird.

The fallacy is that a time forfeit is not a natural conclusion.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The fallacy is that a time forfeit is not a natural conclusion.

Yes, those 'Top 10 timeouts of all time' are a riveting read.

And who can forget 'Kasparov - how my great predecessors sometimes timed out'?

And I have won many a timeout brilliancy prize.

Q: White to play and win

A: White doesn't, as the flag fell.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Yes, those 'Top 10 timeouts of all time' are a riveting read.

And who can forget 'Kasparov - how my great predecessors sometimes timed out'?

And I have won many a timeout brilliancy prize.

Q: White to play and win

A: White doesn't, as the flag fell.

Funniest thing I've read all day, even though I disagree.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Yes, those 'Top 10 timeouts of all time' are a riveting read.

And who can forget 'Kasparov - how my great predecessors sometimes timed out'?

And I have won many a timeout brilliancy prize.

Q: White to play and win

A: White doesn't, as the flag fell.

It's easy to find a chess book or magazine with comments like "my opponent was in time pressure at this point" in the annotation. But what you won't find is anything like "I decided not to flag him, because the game was so interesting."

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It's easy to find a chess book or magazine with comments like "my opponent was in time pressure at this point" in the annotation. But what you won't find is anything like "I decided not to flag him, because the game was so interesting."

As duchess64 has pointed out, OTB is not the same as RHP.

In OTB, the player is in the room, and has no reason not to play in a timely fashion. RHP is basically correspondence chess in web form. Time pressure is not such a factor in the game. In my case, there was no time pressure at all.

Would you claim a correspondence chess victory if there was a postal strike?

Looking at the OP, you have one of a number of choices, assuming you have no other evidence of motive:

1. Assume the person is genuine, but ignore their request, and RHPs request to use timeouts sensitively. If so, you are saying to your opponent that his polite request is a matter of indifference to you, as is RHPs recommendations as to how to use them.

2. Assume the person is trying to pull a fast one and ignore their request. This also says something about how you view other people.

3. Accept the request in good faith and not time them out. This also says something about you. Some people will say you are a sucker. Others, including myself, will see it differently.

If subsequent evidence comes to light that changes your view of the situation, you modify your position accordingly.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
As duchess64 has pointed out, OTB is not the same as RHP.

In OTB, the player is in the room, and has no reason not to play in a timely fashion. RHP is basically correspondence chess in web form. Time pressure is not such a factor in the game. In my case, there was no time pressure at all.

Would you claim a correspondence chess victory if there ...[text shortened]... ce comes to light that changes your view of the situation, you modify your position accordingly.

I have often pointed out that OTB is not the same as RHP, especially when I feel RHP should be doing some of the things done OTB to catch up with the rest of the chess world.

I can think of a few reasons for an OTB player not to play in a timely fashion.
1) Digestive problems leading to (several?) lengthy trips to the bathroom. (Kramnik-Topalov, anyone?)
2) Distracted by personal problems, i.e., the bitter divorce I'm going through.
3) The position is too interesting to move quickly.

If there was a postal strike, I wouldn't be able to submit my opponent's postcards to the tournament director. So, no, I guess I wouldn't be claiming a victory. 🙂

Kidding aside, I would ignore the strike days in my calculation of the opponent's reflection time. And if a fire alarm went off during an OTB game and we had to evacuate the building, I wouldn't call my opponent's flag if it was down when we got back. These are legitimate, verifiable excuses.

You'll have to take the time pressure quip on the chin, since it was in response to your mentioning OTB books like My Great Predecessors.

In an RHP game, I have no way of verifying if an excuse is legitimate. There is already vacation time available to subscribers. They should use it if they know they won't be able to get to computer for awhile. If they don't, I'll flag them.

Again, those of us who came up in a more serious chess environment don't agree with RHP's timeout recommendations and don't follow them. It has nothing to do with 'how we view other people'. It's just not how we roll.

Jeremy Silman put it best - "You can be nice after the game."

Im fairly new to RHP, and i just want to know this. If your opponent runs out of time, but still gets back to the game before i do an makes a move, that means ive lost my option of claiming a scull. No one likes winning by timeout, but by the rules of chess, surely that cant be right. If ive got that wrong, could sumone correct me on the timeout rule.

cheers friends

steve

Originally posted by steve45
Im fairly new to RHP, and i just want to know this. If your opponent runs out of time, but still gets back to the game before i do an makes a move, that means ive lost my option of claiming a scull. No one likes winning by timeout, but by the rules of chess, surely that cant be right. If ive got that wrong, could sumone correct me on the timeout rule.

cheers friends

steve

Hi steve45,

If you don't claim the timeout, and your oppenent moves, then you have to wait until the move timeout runs out again.

I think the idea is that it allows those of us who aren't keen to timeout people to allow the game to continue, whilst those who want to claim can do so. Many of us put a statement of our timeout policy in our profile.

If we did not have this flexibility, then we would have to give the win automatically on a timeout. You couldn't allow the timeout claim to continue after the opponent had played another move.

By the way, your statement 'no one likes winning by timeout' is not correct. I am sure most prefer to win by checkmate or resignation, but there are plenty on this site you are very happy with a timeout!

Hi Rank O.

"You have ruined our interesting game!
Why couldn't you have waited a few seconds for me to complete my move?"

To which I would have replied.

"No! You ruined the interesting game by not making your moves on time."

"....some people seem to find the pleasure of clicking a skull greater than
that of playing a game of chess"

First of all if there was no skull to be clicked the site would be full of
unfinished games. Everyone would still be graded 1200.

If my opponent does not make the moves in the agreed TT then CRUNCH.
No excuses. I would never ask for any or expect any favours.

In the Duchess example about a player may be giving birth in 5 months time.
My replies would be.

"Don't worry the game won't last 5 months. If I have not mated you in 30
moves then I'll resign." (which is how my games on here tend to go.)

Or

"If you promise to name the baby Geoff then I won't time you out."

As for enjoying taking a skull.....

OK I do admit that I let off fireworks outside my house which is a signal for
my 6 best chess friends to come around and we dress up like the seven dwarfs
marching around the room singing:

"Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho, a skull crunching we all go..."

But I don't enjoy it all that much.....they always make me go a Dopey.

Originally posted by steve45
Im fairly new to RHP, and i just want to know this. If your opponent runs out of time, but still gets back to the game before i do an makes a move, that means ive lost my option of claiming a scull. No one likes winning by timeout, but by the rules of chess, surely that cant be right. If ive got that wrong, could sumone correct me on the timeout rule.

cheers friends

steve

Good point. If the skull pops up while I'm sleeping, I may miss the chance to crunch it. This may lead to an inequitable situation where my opponent gets more time for his moves than I do.

Yet another reason to add AUTOSKULL = ON as an option.

Time for the management to look at the situation. Thanks for your reply.