Originally posted by cludiBut what of a player who wants to drag out a lost position - wouldn't this give them 30 more days to play with. It would be great if it was used with a sense of fair but then so is the current system.
Don't know if it was ever brought up in site ideas, but instead of putting up the vacation flag all players could be allocated, say 30 days of holiday every year. That would allow players to postpone all their current games at any time.
I know it would be more difficult to plan tournaments such as the annual Championship, but it would protect players from being timed out if they are on REAL vacation.
Originally posted by FabianFnasThere is a big difference in OTB timeouts and and correspondence chess timeouts. When playing OTB, for the most part you are tied to the board throughout the game, not really doing anything else. If you timeout then, it is because you needed too much time to actually think. Your opponent, in less actual time has been able to play well enough that you either lose through rushed moves or run out of time.
Keeping the thinking times is part of the game.
As it is in OTB games.
What's the big deal?
Never I've heard anyone whining over the board that I'm greedy of wins when the wing falls on the clock.
So take the loss as an grownup and not as a spoiled child.
In correspondence chess (including RHP) with move timeouts of a day, and timebanks of greater than a day, no one actually uses all that time to think of their move. I may burn 3 days on my clock before I get around to spending 2 minutes to decide on a move. If someone times out under these circumstances it is because other things were going on in their life, or perhaps they lost interest, but almost never does it imply someone actually needed more time than was available for actual chess thinking. There could be good reasons, such as spouse in the hospital, or bad reasons such as having signed up for way too many games.
Whereas a timeout in OTB arguable implies inferior skill, it rarely means any such thing in correspondence chess.
Many more traditional correspondence chess sponsers such as the USCF allow formally declared vacation time in which a person may be able to take a month off per year and their clock does not move during that time. On RHP, one can claim vacation as much as one wants, but one is left at the mercy of his or her opponents.
In my opinion, claiming skulls when ones opponent is using reasonable vacation violates the spirit of correspondence chess, however there are sometimes when one can clearly see the opponent is abusing the flag or has abandon the site or the game.
Originally posted by cludiIf you live here in Hawaii, you should play only with a 21 day timebank. Sometimes you get lost in the chess tables of Waikiki, and sometimes you get lost in the waves crashing near the chess tables. Oh, sometimes you get lost in a few bikinis, too. It's all good though. Feels like a chess holiday when you're out there in Waikiki.
Happy skating - and don't forget to make a move every now and then to prevent being timed out by unfair opponents!
Originally posted by Dragon FireIt is true that sometimes beginners may lack the knowledge to identify a lost position. However, this is rare. Even the weakest players understand that being up a rook or a bishop is effectively winning.
Beginners never resign even OTB because they don't realise their position is hopeless but any half decent player on this site or anywhere else will resign once a position is a certain loss.
Players are no different on RHP than anywhere else.
Join the site play a few games and get your rating up then enter 1600+ tournaments and you will find players do resign lost positions.
They keep playing in the hope that their opponent will blunder as well and by some stroke of luck, a draw can be reached. This is comical whenfacing strong opponents, and it is rewarding when they are facing equally blunderful ;D players. I've seen many beginners lose winning positions. Sometimes, it even happens to high rated players.
Secondly, beginners have a different rules of conduct. Good players feel an opponent is being rude if he does not resign when he has a horrible position. Beginners find the opposite offensive. They want you to let them mate you. They want to make you suffer the whole way. Even when mate is obvious, they sometimes create many queens and only mate you in the most embarassing way. It is this complete dominance, the resolution that they desire. To them, it is the climax of the game, the orgasm of chess if you will. :p Resigning righ before deprives them of the satisfaction of beating you.
Beginners are more complicated than they seem.
1 edit
Originally posted by techsouthWe have clearly opposite (almost) opinion in this issue. And this is one part that is fun with debating over various things.
There is a big difference in OTB timeouts and and correspondence chess timeouts. When playing OTB, for the most part you are tied to the board throughout the game, not really doing anything else. If you timeout then, it is because you needed too much time to actually think. Your opponent, in less actual time has been able to play well enough that you ei ...[text shortened]... s when one can clearly see the opponent is abusing the flag or has abandon the site or the game.
You see the differences between OTH and RHP. I see the similarities.
I obey the current rules at RHP, and nothing prevents me from skulling anyone out. RHP even encourage me to do it by putting a skull at the game involved to remind me of the possibility.
Therefore I don't feel bad over skulling someone out, it's within rules. Unless he's on vacation, of course, but there we have the same view of the matter.
Originally posted by FabianFnasNot that is has come up often with me. I've only seen a skull once in my 100+ games on RHP. And in that case the opponent was on vacation and his behaviour was consistent with someone on vacation (i.e. he wasn't moving in other games, had moved consistently prior to the vacation, had an explicit date of return, etc.). At that point I was in a winning position and it didn't cost me anything to wait.
We have clearly opposite (almost) opinion in this issue. And this is one part that is fun with debating over various things.
You see the differences between OTH and RHP. I see the similarities.
I obey the current rules at RHP, and nothing prevents me from skulling anyone out. RHP even encourage me to do it by putting a skull at the game involved to ...[text shortened]... hin rules. Unless he's on vacation, of course, but there we have the same view of the matter.
So far, no one I've played has seen a skull next to my games even though I've used my vacation flag once or twice.
But I think of it this way: Over the span of a month it takes to complete a typical game on this site, you may actually use 11 or 12 solid hours of thinking combined for each move. Of course you use more timebank than that because you have other things in your life besides that one game. Your opponent, for the same game might have used 25 minutes of actual thinking time while you've used 11+ hours, and he could be the one in time trouble.
It seems kind of incongruous if you timeout your opponent, when you've actively thought about your moves for a combined total of 11 hours, whereas your opponent only focused on the game for a total of 25 minutes. It does not prove a superiour mental operation on your part in relation to the game of chess. More likely it just shows your life outside of chess more enables you to dedicate time to the shared game.
Since in my mind, correspondence chess is just a substitute for OTB for those who cannot dedicate whole days for 3 measly games, I am more than willing to accommadate an opponent that has to be out of town for a week in the middle of game that might take 3 months. I wouldn't want to have to wait 3 whole months to start any games just because I knew I had a vacation coming up 2.5 months in the future. For this reason, traditional correspondence chess as played by bodies such as the USCF formally accommodate vacation.
By contrast, OTB games have time in which one has already dedicated to a single game. You both have the same time and for the most part use all your time for actual chess thinking. In theory, one could walk away from the board after one move and not return for a couple of hours. But walking away from an OTB game for anything other than a quick break (e.g. bathroom break) shows a contempt for the game that is simply not the same as if one takes a family vacation 2 months into a correspondence chess game.
You are free to timeout someone even with a vacation flag up on RHP. But I still am of the opinion that such a timeout is for the most part of completely different spirit than when you claim time in an OTB tournament.
Originally posted by techsouthI totally agree. Why are people so eager to gobble skulls for the sake of it? Given reasonable behavior by your opponent, isn't the point of CC to play chess? Same with lost or won positions. If your opponent wants to play it out, then fine, in what other sport is the victor not expected to to finish it off?
In my opinion, claiming skulls when ones opponent is using reasonable vacation violates the spirit of correspondence chess[.]
If folks are so eager for skulls, then just create a bunch of accounts, play yourself, let yourself time out, then sit back and click skulls with orgasmic glee. Yay what fun. Sure beats chess.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'm against taking timeouts per se but only during vacation.
I hope everybody understand that I am against skull taking during well announced vacations. I don't even like that it is possible to do that within the rules of RHP.
Otherwise... well...
If someone is not on vacation and cannot be bothered to move I cannot be bothered to play them so, yes, I will click the skull and get on with my life.
You can bet if I don't he will wait until I am on vacation then click the skull.
... but if someone is on vacation and especially if they have bothered to send you a message it strikes me as unreasonable and I will never do it!
how about this situation: I accepted a challenge. I looked at his profile and he was set to vacation. We played about 8 moves or so and then he didnt move. One month later his time has expired (7 day with 28 timebank, dont know what i was thinking) and I skulled instantly. Was it right? He did start the game when he was on vacation and 35 days is a long time to be inactive. We were decently close in rating so nobody got hurt too bad.
Originally posted by c guy1I would have done so too.
how about this situation: I accepted a challenge. I looked at his profile and he was set to vacation. We played about 8 moves or so and then he didnt move. One month later his time has expired (7 day with 28 timebank, dont know what i was thinking) and I skulled instantly. Was it right? He did start the game when he was on vacation and 35 days is a long time to be inactive. We were decently close in rating so nobody got hurt too bad.
Clearly he wasn't interested to finish his game in a properly fasion.