Taking forever to make moves, then timing out

Originally posted by RahimK
You play hard to beat him, and get what, 3 measley points compared to say like 14, 15 that you deserve if his rating didnt' drop 800+ points? How would you like it? I wouldn't appreciate it.
What if his rating dropped so much that you get nothing when you were suppose to get some points?

we don't know if he's got some illness or condition that get's him hospitalized from time to time. we don't know if his marriage is breaking down. we don't know if his work requires sudden and complete dedication from time to time. we don't know if his computer keeps going belly up. we don't know if he can pay his bills. or maybe he just gets bored, but we don't know that.

but we do know it's only one game for us, and that points from a single game don't matter anything.

Originally posted by RahimK
I'm not sayign anything about him, I just wouldn't play him because of this.

As for what you wrote, he times out, you win, move on.

You play hard to beat him, and get what, 3 measley points compared to say like 14, 15 that you deserve if his rating didnt' drop 800+ points? How would you like it? I wouldn't appreciate it.
What if his rating dropped so m ...[text shortened]... h that you get nothing when you were suppose to get some points?

That's all I gotta say.

Unfortunately, because you all mostly voted in favour of ratings being calculated from the ratings at the end of the game instead of the beginning, you can't complain. And he is acting completely within the rules so it's just tough.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Unfortunately, because you all mostly voted in favour of ratings being calculated from the ratings at the end of the game instead of the beginning, you can't complain. And he is acting completely within the rules so it's just tough.

I had a thread about this. It was about why we dont' use start ratings similar to OTB and it was explained to me and I see why they use end ratings. You can search for it if you want to know why. They should however do some sort of an average thing or something. Take the rating at the beginning, middle and ending and average them or some sort of stats way.

Second point, Only subs could vote.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Unfortunately, because you all mostly voted in favour of ratings being calculated from the ratings at the end of the game instead of the beginning, you can't complain. And he is acting completely within the rules so it's just tough.

It's probably the least-worst solution.

And they are only ratings, after all.

Originally posted by dottewell
Can't agree. If it was OTB, he could resign when he wanted. You might be surprised, but I doubt you would complain.

It's not like his games were all against the same person. And many people here _love_ timing out higher-rated opponents.

You only have a responsibility to finish your games if you are playing for a clan.

Besides which, no one knows w ...[text shortened]... just isn't a big deal. And the idea that this is some kind of ratings ruse is just ludicrous.

Sorry, I don't agree. I would consider it poor sportsmanship for an opponent to resign in a non-resignable position in an OTB games as well. Perhaps you don't understand that the purpose of playing a game of chess is primarily the intellectual stimulation of the game itself. Whether it's within the rules or not, it's rude to the other player to deprive him of a game played to its proper conclusion.

I doubt if it's a ratings ruse; I simply think these people are inconsiderate jerks.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sorry, I don't agree. I would consider it poor sportsmanship for an opponent to resign in a non-resignable position in an OTB games as well. Perhaps you don't understand that the purpose of playing a game of chess is primarily the intellectual stimulation of the game itself. Whether it's within the rules or not, it's rude to the other player to deprive h ...[text shortened]...
I doubt if it's a ratings ruse; I simply think these people are inconsiderate jerks.

I played him three times a last year. What he told me then was that he played against the higher rated opponents and gave them a good game and then if he had time he would move in the lower rated games. He said he got timed out a lot doing this.

That's all I know, but I don't think it's very nice. Whatever, I'm not playing him so I shouldn't worry about such things.

Although I was in support of ItsYouThatIAdore, it was purely on the basis of what I observed with his rating and my experience with playing against him. If there has been a case where there has been manipulation (e.g. having a habit of mass resignation or neglecting some games in his favour), then I would have to agree that it is bad sportsmanship.

Even though there are rules, I also would not really want to play someone who bends the rules so much that I end up not really playing chess, but just a ratings game.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Perhaps you don't understand that the purpose of playing a game of chess is primarily the intellectual stimulation of the game itself.

For you, perhaps; I don't think the other people complaining in this thread are as high-minded. They are moaning about their "lost" points, pure and simple.

Lausey - how is he "bending the rules"?

Everyone else - what is this ratings ruse? What is its purpose? What does he _gain_?

Originally posted by dottewell
For you, perhaps; I don't think the other people complaining in this thread are as high-minded. They are moaning about their "lost" points, pure and simple.

Lausey - how is he "bending the rules"?

Everyone else - what is this ratings ruse? What is its purpose? What does he _gain_?

I was responding to your statement:

dottewell: You only have a responsibility to finish your games if you are playing for a clan.

I don't agree; I think you have a responsibility to finish your games to their logical conclusion. I think to not do so is rude to your opponent.

Of course, that doesn't apply if circumstances beyond your control make it impossible or extraordinarily difficult to do so; life does intervene in chess (unfortunately). But this particular player has done the same thing before and so should not be taking on massive amounts of games IMO.

Originally posted by dottewell
For you, perhaps; I don't think the other people complaining in this thread are as high-minded. They are moaning about their "lost" points, pure and simple.

Lausey - how is he "bending the rules"?

Everyone else - what is this ratings ruse? What is its purpose? What does he _gain_?

I did not say he was bending the rules. I was basing my previous comments on his rating graph and my experience playing against him (where I am in support). I was just saying that if there has been a case where he has been manipulating (of which based on other comments, that is a possibility), then that is when I wouldn't be in support.

I couldn't care less about losing points, but I am in agreement with no1marauder that it is bad sportsmanship to resign/timeout a game when you can play with good fighting chances. Of course, the one off occasion there are things in your life would cause chess to become a low priority, hence lots of games getting timed out. Which, so far to me, appears to be the case.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I was responding to your statement:

dottewell: You only have a responsibility to finish your games if you are playing for a clan.

I don't agree; I think you have a responsibility to finish your games to their logical conclusion. I think to not do so is rude to your opponent.

Of course, that doesn't apply if circumstances bey ...[text shortened]... er has done the same thing before and so should not be taking on massive amounts of games IMO.

Well, I agree in some cases where a good game is going on, it is a shame if one party walks away. Not always, of course (e.g. not after the first few moves of a well-known opening).

I would not, however, go so far as to say that someone has a _responsibility_ to play on as long as a game is interesting.

I would still like someone (not you, obviously) to explain how this supposed ratings ruse works. What are people accusing him of?

Originally posted by dottewell
Well, I agree in some cases where a good game is going on, it is a shame if one party walks away. Not always, of course (e.g. not after the first few moves of a well-known opening).

I would not, however, go so far as to say that someone has a _responsibility_ to play on as long as a game is interesting.

I would still like someone (not you, obviously) to explain how this supposed ratings ruse works. What are people accusing him of?

There are some people who have their theories about mass resigning and points etc which I dont' want to speak about.

This is all i'm saying. Lets take you.

Dottewell vs say the top person on here whatever his name is.

You have a great game vs him, like a miracle find some wicked tactic or something, and your so happy.

He mass times out and when the game is over, you get 1 point from him.

You were say 1700 to start with and he was 2400. and now you are 1700 and he is 1300. How would you like that?

You try so hard and even though you beat him, you get basically squat from him.

From what I hear, its a habit of ITSYOUI________. Also how do you think the clan leader feels about him doing such stuff?

Originally posted by RahimK
There are some people who have their theories about mass resigning and points etc which I dont' want to speak about.

This is all i'm saying. Lets take you.

Dottewell vs say the top person on here whatever his name is.

You have a great game vs him, like a miracle find some wicked tactic or something, and your so happy.

He mass times out and when ...[text shortened]... it of ITSYOUI________. Also how do you think the clan leader feels about him doing such stuff?

Personally? If I beat Akizy, I'd be incredibly happy. Whatever his rating was at the time. I don't take my rating particularly seriously.

I don't know why you can't talk about the so-called rating ruse in general terms. Or send me a PM. I don't get it.

I agree about the clan leader, though.

Originally posted by dottewell
Personally? If I beat Akizy, I'd be incredibly happy. Whatever his rating was at the time. I don't take my rating particularly seriously.

I don't know why you can't talk about the so-called rating ruse in general terms. Or send me a PM. I don't get it.

I agree about the clan leader, though.

Yes you would be happy. I was afraid that would say that. Well fine, your some 1300 player and you beat like a 1700 player and you get barely anything from. Yes your happy but really you need some feedback. That feedback is a rating increase.

As for the rating ruse, i'm not to familiar with it and i'm not sure how it works exactly makes no sense to me. I remember people talking about mass timeouts and ratings last year, maybe you can find the thread.

This is what I got out of it.

People play good and gain points. The games they are losing they dont' move in and let it time out. So if your using a long time control, then your rating goes up since you are only winning games, and you are using your timebank for the losing games. So you get this huge rating, and then all of a sudden you get timeouted and your rating his rock bottom and you start the pattern all over again.

What happens is if you are the first people to flag this person you get lots of points because his rating is so high, but if you flag him at the bottom of the decline you get basically nothing.

That's what I could understand. Might be wrong.

Originally posted by RahimK
Yes you would be happy. I was afraid that would say that. Well fine, your some 1300 player and you beat like a 1700 player and you get barely anything from. Yes your happy but really you need some feedback. That feedback is a rating increase.

As for the rating ruse, i'm not to familiar with it and i'm not sure how it works exactly makes no sense to me. I r ...[text shortened]... f the decline you get basically nothing.

That's what I could understand. Might be wrong.

That's not what happened to ItsYouThatIAdore.

I really hope people don't take ratings here too seriously, whether they are 2400, 1700 or 1300. The best feedback is talking about a game with someone who understands it better than you.

But anyway, my argument is not with you. It is with the original poster, who DOES take ratings far too seriously. I mean, really - whether it is right or wrong to let your games time out, it doesn't really matter, does it?