The timeout mentality

Originally posted by FabianFnas
One thing worse than people not knowing to handle their time controls is people who whines. That his losin is suddenly a matter of moral, and he wins in the morality battle. "I'm better than you because you skulled me out!" Whine, whine, whine. Why don't they play tic-tac-toe instead?

in Ohforf's defence - am I the only person who can *read* and understand the very gist of his post? most of the posts so far have been having a go at him for being a whiner or whatnot... I've had 2 instances where the opponent, after having just skulled me or having just failed, PMed me saying how he/she waited for my skull to appear etc... nothing wrong with that of course or bad sportsmanship, just the mentality .. as clearly emphasised in his remarks and my initial reply, it's not about the rules, relaxing them or whining, just simply about 'mentality'...perhaps, not a good example - it's like seeing a vacant seat on Tube and immediately jumping to it, without checking perhaps there are some fellow commuters who might 'need' it more.. bad example, perhaps. Yes, yes. chess is a game with certain rules, we've heard that.. mind you, I also unmercifully take the skulls when I see them

Originally posted by Renars
in Ohforf's defence - am I the only person who can *read* and understand the very gist of his post? most of the posts so far have been having a go at him for being a whiner or whatnot... I've had 2 instances where the opponent, after having just skulled me or having just failed, PMed me saying how he/she waited for my skull to appear etc... nothing wro rules, we've heard that.. mind you, I also unmercifully take the skulls when I see them

No, it's not about mentality, if you read between his lines. He calls it mentality, and then he means that his skullers have an inferior mentality and his own is a superior mentality. It's his way of saying that he wants to be considered as a martyr. I say it's about whining and he tries to disguise it as a matter of mentality only.

Didn't he know he was low on time? Didn't he bother to check it up before he went to another town for a few days? Didn't he know how the vacancy settings work? Did he bother to get in contact with his opponents before the trip? Did he even care?

Yes, I agree, he has another mentality. He has the sour loser mentality.

I've played OTB. My games here are 1 day per move + 3 days extra because I like to make a move every day. A slow opponent is not fun, so I'll claim the timeout win and start a new game.

Originally posted by Ohforf

2. They mistakenly took on too many games and are happy to reduce the number of outstanding games they have to play;

Hey, who said anything about it being a mistake?🙄

I play chess for enjoyment, if someone ain't gonna move then that's no fun.

Kind of like a cat views a small animal that's stopped moving.

Hi Ohforf.

Oh dear, You have really stirred them up this time.

You appear to make it sound as if it's unsporting to click a skull
and so hence the wrath.

I see your point.
Why claim a win a after just 5 moves?

Why not?

The conditions are clearly laid out before the games begin.

You must make a move within the time scale, if not you will be skulled.

My one wee quibble is that you allow a blunder 'to be taken back.'

You are not doing you opponent any favours.
They have to see how usueless it is to play on a piece down against
a good player and feel the burn.

To make such games interesting for yourself think of an entertaining
way to give the piece back.

I admire your code but as John Healy points out in the Grass Arena

Before and after the game we shake hands.
In between we lie, cheat, swindle, rob, steal....

What happened here? Game 3867797



You played 60.Rg1? Stalemate.

Please don't tell me you felt sorry for your opponent and did it on purpose?

You sound like a well balanced very pleasant person.
I think you may too nice to play chess. 😉

Good post though, things have been a bit quiet around here for a while.

I don´t agree that there´s a difference between timing out OTB and doing it in a correspondence game. Essentially over the board all you are doing for that time is playing chess, if you lose on time then that´s because your opponent set you problems that you couldn´t deal with in the time you had and, in general, your life wasn´t interfering. In correspondence chess that isn´t the case. You have to fit making moves around the rest of your life and the amount of time you have to devote to chess can change unpredictably. The rules state you can claim a win and there is nothing wrong with doing so, but I don´t think it´s compulsory either.

In tournament and clan league games the system clicks the skull for you 2 days after the skull appears anyway so I normally wait for that. I´ll generally only immediately time people out who previously timed me out when I was winning. In clan games I´ll generally give a few extra days unless their rating starts to nosedive or we need the points. In siege games people are queuing so I´ll take the skull. I only ever time out in challenges if it´s clear the opponent isn´t going to move or their rating drops. But I normally only play challenges against people I know in real life who don´t time me out either.

Originally posted by Ichibanov:
"In a friendly offhand game, I never crack a skull unless I think my opponent isn't coming back. I treat those like games I'd play against a friend in the park or something."

I'm the same way.

Originally posted by Ichibanov:
"... For anything else (tourneys, clan challenges/league), timeout is always an option."

So for you, the outcome of the tournament itself is important, and you click the skulls because you consider strictly adhering to the deadlines part of the skill of the game, like not stepping on the lines in hopscotch. Fair enough; in that case I guess I'm at fault because I enter tournaments merely as a quick way to get into some games--perhaps I shouldn't do it that way. But I'd rather rely on the automatic two-day timeout mechanism. I get no gratification from some meaningless title that no ne will remember and that produces no tangible reward--I just enjoy the games. Since the two-day timeout is also part of the rules I think it's fair for me to rely on it (rather than claiming the timeout myself) to increase the chances I'll be able to finish games I've already invested time in playing, rather than have them abruptly terminated on a technicality.

But I do understand better the motivation for others, i.e., that for them winning the title is more important than finishing the game.

Rules are made for a reason. why should the prompt be punished due to the late. sometimes one anticipates his next move and really enjoys the game as Im sure you do. to me, I feel a little bit less happy when even I have to wait just before 3 days for the opponent to move, eveen though it is within the rules. When the time bank starts to count down I feel robbed of enjoyment. But I had to acceept this and I had to look in the mirro and realize that I agreed to these rules and so I should follow them. it was my choice to agree or not so I cannot criticise them. One must accept them. No excuses for any loss if it was within the rules. A win is a win and a loss is a loss. We are all friends ooff the board but one when on the chess board, as on a tennis court, or wherever, must do his best to win in any way possible as long as it is within the rules and fair. I dont see he did anything wrong. The time had expired.

Originally posted by Ohforf
Originally posted by Ichibanov:
[b]"In a friendly offhand game, I never crack a skull unless I think my opponent isn't coming back. I treat those like games I'd play against a friend in the park or something."

I'm the same way.

[i]Originally posted by Ichibanov:
"... For anything else (tourneys, clan challenges/league), timeout is always ...[text shortened]... s, i.e., that for them winning the title is more important than finishing the game.

I do take timeouts. I often find that my opponent has been on-site and, for whatever reason, has moved in other games but left ours untouched. I assume they are waiting for the time-out skull to appear and be clicked, so I oblige. The downside is that I now have a rating higher than my abilities, but no doubt that will sort itself out.

Originally posted by philidor position
... but I don't understand why you play chess in the first place if you won't take advantage of blunders. the game is all about not making blunders yourself and taking advantage of you opponent's.

Because I actually enjoy the playing far more than I enjoy the winning. If I blunder I'm happy to have the game end, but if the other person blunders it's more fun for me if he takes back the move and we can play from a more competitive position; it also makes me feel better about winning, if I do. What kind of satisfaction and you get from winning on a blunder? Now if there were a real title or cash award for winning, you bet I'd click those skulls--post haste!

Originally posted by heinzkat
Let us compare chess to say, a penalty shoot-out in football. ... The whole idea of the game is to get a "winner" and a "loser". ...

So for you chess is like football: war in another form. Fair enough. For me, chess is like reading a book. I derive my enjoyment from the process much more than from the conclusion. If while reading a book I find a mistake in grammar or if I can guess the ending, I don't close the book in the middle and shout, "Aha! I win!"

Originally posted by Ichibanov
To be fair, we all play for different reasons. For some, it's about the process and not so much the end result. For most here, I think it's about competition, but I do understand Ohforf's approach. And after all these responses, I'm sure he understand ours.

Bingo! And yes, I think so.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Game 6365408
You had Black in this position and had just played 19...Qb6. White replied 20.a5?? Naturally, I expected you to kindly remind him that he had hung his Knight, and play something like 20...Qa7,...

Because his blunder was a pawn move, which is impossible to take back in an online game, duh.

And in this one...
Game 6422622
White plays 19.Bxc7?? and you glibly respond 19...Nxc7. Merciless!
Later on, same game:
White plays 29.Nxc6?? and you reply 29...Nxe1, gladly winning the Rook for a minor piece.

Because with 19.Bxc7 he took my pawn, which is also impossible to take back in an online game. Ditto 29.Nxc6, which took a piece--impossible to take back. Double duh! But it's nice to know you care enough to be following my games. 😉

Originally posted by MetBierOp
your sumup also could have been neutral or positive.

You're right; I could've tailored my words better to avoid misunderstanding. I didn't mean to denigrate anyone, but I apologize if I inadvertently did so.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Of course - but the examples are meant to show the flaw in the rationale behind allowing takebacks. There were means at his disposal of eschewing the 'cheap' win and keeping the positions interesting. The point that the position is not exactly the same is a minor one.

Don't be absurd. Returning to a previous position is one thing. Trying to "counterbalance" a previous bad move by purposely creating other blunders is quite another. I think here you're just arguing for argument's sake, because you'd put so much research and work into your earlier post with all the diagrams, etc. Which I appreciate, by the way. Also, though you didn't find an example, I'm sure that if you looked exhaustively through the hundreds of games I've played you'll find some where reversible blunders were not reversed. About half the time I offer to return a blunder my opponent declines, telling me he'd rather play the game the way it was played. That's a position I respect.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, it's not about mentality, if you read between his lines....

I see this sort of crap all the time in online forum postings. People "read between the lines" and insert all sorts of imagined bad motives and ill feelings, and presto there's a flame war. This is a well-known phenomenon. When you read a forum post from someone you don't know personally you cannot hear tone of voice or see facial expressions or other body language, so human nature causes people to infer hidden thoughts and motives according to their own personalities. Psychologists call this "projection." If you care about accuracy, truth, and civility, then as you gain experience with online communications you should realize that the only way to communicate successfully in that arena is to respond to the poster's actual, literal message, without trying to read into it something that isn't actually there, and to assume, until proven otherwise, that what was posted was "said" with the best possible intent.

Originally posted by mark singler
I dont see he did anything wrong. The time had expired.

I totally agree. I don't think the person who claimed the timeout did anything wrong, or mean, or unfriendly, or anything else negative. Never said otherwise.

Originally posted by acb123
I do take timeouts. I often find that my opponent has been on-site and, for whatever reason, has moved in other games but left ours untouched. I assume they are waiting for the time-out skull to appear and be clicked, so I oblige. The downside is that I now have a rating higher than my abilities, but no doubt that will sort itself out.

Sound thinking; I have no problem with that.

Both clicking the timeout claim and declining to do so are valid responses and perfectly fine, and I have no problem with either. Just as I have no negative feelings toward people who like olives. -- I just don't know why they do. 😉

OK, so I get it: I now know why people claim timeouts, and they're all (well, mostly) good reasons. And, I also think my reason for not claiming timeouts is good as well.

Originally posted by Ohforf
Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, it's not about mentality, if you read between his lines....

I see this sort of crap all the time in online forum postings. People "read between the lines" and insert all sorts of imagined bad motives and ill feelings, and presto there's a flame war. This is a well-known phenomenon. When you read a forum post from some ...[text shortened]... ntil proven otherwise, that what was posted was "said" with the best possible intent.

You yourself tell us of the mentality of others, thus making a psycological profile of them. Therefore I take the same right to make a psycological profile of you. Samo samo.

I say that you're sour because you lost a game on time. Whino whino.

Whenever I start a game with another, we agree of the thinking times. The agreement is that if you move within your times, I skull you out, and take the win and rating points. If I cannot handle my time, I expect to be timed out, without whining. That's the agreement.
Isn't agreements important for you? Do you usually break agreements? I don't. You do.

I see your first posting of this thread as a long whining. How do you think your opponent feels? To be hanged out in the open by you? Better or worse than you feels now? But does he whine? No, he doesn't. He still has the high moral.

Now, and hereafter - keep your agreements, and play within your times, and you will feel a lot better.

And don't project your bad feelings upon others in the future...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You yourself tell us of the mentality of others, thus making a psycological profile of them. Therefore I take the same right to make a psycological profile of you. Samo samo. I say that you're sour because you lost a game on time. Whino whino. ...

Sorry, I won't have a flame war with you. I don't know if your animosity is because you're projecting, or because you dislike Americans, or America, or whatever. I don't think I've made psychological profiles of anyone in particular; I just asked a question. If you think I was whining, that's your prerogative. Go in peace, and tolerance.

Originally posted by Ohforf
Originally posted by FabianFnas
[b]You yourself tell us of the mentality of others, thus making a psycological profile of them. Therefore I take the same right to make a psycological profile of you. Samo samo. I say that you're sour because you lost a game on time. Whino whino. ...

Sorry, I won't have a flame war with you. I don't know if your ...[text shortened]... uestion. If you think I was whining, that's your prerogative. Go in peace, and tolerance.[/b]

Just to butt in, but this was the forum equivalent of taking your ball home with you.

Nice addition of a completely nonsensical accusation of bigotry though. Way to lower the tone.

Originally posted by Ohforf
Originally posted by FabianFnas
[b]You yourself tell us of the mentality of others, thus making a psycological profile of them. Therefore I take the same right to make a psycological profile of you. Samo samo. I say that you're sour because you lost a game on time. Whino whino. ...

Sorry, I won't have a flame war with you. I don't know if your ...[text shortened]... uestion. If you think I was whining, that's your prerogative. Go in peace, and tolerance.[/b]

Read your first posting once again. Read it if you were the one using the right to click the skull. Then tell me if the posting was just an general opinion of if it was directed somewhere. Was this a critizism against anyone in particular? Did you just pose a question in general or did you start a flame against him? Read again and tell me if you were nice to this gentleman?

You got criticism, and you can't get the criticism. You still whining, now because people have other views than you have.

And you drag the ugly argument of racism into the light. I didn't know that you are an American, I don't care, that is off the topic. Are you just saying this because I'm white? Or hetero? Or (whatever)? People thinking in terms of racism is ... themselves. Cheap try, and it failed.

Now, in the future, don't whine so much. Take a loss with high head. You will be happier then.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Read your first posting once again. ... Read again and tell me if you were nice to this gentleman?

I didn't post it to be nice, nor did I post it as an affront. At the same time I posted it, I sent him a copy in a PM, telling him I was posting it. To explain that it wasn't intended as a negative comment about him personally, I told him I didn't take any umbrage in his claiming the timeouts, but that I was truly curious as to why he did so, since he wasn't losing either of them. I trust he'll understand.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And you drag the ugly argument of racism into the light. I didn't know that you are an American, I don't care, that is off the topic.

Hmm... I never thought of anti-Americanism as racism. But you're right, I shouldn't have mentioned it.

Originally posted by Diet Coke:
Kind of like a cat views a small animal that's stopped moving.

Ah, but then the cat will stare intently at them until they start moving again -- and then pounce! 🙂

Originally posted by Diet Coke (UK)
Just to butt in, but this was the forum equivalent of taking your ball home with you.

Well it's my ball, isn't it? And if you're not going to let me play shortstop, then you can buddy well make do without my ball. And stop trying to confuse me with that talk about a "wicket"--I think you're just making that stuff up. And your bats are shaped funny. :p

Originally posted by greenpawn34:
My one wee quibble is that you allow a blunder 'to be taken back.' You are not doing you opponent any favours. They have to see how usueless it is to play on a piece down against a good player and feel the burn. To make such games interesting for yourself think of an entertaining way to give the piece back.

I never said I did it to be nice. My motives are purely selfish: it makes the game more interesting for me!

Originally posted by greenpawn34:
What happened here? Game 3867797
You played 60.Rg1? Stalemate. Please don't tell me you felt sorry for your opponent and did it on purpose?

Hell, no. I screwed up! &$#%!

I never claimed to be a very good player. 🙁

Originally posted by greenpawn34:
Good post though, things have been a bit quiet around here for a while.

Oh sure, thanks. Glad to oblige. Just one thing, though: the next time I'm about to stick my foot in it, please... shoot me! 😉