So, out of the posters here, who has calculated when a skull will be due to appear and logged on especially for the chance to take the skull (as opposed to taking it the next time you logged on in due course)? Might that indicate a strict/determined/obsessive rather than laid back mentality to the game? Would you invoke the same attitude to an opponent who in the middle of a long game had PM you to say they would be away (e.g. non subscriber incapable of setting up vacation).
You vocal RHP fighting squad made a big fuss of it, for me Ohforf's message is much more philosophical in nature: why would we take the win on time? I tried to compare it to other sports and activities where we say one "wins" and the other "loses", and how silly it would be to not take the win when you have it.
Why take the easy checkmate when you're up a Queen, while you can give away that Queen and play an interesting Rook endgame instead? Well I'd say because that's how chess works.
Originally posted by HabeascorpI have claimed a skull more or less one minute after it appeared, it was quite clear when it would be available, as it was exactly 3 days after my last move ("last move" column shows the time of the last move). Obsessive? 🙂
So, out of the posters here, who has calculated when a skull will be due to appear
Originally posted by OhforfOther than the "clicking of the skull" what is the difference between
But I'd rather rely on the automatic two-day timeout mechanism.
someone who gets timed out automatically, who may have come online 1 hour after the auto-timeout kicked in
and
someone who gets timed out 1 hour after the timeout option becomes available?
Originally posted by adramforall
Other than the "clicking of the skull" what is the difference between someone who gets timed out automatically, who may have come online 1 hour after the auto-timeout kicked in and someone who gets timed out 1 hour after the timeout option becomes available?
Two days.
Originally posted by heinzkatObviously to show how much a better chess player you are and really rub the defeat in. There´s a story about Alekhine who was playing someone and his opponent resigned, he insisted that his opponent had a perfectly playable position and insisted on demonstrating this, his opponent acceded to this and they swapped sides. After a while Alekhine´s opponent resigned, Alekhine insisted on doing the same and they swapped sides again and pretty soon Alekhine had him in checkmate.
Why take the easy checkmate when you're up a Queen, while you can give away that Queen and play an interesting Rook endgame instead? Well I'd say because that's how chess works.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtmaybe he just proved he was wrong the first time?
Obviously to show how much a better chess player you are and really rub the defeat in. There´s a story about Alekhine who was playing someone and his opponent resigned, he insisted that his opponent had a perfectly playable position and insisted on demonstrating this, his opponent acceded to this and they swapped sides. After a while Alekhine´s opponen ...[text shortened]... ed on doing the same and they swapped sides again and pretty soon Alekhine had him in checkmate.
I think I might be more inclined to click a skull if it shows up 4 or 5 moves into the game rather
than later in a relatively interesting position. By not moving within the time limits this early in
the game my opponent is already showing me he's not that interested in the game - so why
should I be?
I played a guy once with 14 day timeout and he was in a horribly lost position, but he'd wait
every minute of those 14 days (after he used up timebank) to make his next move.
Literally every minute.
We'd both be logged on and I'd keep refreshing my screen hoping to see the the skull so I
could click immediately and he'd be laughing (I'm sure) on the other end waiting until the last
possible second to make his move.
It became fun and I even made an alarm on my phone every two weeks so I could go log on
in hopes of seeing the skull. I never saw the skull and even though I won the match I felt as
though I lost the war. 🙁
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAnd then he patted the little boy on the head and said, "Keep practicing!" 😉
There´s a story about Alekhine who was playing someone and his opponent resigned, he insisted that his opponent had a perfectly playable position and insisted on demonstrating this, his opponent acceded to this and they swapped sides. After a while Alekhine´s opponent [resigned] and they swapped sides again and pretty soon Alekhine had him in checkmate.
Originally posted by OhforfBecause his blunder was a pawn move, which is impossible to take back in an online game, duh.
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 ...[text shortened]... also think my reason for not claiming timeouts is good as well.[/b]
A pitiful attempt to hide behind a technicality. So what if the pawn cannot be moved back to a4? Fact remains that the position after ...Qa7 is more interesting than the one after ...QxN. ...QxN shows that, in practice, you DO value the result over keeping the position interesting.
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!
OK, so make a deal with your opponent that he will hang one of his pawns in return for you not taking the piece.
29...bxc6 DOES take back the piece, although not in the sense you are talking about. It is not in accord with the letter of your policy on takebacks, but it is in accord with its spirit. Again, fact remains that you claim to prefer interesting positions to dull, easy, 'cheap' won positions, and the position where you are a Rook up is profoundly uninteresting.
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.
Different means; same result. Do you not agree that the position after ...Qa7 in the first example is more interesting than the one after ...QxN?
Originally posted by SwissGambitNah, I don't want to play artificially contrived positions. A game with an obvious blunder taken back is still a game with both sides playing as well as they can, sans obvious blunders. I like that. Your suggested alternatives would not be as interesting to me as, say, just taking the win and starting a new game over from scratch, which is also fine with me.
So what if the pawn cannot be moved back to a4? Fact remains that the position after ...Qa7 is more interesting than the one after ...QxN. ...QxN shows that, in practice, you DO value the result over kee e position after ...Qa7 in the first example is more interesting than the one after ...QxN?
Originally posted by SwissGambitAs accurate as this analysis is, (or at least as accurate as Behaviorism
[b]Because his blunder was a pawn move, which is impossible to take back in an online game, duh.
A pitiful attempt to hide behind a technicality. So what if the pawn cannot be moved back to a4? Fact remains that the position after ...Qa7 is more interesting than the one after ...QxN. ...QxN shows that, in practice, you DO value the result over kee e position after ...Qa7 in the first example is more interesting than the one after ...QxN?[/b]
can be) I fail to see Swiss, how you intend on connecting this to actual
mentality. I think while you've done well to provide a counter-weight
to his laisze faire attitude towards time controls, I fail to see how you'll
provide anything lasting against such an apathetic approach.
Idealistic rationalism, as your approach is nearly such, provides a
keen look on the ridculousness of his personal habits. It doesn't
seem to provide any type of lasting effect because it doesn't make
any underlying connection to his personality. Other than of course, his
supposed grace towards his opponents. Which you've thuroughly
disproven.
That said, I enjoyed your posts the very most in this thread.
+1 Rec
-GIN