Originally posted by OhforfI don't think you're opponent needs to feel bad in order you to lulz.
Originally posted by tomtom232
[b]You forgot one. Clicking skullz for teh lulz.
I didn't forget it; I didn't understand it!
Clicking skulls for a backward figure-skating jump with a takeoff from the outside edge of one skate followed by a full turn in the air and a landing on the outside edge of the other skate?! 😕
No wait, that's "lutz" ud), then I guess you're in reason #5, or #6 with Sam the Sham & Ice Cold. Is that it?[/b]
Originally posted by OhforfTwo questions
My decision as to whether or not to claim victory in a game based on an opponent's timeout is based mainly on my estimation of which alternative will be more enjoyable to me, and I expect others will usually do the same. Both alternatives are within the rules, and as far as I'm concerned, both are perfectly fine.
In this thread I've attempted to learn what ...[text shortened]... bout it too much; it's just part of the game so they do it.
Interesting!
- Why the summary?
- Could you give some more context to "Interesting!"
Originally posted by OhforfI guess you have never played any Blitz chess - I mean, what would you do if your opponent ran out of time in Blitz? It is not that I am annoyed that my opponent runs out of time, it is just a relieve of pressure, what can I make of it, it's kinda obvious flag falls the game is over, is it not. 😛
3. They do it as a kind of retribution for the annoyance of having someone run past the time limit, or a desire not to play with the kind of person whose time management allows them to miss time deadlines (e.g., heinzkat)
Originally posted by Ohforf
3. They do it as a kind of retribution
Originally posted by heinzkat
I guess you have never played any Blitz chess - I mean, what would you do...
That was just based on what had been written by you (below) and others, like FabianFans, not on what I have or haven't played.
Originally posted by heinzkat
I find it annoying when opponents run out of time. I'll always crack their skull for it.
Originally posted by IchibanovI once waited for my opponent to make his move, resisting to click the skull two or three days telling to my opponent that it's an interesting game and that there is no fun in clicking the skull. Two weeks later, I was late 8 minutes in the same game. I logged in and saw that my opponent claimed the win in the same game (while having totally lost position and was a rook down in material.).
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. For anything else (tourneys, clan challenges/league), timeout is always an option.
It's an interesting observation about OTB/non-OTB players. I really can't conceive of time *not* be ...[text shortened]... u've been captured by Somali pirates or something.
[edit]
Crossposted with Ohforf.
I now click all the skulls. 🙄
Originally posted by ivan2908He must have been giggling hysterically when he clicked on the skull.
I once waited for my opponent to make his move, resisting to click the skull two or three days telling to my opponent that it's an interesting game and that there is no fun in clicking the skull. Two weeks later, I was late 8 minutes in the same game. I logged in and saw that my opponent claimed the win in the same game (while having totally lost position and was a rook down in material.).
I now click all the skulls. 🙄
Good story.
Originally posted by Ohforf"Why not?" is not an answer, but a question.
Originally posted by MetBierOp
[b]- Why the summary?
Why not? Why any post?
Could you give some more context to "Interesting!"
The context is the entire thread, no more.
Why the questions? Looking for hidden motives to argue/scold/attack about, ala Category I above? Not interested.[/b]
Normally a summary is followed by a conclusion. I missed that, so I was wondering what your conclusion is, or why you were posting.
"Interesting!" probably contains your conclusion, but can be interpretended in many different ways. That's why I ask, rather then jumping to conclusion based on assumptions.
Claiming that the context of "Interesting!" can be entirely found in the original post, is just silly to me. However it does suggest that you rather do not go further into it, which offcourse is fine.
I am not looking for hidden motives to argue/scold/attack as you suggest.
I just want to clearify, and depending on your answer, perhaps discuss.
It is quite odd ,in my opinion, that you assumed otherwise.
Is there any advantage in forcing your opponent to claim a time out win against you and not resigning or being mated ?
I have a game running at the moment where my opponent ran out of time a couple of days ago. I've sent a reminder but he seems to be refusing to move.
If you look at his public games it is obvious that he has access to the site because a couple of his other games have progressed but he seems to he deliberately not making a move on our game.
I'm currently winning in terms of position and pieces and I thought that perhaps he would lose less of his ranking if I claimed a timeout as opposed to him resigning or losing the game outright.
Originally posted by iRadiatenope, there is none. just click the skull.
Is there any advantage in forcing your opponent to claim a time out win against you and not resigning or being mated ?....
.... and I thought that perhaps he would lose less of his ranking if I claimed a timeout as opposed to him resigning or losing the game outright.
Hi guys. My apologies for not having replied sooner, but I haven't looked at this thread since my last post about three weeks ago.
Originally posted by MetBierOp
I was wondering what your conclusion is, or why you were posting. "Interesting!" probably contains your conclusion, but can be interpreted in many different ways. That's why I ask, rather then [sic] jumping to conclusion based on assumptions. … I am not looking for hidden motives to argue/scold/attack … I just want to clarify.
Subsequent to your original post I rather thoroughly explained both why I posted the question and also my conclusions. Read all my posts between your original and this last post of yours, and you will see.
Originally posted by iRadiate
I have a game running at the moment where my opponent ran out of time a couple of days ago. I've sent a reminder but he seems to be refusing to move. [A] couple of his other games have progressed but he seems to he deliberately not making a move on our game.
With that set of circumstances I'd click the box and take the game since he obviously doesn't care to continue.
_____________________
Here's another reason someone could claim the timeout: There are some people who play A LOT of games simultaneously because they enjoy making lots of moves every day. Someone doing that doesn't have time to analyze every timed-out game to explore the reasons and whyfors of the other person, so it makes sense for him to just click the skull and get on to the next game(s).
Hi guys. My apologies for not having replied sooner, but I haven't looked at this thread since my last post about three weeks ago.
Originally posted by MetBierOp
I was wondering what your conclusion is, or why you were posting. "Interesting!" probably contains your conclusion, but can be interpreted in many different ways. That's why I ask, rather then [sic] jumping to conclusion based on assumptions. … I am not looking for hidden motives to argue/scold/attack … I just want to clarify.
Subsequent to your original post I rather thoroughly explained both why I posted the question and also my conclusions. Read all my posts between your original and this last post of yours, and you will see.
Originally posted by iRadiate
I have a game running at the moment where my opponent ran out of time a couple of days ago. I've sent a reminder but he seems to be refusing to move. [A] couple of his other games have progressed but he seems to he deliberately not making a move on our game.
With that set of circumstances I'd click the box and take the game since he obviously doesn't care to continue.
_____________________
Here's another reason someone could claim the timeout: There are some people who play A LOT of games simultaneously because they enjoy making lots of moves every day. Someone doing that doesn't have time to analyze every timed-out game to explore the reasons and whyfors of the other person, so it makes sense for him to just click the skull and get on to the next game(s).
P.S.
Originally posted by tomtom232
I don't think you're opponent needs to feel bad in order you to lulz.
What is your native language, dude?! 😵 LOL
Originally posted by OhforfI'm on my phone and I pressed the r button too many times so it auto corrected it to you're. The second mistake was just forgetting to type the for, simply thinking too far ahead. Everybody makes typos, dude.
Hi guys. My apologies for not having replied sooner, but I haven't looked at this thread since my last post about three weeks ago.
[b]Originally posted by MetBierOp
I was wondering what your conclusion is, or why you were posting. "Interesting!" probably contains your conclusion, but can be interpreted in many different ways. That's why I ask, ra ...[text shortened]... to feel bad in order you to lulz.
What is your native language, dude?! 😵 LOL[/b]
Originally posted by tomtom232I know that; I was just kidding you. I didn't understand "needs to feel bad in order you to lulz" -- and it sounded funny. I thought perhaps like Yoda you were speaking, which is why that to me you said! 😉
I'm on my phone and I pressed the r button too many times so it auto corrected it to you're. The second mistake was just forgetting to type the for, simply thinking too far ahead. Everybody makes typos, dude.