Have you had the chance to play a game where your opponent is down material (eg, a queen and a rook) and you even have to send him a reminder to move? Is not it the resigning the right thing to do instead of waiting the maximum time remaining in the clock to make a move and in such way irritate the opponent and prevent him from playing another game?
What is the deal? Why do some people enjoy such abussive behavior?
This is what I hate the most about correspondence chess. People like that!
Originally posted by AlopintoIt's annoying but those people are playing by the rules so there's not much you can do about it in that game. There are two long -term solutions: 1) Go to our companion site UChess which is a blitz or short timed site (up to 60 minutes per I believe) or 2) Subscribe here for only $19.95 a year and then you'll have unlimited games (so you won't much care about a few sluggards) + you can play in tournaments and join a clan! Hope to see a pawn star next to that name soon!
Have you had the chance to play a game where your opponent is down material (eg, a queen and a rook) and you even have to send him a reminder to move? Is not it the resigning the right thing to do instead of waiting the maximum time remaining in the clock to make a move and in such way irritate the opponent and prevent him from playing another game?
Wha ...[text shortened]... ussive behavior?
This is what I hate the most about correspondence chess. People like that!
In Raraforthesiteship,
2BitLawyer
Originally posted by AlopintoI have that problem alot. When there is an inevitable loss for the opponent, but they want to see mate (or mate in one) before the games' end. I am too poor to be a subscriber, but i do find entertainment in looking through my games, this games won, as is this one and this one, this one's close, but a chimpanzee could win this next game.
Have you had the chance to play a game where your opponent is down material (eg, a queen and a rook) and you even have to send him a reminder to move? Is not it the resigning the right thing to do instead of waiting the maximum time remaining in the clock to make a move and in such way irritate the opponent and prevent him from playing another game?
Wha ...[text shortened]... ussive behavior?
This is what I hate the most about correspondence chess. People like that!
Originally posted by AlopintoIts a chess site, specifically for playing chess. Resigning games early is not my idea of playing chess.
Is not it the resigning the right thing to do instead of waiting the maximum time remaining in the clock to make a move and in such way irritate the opponent and prevent him from playing another game?
There are countless games on here where people have been materially down, and due to an error by their opponent, have gone on to win it. Check out these games: Game 637440, or this one Game 480767 where I was 2P vs B+2N's down at one point and came back to win. That is a large part of what chess is about: when u have an easy finish, u have to keep your concentration until the mate. I am prone to lapses, so I never hold it against somebody for not resigning in seemingly hopeless situations.
Obviously this affects u more than me, cos I can have countless games going at once.
You have one additional choice on top of what No1 recommends. Choose timeout/timebank lengths to ensure that you're games finish quickly.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakThanks for the advice...
Its a chess site, specifically for playing chess. Resigning games early is not my idea of playing chess.
There are countless games on here where people have been materially down, and due to an error by their opponent, have gone on to win it. Check out these games: Game 637440, or this one Game 480767 where I was 2P vs B+2N's down at one po ...[text shortened]... 1 recommends. Choose timeout/timebank lengths to ensure that you're games finish quickly.
D
What I have found fascinating is the fact that some of these characters start playing at a normal speed (e.g., using databases, etc.) but the minute the game turns against them (e.g., they lose a queen and a rook) they start playing more slowly and taking the full amount of time per move. The funny thing is that you have send them reminders that it is their turn to move!
I think it is only elegant to resign in a hopeless position, admit the blunder and move on. Delaying a game like this is unsporting...
The problem with subcriping, in my case, is I don't have a credit card, and if I did subscipe, I would probably play about 10 games at once. Anymore then that, and I honestly don't think I could follow! Now, is it worth, to pay an additional 30 dollars, for the option to play 4 more games and participate in a few tournaments? Not really, all things considered. . .
Anyways, the stallers really get on my nerves, I can only run 6 games at once, and some ppl are taking forever, slows my gaming experience down, many times I get bored on here. When I first came here I finished a game in a day, now it's taking months for just one game. In one of my games, I am facing a 1700 rated player who is down TWO PEICES, a pawn, and to make matters worse, he may have to give up the exchange to avoid immediate checkmate. I know he's stalling because he doesn't want to hand mega amounts of pts to me, and hopes my rating either goes up or I make a huge blunder, but that just won't happen. He has no shot in hell of winning, or even drawing, and I doubt I'll downright blunder a queen in correspondance chess, I'm not the greatest chess player on Earth, but it's not like I'm 1000 rated.
Originally posted by mateuloseI think its only 20 dollars. Dont take this the wrong way, but thats a bit of a self centered, cheap view. If you enjoy the site and propose to keep using it you should pay regardless of how many games you will play. Its the money people pay to this site that keeps it being a great place to play chess. By subscribing I dont think we are making russ a millionaire (maybe we are ? :-) ) we are ensuring that this remains a top quality chess site now and in the future.
The problem with subcriping, in my case, is I don't have a credit card, and if I did subscipe, I would probably play about 10 games at once. Anymore then that, and I honestly don't think I could follow! Now, is it worth, to pay an addit ...[text shortened]... reatest chess player on Earth, but it's not like I'm 1000 rated.
Someone did say that if you wanted to subscribe and didnt have a card you could do it by sending russ a message in feedback, although im not sure :-)
20 mbucks a year isn't much at all, but that's another matter.
They are fully in their right to take as long as they want for a move. You agreed to those timeouts, so stop stressing your opponent.
If you can mate him/her, then DO it. Prove that you have the wits to keep it together to the end! Some opponents of mine make HUGE blunders, wich win me the game.
One even resigned after thinking he was black...while i was that colour...
The best medicine for this ailment is to look at the timeout controls before accepting a game. Make sure that they aren't any longer than you need to make a move, in a worst case scenario. Then subscribe, and you will probably find that you can handle more concurrent games than you believe, because of the slow nature of CC, and the great notebook feature.
regards,
Brian
Originally posted by buddy2Amen, Buddy. If there's one unneeded novelty I wish Russ would do away with, that's it right there. They certainly don't help me to remember a game that has slipped my mind, and they certainly don't cause me to move any faster.
You don't have to send anybody a reminder.
If you see that I haven't moved in your game in several days, when I've been moving in other games daily, pat yourself on the back! You're doing very well! You causing me to have quite a think!
Originally posted by AlopintoI tend to play slower when I'm losing. The reason is simple: when I'm winning I'm likely to have some kind of plan, and/or be in a position to dictate the game. When I'm losing badly, any plan I might have had has probably gone awry, and I'm having to react to fend off my opponent's offensives.
Thanks for the advice...
What I have found fascinating is the fact that some of these characters start playing at a normal speed (e.g., using databases, etc.) but the minute the game turns against them (e.g., they lose a queen and a rook) they start playing more slowly and taking the full amount of time per move. The funny thing is that you have send t ...[text shortened]... opeless position, admit the blunder and move on. Delaying a game like this is unsporting...
Originally posted by AcolyteI think it's just natural for one to want to move more in the games he is winning, and be more reluctant in the ones where he's losing or the position is difficult. I do it myself, so I'm understanding when my opponents do it to me. However there was one case where I felt I had to call my opponent on it, because he was facing mate in 2 and hadn't moved in the game in over a week. Meanwhile he continued to move in the other game we had. So I sent him a very polite message, simply asking him why he had stopped moving in the other game. That did the trick.
I tend to play slower when I'm losing. The reason is simple: when I'm winning I'm likely to have some kind of plan, and/or be in a position to dictate the game. When I'm losing badly, any plan I might have had has probably gone awry, and I'm having to react to fend off my opponent's offensives.