- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by KewpieI don't agree. Time control is your job as much as your opponent's.
I would like to see an option in MyChallengeSettings to have automatic timeouts applied in all cases where a skull may appear.
It's a different matter in tournaments and suchlike, but they're already automatic there. In that case, I do agree, for the other competitors' sake, but not in normal games.
Richard
Originally posted by Shallow BlueIt doesn't have to be anyone's job anymore. We have all this wonderful technology to impartially enforce the time controls - why not use it?
I don't agree. Time control is your job as much as your opponent's.
It's a different matter in tournaments and suchlike, but they're already automatic there. In that case, I do agree, for the other competitors' sake, but not in normal games.
Richard
In tournaments, there is a 2-day delay before autoskull. The delay should be removed.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by SwissGambitFor the same reason that we have this wonderful technology to determine which is the best move, so why should I take the trouble to do all that thinking before my time runs out when the computer can move within the time for me? Because we're playing chess, that's why. If it's my job to make sure that I make a move within the time limit (and it is), then it's my opponent's job to take advantage when I don't, just as it's his job to take advantage when I make a bad move. I don't get a computer to make a move for me, and he doesn't get a computer to click the skull for him.
It doesn't have to be anyone's job anymore. We have all this wonderful technology to impartially enforce the time controls - why not use it?
Richard
1 edit
Originally posted by Shallow BlueThis comparison fails badly. An arbiter does not play the game for you in any way. She just makes sure the rules are applied fairly and consistently. A chess engine does play the game for you, usually in every way but moving the physical piece and pressing the physical clock.
For the same reason that we have this wonderful technology to determine which is the best move, so why should I take the trouble to do all that thinking before my time runs out when the computer can move within the time for me? Because we're playing chess, that's why. If it's my job to make sure that I make a move within the time limit (and it is), then ake a move for me, and he doesn't get a computer to click the skull for him.
Richard
Auto-skulling is an arbiter function. Engine use is cheating. The former is perfectly acceptable and usually necessary to ensure fair playing conditions; the latter is despicable and the guilty should be banned from playing.
If you were running things, we'd all be loaded up with various odd chess 'jobs', wouldn't we? What else is too convenient for us? I can imagine Conditional Moves, Automatic rejection of Illegal Moves, Automatic recording of notation, Automatic declaration of Checkmate and Stalemate, etc. all getting the axe under a Shallow Blue regime.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitNonsense, nonsense and misrepresentation. You obviously don't know me very well. But very well done, that straw man is thoroughly obliterated.
If you were running things, we'd all be loaded up with various odd chess 'jobs', wouldn't we? What else is too convenient for us? I can imagine Conditional Moves, Automatic rejection of Illegal Moves, Automatic recording of notation, Automatic declaration of Checkmate and Stalemate, etc. all getting the axe under a Shallow Blue regime.
Richard
Originally posted by Shallow BlueIt's true. I don't know you very well. I can only go by what you post here. So, I'm showing what would happen if your proposal of making people do all of their own chess 'jobs' was applied across the board. It's quite possible that, as a person, you are not that big a fan of consistency.
Nonsense, nonsense and misrepresentation. You obviously don't know me very well. But very well done, that straw man is thoroughly obliterated.
Richard
Nothing to say about the first two paragraphs, eh?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by SwissGambitA foolish consistency is the hob-goblin of little minds.
It's true. I don't know you very well. I can only go by what you post here. So, I'm showing what would happen if your proposal of making people do all of their own chess 'jobs' was applied across the board. It's quite possible that, as a person, you are not that big a fan of consistency.
Nothing to say about the first two paragraphs, eh?
As for the first two paragraphs, I simply disagree. What more is there to be said which has not already been said in this thread?
Richard
Originally posted by Shallow BlueYou could explain why it is improper to have auto-flag, but proper to have auto-rejection of illegal moves.
A foolish consistency is the hob-goblin of little minds.
As for the first two paragraphs, I simply disagree. What more is there to be said which has not already been said in this thread?
Richard
You could also explain which parts of the two paragraphs you think are 'nonsense', and why.
