It would be great if you could see the ratio of average move time for wins vs average move time for defeats in a player's profile. I get the feeling some people try and make defeats last a lot longer than victories due to a preoccupation with maximising ratings so this would be really useful info for choosing opponents. Maybe even subtracting an amount from the rating when ratios go over a certain amount to compensate for this effect might discourage people from cynical play?
29 Jan 20
@petewxyz saidYou could be right about players preferring to play games where they are in front as opposed to ones where they are behind but I don't think it's anything to do with maximising ratings.
It would be great if you could see the ratio of average move time for wins vs average move time for defeats in a player's profile. I get the feeling some people try and make defeats last a lot longer than victories due to a preoccupation with maximising ratings so this would be really useful info for choosing opponents. Maybe even subtracting an amount from the rating when r ...[text shortened]... os go over a certain amount to compensate for this effect might discourage people from cynical play?
I think it's a natural inclination as you are bound to get more satisfaction from games where you are in front.
Also there's always the possibility that in games where you are behind the opponent might time out for any number of reasons.
Personally, I have my filter set at least time remaining so being in front or behind doesn't make any difference to me.
I think that people who play regularly make a lot of moves so you are talking about a large sample size, so perhaps under these conditions average would be sufficiently strong to show players with a tendency to just ignore the existence of the game when it starts to go badly - for whatever motivation!
30 Jan 20
@petewxyz saidWell you talk About a very specific Group: People making a lot of move sna dstill stop when they get in a an unfavourable Position.
I think that people who play regularly make a lot of moves so you are talking about a large sample size, so perhaps under these conditions average would be sufficiently strong to show players with a tendency to just ignore the existence of the game when it starts to go badly - for whatever motivation!
* People making a lot of moves are normally not very strong Players, they tend to move fast.
* thos People will only see that tehy are in Trouble late, so the deceleration is only for a few moves.
Say a tupical game has About 40 moves. The Player will notice his bad Position at About move 30... so he has 30 fast moves and 10 slow ones that could be detected. But the same Player ahs About eh same amount of Winning agmes, plus a few games where he gets lost unexpectedly...the indicator move time would be very weak indeed.
Plus there is a different Respons time dependent of the time Zone.
@Ponderable The time zone should apply the same to winning or losing games, so won't affect the ratio. Maybe the average time taken per move for the final 8 moves of a game is stronger?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@petewxyz saidOr, possibly, you could just consider that this is an internet correspondence site, and not a serious competition. Being that paranoid about the motivations of other players is indicative of an overly fragile ego. Granted, that weakness is common among chess players in general (and I don't claim to be immune myself), but this is just about the last place one should exercise it.
It would be great if you could see the ratio of average move time for wins vs average move time for defeats in a player's profile. I get the feeling some people try and make defeats last a lot longer than victories due to a preoccupation with maximising ratings so this would be really useful info for choosing opponents. Maybe even subtracting an amount from the rating when r ...[text shortened]... os go over a certain amount to compensate for this effect might discourage people from cynical play?
@Shallow-Blue Wow! You can get all that from just five sentences. You must be some sort of psychic supercharged psychoanalyst. Impressive!
- Joined
- 20 May 17
- Moves
- 17545
@petewxyz saidI see what you mean. Perhaps you can choose fast time controls. Like 1/ 3.. Some players even go for 1/ 0 timebank. It's just human nature to become bummed out when your efforts start to fall apart.
It would be great if you could see the ratio of average move time for wins vs average move time for defeats in a player's profile.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
@shallow-blue saidYou have a low threshold for paranoia.
Or, possibly, you could just consider that this is an internet correspondence site, and not a serious competition. Being that paranoid about the motivations of other players is indicative of an overly fragile ego. Granted, that weakness is common among chess players in general (and I don't claim to be immune myself), but this is just about the last place one should exercise it.
I think his OP was perfectly reasonable and nothing to do with ego.
12 Feb 20
I believe everyone has their own idea about moving fast or slow. I like to move fast personally, sometimes too quickly. Does it affect my rating quite possibly. Then you have those who move faster than I do and seem to hold the same rating. I think as one gets older or has medical conditions it can effect ratings. Personal opinion of course.
-VR
12 Feb 20
@petewxyz saidI've said this before more than once but ratings on here are an innacurate measure of a player's ability because of the timeout factor.
It would be great if you could see the ratio of average move time for wins vs average move time for defeats in a player's profile. I get the feeling some people try and make defeats last a lot longer than victories due to a preoccupation with maximising ratings so this would be really useful info for choosing opponents. Maybe even subtracting an amount from the rating when r ...[text shortened]... os go over a certain amount to compensate for this effect might discourage people from cynical play?
I'm playing someone whose current rating is very low because of timeout losses.
His 5 yr rating is much higher than mine!!
However you have to lose rating points for timeout losses as a deterrent to throwing games.
As ratings are innacurate I don't see how you can link them to move time
12 Feb 20
@petewxyz saidSorry, but I don't see an issue here. Using up one's time bank is perfectly legitimate, whether winning or losing. If opponents delaying resigning lost games until their time banks run out is a problem for you, then choose shorter time limits or checkmate them sooner.
It would be great if you could see the ratio of average move time for wins vs average move time for defeats in a player's profile. I get the feeling some people try and make defeats last a lot longer than victories due to a preoccupation with maximising ratings so this would be really useful info for choosing opponents. Maybe even subtracting an amount from the rating when r ...[text shortened]... os go over a certain amount to compensate for this effect might discourage people from cynical play?
12 Feb 20
@moonbus saidWe don't always know the reason why someone has timed out! Sometimes it is obvious as they are losing badly. There are times however where they could be going through personal issues which caused the time outs.
Sorry, but I don't see an issue here. Using up one's time bank is perfectly legitimate, whether winning or losing. If opponents delaying resigning lost games until their time banks run out is a problem for you, then choose shorter time limits or checkmate them sooner.
-VR
13 Feb 20
@very-rusty saidGood point. There is no way of telling whether a given player is delaying moving because he is ill, or because he's studying the position, or whether he is employing the time-tested strategy of hoping his opponent will get hit by a bus.
We don't always know the reason why someone has timed out! Sometimes it is obvious as they are losing badly. There are times however where they could be going through personal issues which caused the time outs.
-VR