12 Feb 05
Originally posted by Joe FistBut of course is it really a players fault if people they play choose to be timed out instead of playing on in a lost position?
I think it would be interesting and perhaps insightful if included on a member's home page was a listing of a number of wins claimed by timeout.
12 Feb 05
Actually.. along those lines, it would be nice to know what his rating would be if timeouts were not included .. maybe two separate ratings.. I hate lining up clan challenges, and find out that the guy actually should be 400 points higher but because he didn't move for 2 weeks he's now at 1100..
13 Feb 05
Originally posted by MIODudeRight something along those lines. I'm not a very good player myself and I don't have a great deal of victories by timeout but I do have a few. I think its great we have the option of claiming a win if your opponent refuses to move in a fair, certain amount of time. I just think it would more of an accurate representation of a player's true rating.
Actually.. along those lines, it would be nice to know what his rating would be if timeouts were not included .. maybe two separate ratings.. I hate lining up clan challenges, and find out that the guy actually should be 400 points higher but because he didn't move for 2 weeks he's now at 1100..
13 Feb 05
Originally posted by BuGHoUsEMASTERNormally, I wouldn't think it was at all important to see stats without T/Os, but some idiots actually play to get the T/O.
Why? Does it mean that hes not a better player because you can't seem to get off your ass and make a move?
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=19375&page=1
D
13 Feb 05
Originally posted by RagnorakBut of course having a rating without timeouts or similar will not distinguish between those people and the other people who often are forced to time out opponents thanks to them not moving in a lost position.
Normally, I wouldn't think it was at all important to see stats without T/Os, but some idiots actually play to get the T/O.
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=19375&page=1
D
13 Feb 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZBut of course, we shouldn't be trying to minimise the stats that are available to us either. If we had both available to us, then we could see the true strenght of the jerk who tries to win his games using the T/Os. I believe that we should have loads more stats, like a breakdown of wins/losses/draws against certain rating spreads, eg: 1800-2000, highest rating, average rating, average rating of opponents, etc.
But of course having a rating without timeouts or similar will not distinguish between those people and the other people who often are forced to time out opponents thanks to them not moving in a lost position.
D
13 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakPlayer don't win games by T/O. Players lose games by T/O.
If we had both available to us, then we could see the true strenght of the jerk who tries to win his games using the T/Os.
I'd be much more interested to how many lost games were by T/O. Far more revealing than wins by T/O.
In tournaments you can't avoid winning by T/O if your opponent fails to move.
I'd much rather play someone who wins a lot of games by T/O than someone who loses a lot of games by T/O. At least I could be sure the game reaches a natural conclusion.
I was once timed out of 3 games in one day. Games in which no move had been made. It was a 1 day T/O tournament with no timebank, and I was away overnight. That is the one and only time I've lost by T/O.
Seriously, with the timebank system, if you run out of time, you deserve to lose.
Having said that, I agree, any additional stats would be great!
[rant]
How about most number of games resigned in one day. Mass resignations "to clear my game load" make my blood boil! Why start the freaking games in the first place?!?
[/rant]
13 Feb 05
Originally posted by GatecrasherI said the racist jerk tries to win his games by T/O, not that he wins by T/O.
Player don't win games by T/O. Players lose games by T/O.
Read this and tell me he's not...
Dodger11:
OK, here's what I do, and it's worked MANY times: Pick a new game at 1 day per move, zero time bank. Then watch what time of day your opponent moves, and jump in right after he logs off and move instantly. THEN, grasshopper, check onto the site just when the 24 hour time is up, and declare a win if the dumb sap misses it by a few minutes. I have won many a game against higher rated players in this way, most of them were dead losses for me.
This dope is trying to win Open Challenges by tactically playing the timeout situation. I don't normally mind people winning/losing by T/O, but this guy takes the mick.
D
13 Feb 05
Originally posted by RagnorakSorry, I hadn't read his post.
I said the racist jerk tries to win his games by T/O, not that he wins by T/O.
Read this and tell me he's not...
What he does is not in the spirit of the game. But it is a good warning to others - make you sure use a timebank. His ploy cannot work if there is a timebank.
13 Feb 05
Originally posted by MIODudeUnless someone has just won/lost a lot of games on timeouts the ratings should be pretty similar either way. The best things would probably be to know the players peak rating, or to see their ratings chart. Perhaps including this info on the screens to sort out a clan challenge would make it less tiresome than clicking on each player's profile. Or clan leaders could have a manually estimated account of the players strength in their clan that others could look at?
Actually.. along those lines, it would be nice to know what his rating would be if timeouts were not included .. maybe two separate ratings.. I hate lining up clan challenges, and find out that the guy actually should be 400 points higher but because he didn't move for 2 weeks he's now at 1100..