Originally posted by Northern Laddid you have timetrouble in last year's championship?
My own personal reasons for not playing in the 2006 Champs are twofold:
Firstly, I have a lot of games on the go already.
Secondly (and more importantly), the experience of last year has taught me I don't like games with no timebank.
I want quality in the games I play, therefore I have decided I won't play anything at a faster rate than 3/7.
i am surprised ... the only two games you lost were with significant material deficit.
did you offer early draws to avoid timetrouble?
Originally posted by Loose ScrewBingo.
And let's not forget that most people have no chance in winning, when it's an open tournament 0-2500+.
I, for one, think I can do without having another 30+ games going where I'm getting slaughtered in every single one. I'd like to have incentive to play more games, not another demonstration of how pathetic I am against a 2300 player.
It's bad enough going up against the sandbaggers in my own rating class. (You know, the ones who should be like 1800 or higher but who, for whatever reason, aren't rated at their true level.)
Originally posted by flexmoreI seem to remember losing more than two games, though I may be confusing it with the 1/7 clan leagues, which were also too fast for me.
did you have timetrouble in last year's championship?
i am surprised ... the only two games you lost were with significant material deficit.
did you offer early draws to avoid timetrouble?
One of the endgames I would certainly have expected to hold with more time. I certainly don't normally offer early draws - don't see the point.