I'm sure this has been discussed before, and if so I apologize for starting the thread.
I'm looking for feedback and hopefully a consensus on what you should do if you're facing an opponent in a tourney and they have used up their timebank. The skull keeps coming up and I don't claim the win immediately, but then just at the last minute before the automatic TO occurs, he moves.
The reason I ask this is that I have a personal policy of not going for TO victories and in the past in tourneys have almost always waited for the automatic to take effect. However, if you notice that this pattern of behavior, which seems to me to be a deliberate stall, is consistent, should I change my attitude and just dump the guy next chance I get or be magnamimous and continue to wait for the automatic?
I also prefer not to time out. My position is that I came here to play chess, and if someone chooses to play slow, I will still choose play over taking rating points. I don't understand entirely why people play that way; but, those I've asked have had valid reasons.
The most common reason is that they have a lot of other games on shorter timeouts; so, they play my games when they can.
Originally posted by bekieke I'm sure this has been discussed before, and if so I apologize for starting the thread.
I'm looking for feedback and hopefully a consensus on what you should do if you're facing an opponent in a tourney and they have used up their timebank. The skull keeps coming up and I don't claim the win immediately, but then just at the last minute before the aut ...[text shortened]... nd just dump the guy next chance I get or be magnamimous and continue to wait for the automatic?
I will claim wins in tournaments right away as I do not like to be a part of making a tournament drag on when it should be over or in the next round already. I find that in a group of 15 in a tournament there will be about 3 or 4 who will stall when they realie they have lost the game instead of finishing the game or resigning like men they take the little girls route and stall. Many of my opponents in the tournaments im in do it and are doing it right now I find it pathetic and usually tell them that as soon as they run out of time I will stay up till whenever it runs out exactly and claim the win as it is people like that who cause tournaments to last 6 months to a year when they shouldnt last anywhere near that long. Some people are just stupid and play way. I say tell your opponent the next time he runs out of time you are claiming the win since it is clear to you that he or she is stalling istead of taking the loss like a man.
Originally posted by TRACKHEAD21 I will claim wins in tournaments right away as I do not like to be a part of making a tournament drag on when it should be over or in the next round already. I find that in a group of 15 in a tournament there will be about 3 or 4 who will stall when they realie they have lost the game instead of finishing the game or resigning like men they take the litt ...[text shortened]... he win since it is clear to you that he or she is stalling istead of taking the loss like a man.
If you start a game or two with someone the same rating or a bit better than you then the stakes are about 16 rating points.If he gets multiple times out he gets a low rating.The stakes turn then to if you lose it costs 32 rating points if you win you get 1 rating point.
Originally posted by bestmate If you start a game or two with someone the same rating or a bit better than you then the stakes are about 16 rating points.If he gets multiple times out he gets a low rating.The stakes turn then to if you lose it costs 32 rating points if you win you get 1 rating point.
I dislike the idea of taking timeouts and would prefer if all my games were played at a reasonably brisk pace (done in a week say), but bestmate has identified a problem with the rating system. There are a number of very good players who have been getting timeouted (a word?) in a lot of their games, so now their ratings are 500 or more points lower than what it would be if it was purely based on their chess playing ability. Playing them now is kind of a no win situation; if you beat them you get a couple of points and if you lose you drop 30 or so. If someone is trying to gauge their ability based on the RHP rating this creates a real distortion.
I don't know how you can fix it, however. If you simply said timeout games don't count in your rating, then players would have an incentive to be timeouted rather than resign in hopeless games. So I don't see a solution; I guess we have to take our ratings with a liberal grain of salt!
Originally posted by no1marauder ... 500 or more points lower than what it would be if it was purely based on their chess playing ability ...
Surely, part of their "chess playing ability" is the skill to select the approriate speed of games that they are able to play and then stick within that time limit?
Have I ever been timed out? No... Do I ever bother putting on my vacation flag? No.. and yet I play over 100 concurrent games pretty much all the time, plus I have had whole weeks holiday where I've not even looked at the site. Surely, I must be playing time limits within my "chess playing ability".
Originally posted by Exy Surely, part of their "chess playing ability" is the skill to select the approriate speed of games that they are able to play and then stick within that time limit?
Have I ever timed you out? Have you ever timed me out? And yet we've played quite few games. We must be playing time limits within our "chess playing ability".
I wish I could have timed you out when you played that damn Scandinavian against me!!!ðŸ˜
Seriously though, someone's "time management" ability on this site doesn't say much about OUR chess playing ability which is what we're trying to judge. Winning by timeout in a game that's barely started or is approximately even doesn't tell me anything except the other guy couldn't finish the game. And if I lose to a guy who's rated a legitimate 1000 I know I screwed up royally, but if I lose to a guy who should be a 1700 but is a 1000 because he's been timeouted a lot and I don't know that, I may think my game is worse than it is (it's bad enough). And no I don't think it has anything to do with their "chess playing ability"; if a player is good, he's good regardless of how many times he's been timeouted and he's still likely to give you a strong game. I'm personally not hung up on the ratings, but I do think it is a glitch if you want to judge your ability based on your rating.
Originally posted by Arther I also prefer not to time out. My position is that I came here to play chess, and if someone chooses to play slow, I will still choose play over taking rating points. I don't understand entirely why people play that way; but, those I've ...[text shortened]... r games on shorter timeouts; so, they play my games when they can.
I don't follow the logic here. You say you "prefer not to time out" and state your reason that players have shorter time to play in other games and move in yours when they can. So, logicaly, if you are in a position to time them out, then all of those other opponents playing even shorter time banks can too!
These people are just stalling because either they accept quick times unrealistic to the speed they are actually able to play, or they take on far more games than they are actually able to keep up with in the time, or they were under the impression that the "Vacation Flag" stops the clock.
Originally posted by no1marauder I wish I could have timed you out when you played that damn Scandinavian against me!!!ðŸ˜
Seriously though, someone's "time management" ability on this site doesn't say much about OUR chess playing ability which is what we're trying to judge. Winning by timeout in a game that's barely started or is approximately even d ...[text shortened]... e ratings, but I do think it is a glitch if you want to judge your ability based on your rating.
I think you'll find that those players who's rating has taken a massive drop are those that play lots and lots of tournaments - we know the ones who enter almost every single one - and have taken a fortnight holiday and forgotten that tournaments are timed out automatically - all the more reason to play quick when you're not away in tournament games so that 14 day time bank can be saved for your holiday.
Originally posted by Exy Surely, part of their "chess playing ability" is the skill to select the approriate speed of games that they are able to play and then stick within that time limit?
Have I ever been timed out? No... Do I ever bother putting on my vacation flag? No.. and yet I play over 100 concurrent games pretty much all the time, plus I have had whole weeks holiday w ...[text shortened]... looked at the site. Surely, I must be playing time limits within my "chess playing ability".
true and not true, I can think of someone, Dustnrogers for instance, who is a ood chess player, should be rated around 1800+ on here, but he bites off more than he can chew. I ven said something to him once about it and he basically said its none of my business. He's getting timedout in past tournaments that he has entered because he's not playing and has had high amounts of games going on. He's using timebank in 3 games against me right now and even still had entered even more tournaments. He has chess skills but his loic skills or maybe decision making skills outside of chess arent so good, but that doesnt change that he is a good player.
Originally posted by Exy I think you'll find that those players who's rating has taken a massive drop are those that play lots and lots of tournaments - we know the ones who enter almost every single one - and have taken a fortnight holiday and forgotten that tournaments are timed out [b]automatically - all the more reason to play quick when you're not away in tournament games so that 14 day time bank can be saved for your holiday.[/b]
Not only those who get timed out. There is also a tendency for some players to resign all their games in a tournement when they no longer have a chance of winning it. To me, that is an abuse of RHP.
When players start games, they "owe" it to their opponents (and to everyone else using RHP) to play their games out to their best ability. and to abide by the time constraints.
Timeouts and fake resignations really do make a mockery of the rating system. But finding a solution is not an easy matter.
...Timeouts and fake resignations really do make a mockery of the rating system. But finding a solution is not an easy matter.
[/b]
A way is to have judges or referees or umpires or moderators that can rule on fairness,or a game starts with that rating and that rating is locked into that game.
By the way,your actavar is red and running right;mine is black and running left.Who spooked Who?
TO's-An Etiquette Dilemna
23 Aug '04 06:18
Back to Top