Ranking by Timeouts Strategy

Kidding about it being a strategy, but I lost a timeout to a guy who in his most recent stretch (two pages of games) has 15 wins and 22 losses plus 13 wins by timeout. Not really the spirit of the game, is it?

I don't see a problem. The time limits are chosen by the player at the outset of a game or tournament, plus there are very generous vacation allowances. There's nothing to complain about if your or an opponent's "flag" falls.

Not complaining. I don't care that much. Just making an observation that, with those numbers, it looks like a player who is looking for opportunities to book timeout wins, as opposed to trying to win matches. It looks like a deliberate strategy.

I didn't miss my window by more than half a day, over a weekend. Someone who wants to play chess isn't going to be so anxious to claim wins on a technicality like this.

The "help" says, "Please be considerate with timeouts..."

To each his own.

Originally posted by Fritz Barnes
Not complaining. I don't care that much. Just making an observation that, with those numbers, it looks like a player who is looking for opportunities to book timeout wins, as opposed to trying to win matches. It looks like a deliberate strategy.

I didn't miss my window by more than half a day, over a weekend. Someone who wants to play chess isn't go ...[text shortened]... ity like this.

The "help" says, "Please be considerate with timeouts..."

To each his own.

It's not a technicality. You agree a time control, this often includes a time bank to allow for our busy lives. To have an expectation of an additional 'grace' period beyond those time controls is impertinent and disrespectful. There is an easy way to avoid being skulled, play a move. It works every time.

I'm sure that any GM would be happy to win a game on time control. Same here, not a matter of the spirit of the game.

This isn't exactly a time control. If it was, (a) the software would end the game automatically, and (b) the website itself wouldn't ask players to be "considerate."

I hardly think that viewing this the same way Red Hot Pawn views this makes me impertinent and disrespectful.

But the point of this thread was that a player who is getting half of his wins by collecting skulls is denying him/herself the opportunity to play middle and end games, and is achieving a rating that is bogus, whereas waiting a few more hours or another day costs him nothing and hurts him not at all (other than having to earn his wins.)

That said, until 10 days ago I had been out of chess for probably 35 years, so I am probably not in touch with prevailing rules, attitudes and thoughts about such things. Forgive me if I am stepping on toes.

I only play tournaments, so have a specific perspective. Time control is part of the game. I only play a set number of games so don't one to last too long.
Half of wins from timeout is a high percentage. When I was playing open invites, I'd check my opponent first and delete or refuse some games. But still only played max 3/7 and generally took skulls. Sometime would lapse for someone I played a lot.
You need to find what works for you.

I've heard of disdain for people with high numbers of timeout losses
in order to reduce their rating and gain advantages in clan challenge match-ups...

But a high number of timeout wins??

I say lucky them, skulls are rather tasty, with a side of salad.




Reveal Hidden Content

Originally posted by Fritz Barnes
This isn't exactly a time control. If it was, (a) the software would end the game automatically, and (b) the website itself wouldn't ask players to be "considerate."

I hardly think that viewing this the same way Red Hot Pawn views this makes me impertinent and disrespectful.

But the point of this thread was that a player who is getting half of hi ...[text shortened]... prevailing rules, attitudes and thoughts about such things. Forgive me if I am stepping on toes.

I see your point and in the end it depends on your reasons for using the site.
There's been many debates on the rating system and most of us (on the forums at least) agree that it doesn't really mean much
I have my filter set on games awaiting my move so I don't even realise when my opponents time out unless I actually check by changing the setting.
For some people winning in sport/games is everything regardless of how it is achieved as long as it's within the rules and there's nothing wrong with that
Others play for fun and relaxation and I think you'll find most players on here will do that and not timeout at the first opportunity.

I can see why people may claim timeouts in tournament games. It's within the rules and so you can't really fault anyone for that.
But I don't really understand people who click on skulls at the very first opportunity in open invite games (ie. friendlies).
So you gain a few rating points. So what? You'll lose them soon enough anyway.
But what you lose is the enjoyment of finishing a good game of chess.
To me it's a bit like going to see a really good film, and then walking out halfway through.
Sometimes things happen... who knows, maybe they've gone to make their move and then realised they've lost their internet connection?
Or any other number of reasons.
In friendly games, surely it's far better to not be so skull-happy, for the simple pleasure of finishing the game.
Of course if people take advantage of your generous nature in not clicking the skull by repeatedly timing out, then that's a different matter.
And if people know in advance they're not going to be able to move in time, a message to their opponent explaining the situation would be a polite thing to do.