I would classify that as a somewhat hollow victory!
I would classify that as a somewhat hollow victory!
I noticed something similar against willie by our old "friend" fanard (note the quotes)... Not the gloating part, but something happened to willie over the weekend and he thus haven't moved in over a day. I noticed that the timeout victory is an option on our game, so I went into his profile to see when he last made a move and what do I find... 3 timeout victories against him by fanard. The sneaky bastard
No guts, no glory, no brain, same story.
There should be a law against claiming timeouts over the weekend!
Quick question. Winning a game by checkmate and winning a game by timeout... Does it carry the same weight / effect on player's rating?
No guts, no glory, no brain, same story.
Yes it does. But an interesting point that you're bringing up ViperGTI. Perhaps timeouts should carry less weight than true victories, this will motivate players to rather go for real wins instead of timeouts...Originally Posted by ViperGTI
“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”
It makes it a bit difficult though.
For instance I played tournament games against um I think her name was check mate and as soon as it became apparent that I would win she just wouldn't move anymore. She continued moving against other players but not against me. So I waited and waited but eventually I claimed the timeout victories. I don't know if she does that to other people too.
So if timeout victories don't count for as much in the rating then there will probably have to be checks. If a player continues to move against other players but not in your game and you claim the timeout victory then give full points...
Or maybe even better. Give full points if the timeout victory is claimed after 5 days or so.
I don't know. It's not that the rating really matters anyway.
Perhaps, but the reason why I'm asking is because I'm in a situation now against a strong player where I'm in a "definite" winning position, but now he simply stopped making moves even though he continues making moves regularly in his other games. I usually only claim time-out victories against players with P-ratings, but I think I'll claim this one since it has been 3 days already that I could claim the victory.
Implementing the idea to have different weightings for the two kinds of victories might be a good idea, although just keep in mind the situation above. Perhaps if the person claims a time-out victory, the win carries less weight but then also add an automatic time-out function which occurs two days the player's timebank has lapsed which will then still grant full weight for the win. This should perhaps address the issue where someone who doesn't want to lose, simply waits for a time-out.
No guts, no glory, no brain, same story.
Or as an alternative to my post just now... what Solitude ^^^ said while I was typing
No guts, no glory, no brain, same story.
I think timeout victories should carry less weight, you havent done anything really to deserve the win. I claim most timeout victory opportunities as in many cases they will hold up a tournament if not claimed i.e. I claimed against Sohel Rana last night (highly ranked player) after waiting almost 30 days to move.
I suggest that having timeout victories count less than resignation and checkmate victories leaves the system open to abuse. For example, if I were vindictive I might let a game time out rather than resign, thereby depriving my opponent of some rating points. Not only that, my rating would take less of a hit with a timeout loss than with resignation.
My view is simple. A win is a win, whether it be by timeout, checkmate or resignation.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
