Players who try too hard.

Some interesting responses, thanks guys.  Here's what I think:

Superkala: What happens in live chess when your move clock runs out?  Obvsiouly as you pointed out it would not be difficult for a very serious player to "cheat" this system, but hopefully the site could make it more trouble than it was worth.  Think of tactics trainer where the board is hidden in between moves.

Gabrielconroy: I agree that there is a challange there, but only against players who are not very strong.  Against anyone who plays well, if they are doing deep analyses then their moves will be far stronger than mine and a game that was closely matched will become very unbalanced and not much fun.

Chessploooge: Thank you for that well thought out response.  Consider:  Given sufficient time, almost anyone can get a near perfect score on an IQ test.  It is only under time constraints that meaningful differences can be seen in individuals.

Turp: Do you try hard ever single time you play baseball?  Do you absolutely refuse to give any quarter no matter how casual the sporting event is?  There is clearly a differnece between playing for fun and "trying hard all the time" no matter what the context.  Even players who are very good at baseball can play a pick-up game where it would be considered bad form to go completely nuts if the team were down a run.

Pegrin: That is probably the best solution to my problem.  Thank you for the advice.

Amac7079: Thank you for the support.  People deliberately dragging their feet because they are losing is not specifically what I'm referring too, but it is very similar.

Notgm: "No, it isn't."  Checkmate my friend.

KevinGabbert: You are right, it is a compliment.  It's quite funny when I am taking 30 seconds to make my moves, and my opponent is needing immense amounts of time to keep up with me.  However, it would be nice if the agreed upon terms to the game said that winning or losing, we both had only 5 minutes to make a move after opening up the board.

I seem to have missed communicating my point.  Allow me the honor of trying again. 

Imagine you and I are playing chess live.  Let's say we are watching the olympics together, and decide to play chess at the same time. We both are roughly of equal skill. We both understand position and we don't needlessly hang our pieces, but we're not trying to win any awards here.  We both take about a minute or so to make a move. This is very casual, we're just having fun.

Let's say that I blunder early in our first game, and you lay down a great fork and grab a bishop for free.  I groan and laugh, and we keep playing.  I do my best to even up the game, but in between grabbing pizza, watching the 100 metre sprint, and having a few laughs, I can't quite recoup the loss and you checkmate me 15 moves later.  Great, thanks for the game.

Now we play round 2.  This time you make a mistake 8 moves in, and I grab a pawn off of you.  All of a sudden everything changes.  You insist that I turn off the television.  You make a "no-talking" rule while it is your turn.  You start taking half an hour to make a move.  You go over and unplug the phone from the wall.  When the cat jumps on your lap while you are thinking you throw it through the window in rage.  You pull out a second chess board and start running massive 20+ move simulations from the current position.  After a few more moves, you inform me that I might as well go home, you'll have a move for me in a few days.

Who in their right mind is going to want to play chess with this opponent again?  Is it "sour grapes" to say:  "You know what, I resign...don't worry about it bud.  No that's ok, I don't want to play you again."

There is a big difference between chess at 30-60 seconds A MOVE, and chess where 30 minutes of deep thought is standard.  All I'm saying is that a move clock would allow players who are looking for good competition in a casual time frame to find each other.

I might be mistaken but some of the people you were playing might have just had th problem of two many of there oppenents online at the same time. Its a perfectly reasonable explanation, and has happened to me. You dont Know exactly what your opponent is thinking and doing during the game so cant claim that what your saying is true. Your just being a bit childish if you ask me...

I play ALL sports seriously, I am sad like that!

Well, I see your frustration but how do you know that your opponent isn't preparing dinner or something?  With respect, it's a bit presumptuous to say people are invariably slowing down to try and catch you out.

Hmm, don't get it....isn't that the whole point of turn-based chess.  You can really delve deeply into positions.  And, hopefully, when similar ones come up again that experience will come to bear, and you can look a bit deeper and so on...

Butterland wrote:

There is a big difference between chess at 30-60 seconds A MOVE, and chess where 30 minutes of deep thought is standard.  All I'm saying is that a move clock would allow players who are looking for good competition in a casual time frame to find each other.

 your problem is that you don't like correspondence chess. this is a CC website.

try classical time controls.

not sure how you meant that, but ok.  there is a timeclock in the livechess section. 

when someone takes longer to make a move against me in a game where we agreed to a maximum of three days per turn, i assume that they're off getting a drink, or doing work, or something less casual. 

if the game is as casual as you say it is, then why are you analyzing your opponent to such depths?

Oh my god, I can't believe you are really still defending your point, I tought chessplooge had said everything about this that needed to be said. You are really like a 10 year old, when people have three days per move, don't whine when they actually use this time. I don't know why I respond to this thread, but it actually made me feel sorry for you, reading how you defend such an ignorant point.

And besides that, it is really very logical. If you are in a winning position, it is easier to find the right move, than when you are in a losing/defending position.

Wow I find the flame-level on this site to be quite dissapointing. 

"The great thing about chess.com is the community."  Indeed. 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the people who respond this emotionally to a suggestion that some members seem to take winning at chess too seriously would also be the same people who spend as much time & energy as neccessary to avoid a potential loss.

Thanks anyways guys.

What is all this crap abaout whining? He made a suggestion on how he would like to improve the site, all suggestions are not good, but you could all atleast respect them.

I do not belive he wants to change how the game is played, only add more features. Like having an option, 1/3/5 days | casual / normal, normal being how the game is played now and causal with Butterlands suggestions.

Hey thanks eldis.  I didn't think anyone was interested in discussing my suggestion.

You'd think guys who spent this much time understanding chess would have better reading comprehension.  

If you want another practical suggestion or two... Search for players and sort them by number of games played. (If someone has already lost 100+ games, he/she isn't likely to be unsportsmanlike about one more loss). Then look at their average time per move. I like to find people who move in under 2 hours on average.

You might also consider creating some kind of user interest group. I am not sure what Chess.com offers in that regard. Even if there is no formal way to start a group, you could write a description of the group's purpose/philiosophy and have interested people contact you.

Butterland challenged me to a game after my response to this thread, and promptly aborted it before any move had been played. Hmm, a tad childish?!

Butterland wrote:

Chessploooge: Thank you for that well thought out response.  Consider:  Given sufficient time, almost anyone can get a near perfect score on an IQ test.  It is only under time constraints that meaningful differences can be seen in individuals.

are you trying to tell me that you believe that all chess players are equal without time constraints?  cause i just don't believe this.  for me, you're bitterness towards players who "try too hard" is just insanity.  perhaps i'm misinterpreting what you're trying to say.  who knows.  regardless, chess isn't a damn IQ test.

I was going to let that one slide, but since someone else spotted it, chess and IQ tests are alike imo, in getting MORE accurate given a sensible long time control (more time than is needed, so you are never forced to second guess whether time or accuracy is more important, and to minimise luck) over a short time limit.  If you need to involve restrictive time limits, your test is shallow, and lazy.  There are plenty of ways to increase difficulty in problems to filter out people who would simply find it impossible to answer.  The most obvious, common to both chess and logic problems is to simply up the amount of stuff you need to juggle in your mind.  Another simple example in chess would be a simple combination of a few moves that doesnt require too much brain power, for example a queen sacrifice for mate in 3 or something using a common mating pattern.  A beginner could sit at the board for 14 days and not see it, but a better player with the mating pattern known would see it in a sensible amount of time.  Of course an average player might see this tactic faster than a master, both seeing it in a sensible amount of time, and reducing the time limit would clearly give a meaningless (and extremely misleading) difference between these individuals. 

by the way, most people would not score perfect on an IQ test even with unlimited time!

Everybody seems to have misunderstood IQ tests. If you do them without time constraints, they become meaningless. In fact, the new generation of tests currently being used actually grade your IQ based on your score AND the time it took you to finish. This means that if you take the time constraint away, the test score is meaningless.

Just for the record, the original post is idiotic.

Butterland wrote:

Wow I find the flame-level on this site to be quite dissapointing. 

"The great thing about chess.com is the community."  Indeed

well even the best and most sound communitys act like this when someone (such as you) starts complaining about the other members. If some players which to play in a paticular way that you dont like, finish the game and play someone else. You cant make people do as you want.

too much talk, not enough chess.

i reckon people who like the social side of chess.com should be allowed to do what they want, and this site is not only for the people who want to play chess but those who want to learn how to play and sharing their common experiences in chess. it says it in the logo