@nadjarostowa said in #10:
> This is not how lag compensation works.
I concede I am not an expert on the subject.
> This is not how lag compensation works.
I concede I am not an expert on the subject.
If you choose 2+1 you‘ll get 2+1. Now what?
@Sarg0n said in #12:
> If you choose 2+1 you‘ll get 2+1. Now what?
that's such a low strawman response...
> If you choose 2+1 you‘ll get 2+1. Now what?
that's such a low strawman response...
A Texas man is badly injured in a gun fight at a bar after using his gun responsibly while a member of another gang was shooting indiscriminately. At press time, in a WhatsApp message from his hospital bed, he blamed the bar owners of making rules that favored young gangsters and made older gangsters feel excluded.
Your opponent is dealing with the exact same clock as you. Why do you feel like you deserve extra time for playing slower?
@inalansyen said in #1:
> I see chess as a game of resources, a strategy game that consist of more than just the moves. You play the role of converting time into move quality. Overspend, and you will likely earn a winning position, but you will end up running out of your resources and lose. Underspend, and you will have a lot of time saved up, like a rich country without a military being invaded. You lose.
Okay, and all your opponent did is sacrifice move quality for time. He saw you were making better moves but that it was taking you significantly longer to do so. He took a risk that if he made worse moves faster, he could maintain a losing position for long enough to flag you before mate.
To use your analogy, he dragged you into a war of attrition and managed to get your resources to dwindle out before his despite being outgunned.
@inalansyen said in #1:
> I see chess as a game of resources, a strategy game that consist of more than just the moves. You play the role of converting time into move quality. Overspend, and you will likely earn a winning position, but you will end up running out of your resources and lose. Underspend, and you will have a lot of time saved up, like a rich country without a military being invaded. You lose.
Okay, and all your opponent did is sacrifice move quality for time. He saw you were making better moves but that it was taking you significantly longer to do so. He took a risk that if he made worse moves faster, he could maintain a losing position for long enough to flag you before mate.
To use your analogy, he dragged you into a war of attrition and managed to get your resources to dwindle out before his despite being outgunned.
@SteelTemple said in #15:
> Why do you feel like you deserve extra time for playing slower?
Literally no one ever in this galaxy made this argument, least of them me.
The rest of your comment is quite insightful though, compared to what I've read here so far. You are right, I can't say that you are not.
I think it is somehow wrong that an action that naturally has a cost (time) associated with it can be done in such a manner that it instead earns a profit. It just feels like it goes against the spirit of the game, the way I understand it (the way I described it in the part you quote).
(again with the caveat that increments might be useful in longer games, to keep the endgame's nature changing completely, e.g. from classical to blitz-like dynamics)
> Why do you feel like you deserve extra time for playing slower?
Literally no one ever in this galaxy made this argument, least of them me.
The rest of your comment is quite insightful though, compared to what I've read here so far. You are right, I can't say that you are not.
I think it is somehow wrong that an action that naturally has a cost (time) associated with it can be done in such a manner that it instead earns a profit. It just feels like it goes against the spirit of the game, the way I understand it (the way I described it in the part you quote).
(again with the caveat that increments might be useful in longer games, to keep the endgame's nature changing completely, e.g. from classical to blitz-like dynamics)
@kajalmaya oh come on, you can in the same way ridicule those who want 5+5 instead of 5+0 or anything else. The undeniable fact is that different time controls can be compared to each other with one possibly being better than another, objectively or subjectively. If it wasn't the case we could all just play 90+30 with no other choices, and you could still write the same.
Now instead of joining the discussion about differing qualities of time control, you spin this as if it was about ego and ego only and nothing else not even with a tiny possibility. You read what you want to read, what you find easy to rebuff.
Also what does age have to do with any of this and why do you assume mine?
Now instead of joining the discussion about differing qualities of time control, you spin this as if it was about ego and ego only and nothing else not even with a tiny possibility. You read what you want to read, what you find easy to rebuff.
Also what does age have to do with any of this and why do you assume mine?
@inalansyen said in #1:
> I see a lot of arguments along the lines of games becoming nonsense chaos in no-increment timecontrols. My expereince is opposite. And it is driving me crazy. I don't have a good option when when I'm too high strung for 5+0 (but that I will leave to the end).
>
> So what do I see when I'm playing 2+1? I have like 20 seconds left, the opponent 3 seconds. Well they would sooner lose on time than being mated, so they start making random moves to rack up time. They are now up to like 8 seconds. But me using my time responsibly, down to 10. So I;m like why the f is this game still going on, and then I realize... the sheer amount of unfairness, the advantage my opponent accumulated by basically not playing anymore dawns on me. I lose like 98% of the games when that get into this situation. Maybe that's on me, but it doesn't make it less stupid.
This holds for all incremental controls and the concept of increments in general, not just 2+1... play 2+0 or 3+0 imo
> I see a lot of arguments along the lines of games becoming nonsense chaos in no-increment timecontrols. My expereince is opposite. And it is driving me crazy. I don't have a good option when when I'm too high strung for 5+0 (but that I will leave to the end).
>
> So what do I see when I'm playing 2+1? I have like 20 seconds left, the opponent 3 seconds. Well they would sooner lose on time than being mated, so they start making random moves to rack up time. They are now up to like 8 seconds. But me using my time responsibly, down to 10. So I;m like why the f is this game still going on, and then I realize... the sheer amount of unfairness, the advantage my opponent accumulated by basically not playing anymore dawns on me. I lose like 98% of the games when that get into this situation. Maybe that's on me, but it doesn't make it less stupid.
This holds for all incremental controls and the concept of increments in general, not just 2+1... play 2+0 or 3+0 imo
@inalansyen said in #16:
> Literally no one ever in this galaxy made this argument, least of them me.
How else should I interpret it when you whine about getting flagged in a better position as "being unfair"? Like I said, you both have the same clock so the problem is with you not the fairness of the game.
3|0 is a default that is close to the 2|0 you're asking for. It's probably the most popular time control on the site. Try that maybe if your issue is with increment.
> Literally no one ever in this galaxy made this argument, least of them me.
How else should I interpret it when you whine about getting flagged in a better position as "being unfair"? Like I said, you both have the same clock so the problem is with you not the fairness of the game.
3|0 is a default that is close to the 2|0 you're asking for. It's probably the most popular time control on the site. Try that maybe if your issue is with increment.
I think this whole thread is so confusing because usually people play with increment like 2+1 exactly to avoid being flagged by people playing quick random moves.
And now you say this happens just because of this very increment... which makes no sense at all.
And now you say this happens just because of this very increment... which makes no sense at all.