When I clearly win on time, many players try to tie the game by eating all my pawns. I hate is so much. They realize their despair, and like a snake, which is anyway dying, they bite for the last devious time. They don't even try to checkmate me. It seems unfair. They throw away their little chance of winning for the sake of some filthy draw. I suggest to cancel draws on time in hyperbullet.
Sounds more like you should learn to play it well...
Sounds like you do not understand irony...
@Chesstroll_Berserk Seriously, It's part of the game. I'm sure you've done it as well.
Why not remove draws altogether? The wch match would have been much more interesting then.
Actually, not, @seanysean, when I have little time, I rather will risk and try to checkmate than agree to a draw.
For example I have a queen and a rook and two pawns. My opponent has only 4 pawns. But they have 10 seconds and I have 2 seconds. Most players in this situation will try to eat those 4 pawns to make a predefined draw. But after they eat all pawns, they won't have a chance to checkmate anymore (because, likely, their time will be around 0.5). If they try to checkmate, they risk to lose (due to the end of time), and their chances to checkmate are, say, 35-55%. Chances to tie the game are 80-100%. Instead of being courageous and go for a checkmate, they choose an inevitable draw. While I choose to go for a checkmate in such cases, risking to lose, of course.
Instead of giving themselves and an opponent a chance to compete (both can still win or lose), they just tie a game. Their tendency to safety ruins all the competition.
For example I have a queen and a rook and two pawns. My opponent has only 4 pawns. But they have 10 seconds and I have 2 seconds. Most players in this situation will try to eat those 4 pawns to make a predefined draw. But after they eat all pawns, they won't have a chance to checkmate anymore (because, likely, their time will be around 0.5). If they try to checkmate, they risk to lose (due to the end of time), and their chances to checkmate are, say, 35-55%. Chances to tie the game are 80-100%. Instead of being courageous and go for a checkmate, they choose an inevitable draw. While I choose to go for a checkmate in such cases, risking to lose, of course.
Instead of giving themselves and an opponent a chance to compete (both can still win or lose), they just tie a game. Their tendency to safety ruins all the competition.
Better chose a variant where anything else than premove, smartmove, ...cheatmove?..., and hyper-calibrated mouses are important.
#6 I favor using FIDE rules (that if a player's time expires and the opponent can construct a checkmate by any legal sequence of moves, the player loses) rather than the current "insufficient material" rules.
#8 I think FIDE's rules can be a little bit unfair considering that you can win with only a knight left for example but I'm kinda indifferent.
Going for a draw when it's too risky to play for a win is a common strategy. Chesstroll_Berserk, for me it seems like you want the rules to be changed to fit your personal problems, rather than being fair in a general way.
Going for a draw when it's too risky to play for a win is a common strategy. Chesstroll_Berserk, for me it seems like you want the rules to be changed to fit your personal problems, rather than being fair in a general way.
@blackzombie, actually, the same problem exists in professional chess, as @lovlas has mentioned. And when many people believe draws are boring and try to prevent them, you cannot accuse them of fitting their personal problems. It's a common problem in the chess world.
But taking into account that such changes are unrealistic, why would you think that I'm stone-serious about the thing I know a lot about? So, this is mostly an irony. But, maybe, it could make some people rethink their strategy. So, my aim is to create some kind of refreshing, not to shake your beliefs about chess.
I also agree with Toadofsky, in that case we could avoid draws by saving a knight or a bishop. So, even if we cannot protect our pawns, we still make it harder for an opponent to tie a game.
And it's a pure logic. One have to get rid of a stereotype to understand it. If we consider a game with one pawn left against a rook, queen and a king lost for the stronger side if its time is over, then why don't we consider a game where there is a knight instead of a pawn less lost? It's much easier to eat a pawn than to chase a knight, so the rule of FIDE seems more appropriate.
But taking into account that such changes are unrealistic, why would you think that I'm stone-serious about the thing I know a lot about? So, this is mostly an irony. But, maybe, it could make some people rethink their strategy. So, my aim is to create some kind of refreshing, not to shake your beliefs about chess.
I also agree with Toadofsky, in that case we could avoid draws by saving a knight or a bishop. So, even if we cannot protect our pawns, we still make it harder for an opponent to tie a game.
And it's a pure logic. One have to get rid of a stereotype to understand it. If we consider a game with one pawn left against a rook, queen and a king lost for the stronger side if its time is over, then why don't we consider a game where there is a knight instead of a pawn less lost? It's much easier to eat a pawn than to chase a knight, so the rule of FIDE seems more appropriate.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.