Have you ever been flagged in a totally winning position? It does feel bad. It sometimes makes me want to quit chess (although only for a few hours or days).
I was considering, would it be possible, in ultra, hyper and bullet, that, let us say, black is flagging white, but white is +5 and more, completely winning, could it then be possible that since white is dominating and winning, that black yes win and get his point, but white gets awarded half a point? I feel there is some fairness to this. But there are probably a lot of pros and cons I have not thought through with this idea, that is why I reach out to the big minds in this forum - what do you guys think about it?
lichess 4 ever
I think if you don't like being flagged then pick a time control with an increment.
Years later a game maybe looked at for accuracy. They might start using a game and the way it was played to learn more from it. Winning on time is meaning less unless your playing for the rating. The position is basically what matters to win a game.
The time creates a stress and we play less accurately becasue of lack of time. The lack of time creates action in the game. The action mixed with accurate play makes the game a good blitz game. When both players use their time equally, it feels like a pleasing evenly matched game. When one has lots of time and the other used all of it, it shows that one was concerned about the clock while the other not. If the player played perfectly and fast against a player that did less well, it only proved the match was incorrectly paired.
It would be nice to see games sorted by value of position.
A separate database would be needed for evaluated well played games, no matter the flag result. The end results is a library of outstanding games. Knowing that one of our games are in that library database is something wonderful.
Sorting by value of the overall game sounds interesting and then we would want a value indicator for our games and beside our profile. I think its called a performance value rating.
Yeah, competition with fully comprehensive insurance. Spoils everything - what’s good about that?
I disagree. It seems to me that flagging ability is very similar to time management in that they are both skills that need to be practiced and improved on.
I can't remember the last time I was flagged in a winning position. Once I learned about increment, I pretty much always play with it because I don't like the idea of the clock deciding the game.
I suggest if you also don't like it that you use increment, too.
I have been beaten many times by players who simply play faster than me, even though I may have a superior position or have a material advantage. I accept this as part of the contest, especially if I am playing blitz without an increment. Both players accept the rules of the contest before playing, it seems churlish to complain about it.
@Toscani yes and no
unless you play unlimited time postal chess
then time is aways a factor
but that is boring as bleep
and when they are in a losing position they take forever and stop moving at all
which is why they invented clocks
so time and time management will always be part of the game
otherwise its merely a test of who has the toughest butt and can sit longer than the other guy
when a position is so complicated that you cant find the best move without flagging then theory is meaningless
that is what ratings are about
how good does a player do considering the time constraints
Stupid idea.
You agree to a set time limit for the game, you lose on time, and you want points?
The pro is dubious. I lose winning positions on time constantly and don't feel that I should be rewarded for bad time management.
However, the cons reveal the idea to be totally untenable. Imagine two players are playing a match and arrive at a complicated double-edged endgame. Player A is trying to calculate a way to save the game and can't find it and ends up losing on time. Player B couldn't see a forced win but felt like he had the initiative. However, after the game is concluded Stockfish looking 20+ plys deep finds a totally forced winning line for player A that 99.9% humans would not have found. Is it fair that player A gets points for a game that he wouldn't have won with infinite time?
Best not to try and fix what isn't broken.
