by resignation

[a***@gmail.com]

1) John won by resignation.

2) John won by his opponent's resignation.
(In the above sentences the context is chess, or any similar game where players
can resign)

3) Henry died by a violent act.

4) Henry died by John's violent act.

Which of the above are grammatical?
Which are idiomatic?

Gratefully,
Navi

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.
2) John won by his opponent's resignation.
(In the above sentences the context is chess, or any similar game where players
can resign)
3) Henry died by a violent act.
4) Henry died by John's violent act.
Which of the above are grammatical?

All

Post by a***@gmail.com
Which are idiomatic?

None, except perhaps 3.

Post by a***@gmail.com
Gratefully,
Navi

[Eric Walker]

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Post by a***@gmail.com
2) John won by his opponent's resignation.
(In the above sentences the context is chess, or any similar game where
players can resign)

OK.

Post by a***@gmail.com
3) Henry died by a violent act.
4) Henry died by John's violent act.

More or less OK, but "by" would be better replaced by "from" or "as a
consequence of" or such like.

Post by a***@gmail.com
Which of the above are grammatical?
Which are idiomatic?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

It left me wondering whether there are any games that you can win by
resigning.

Cricket has an option "declared" where a team can choose not to play out
the rest of its innings. It's an option that's worth using if you're so
far ahead that it's desirable to let the other team play, in the hope of
getting a quick victory instead of a draw. But I can't think of any
other game where resignation can be a winning strategy.

There are some quiz games where "pass" is a better option than a random
guess, in a case where you're not confident of knowing the answer. But I
don't think a pass would count as a resignation.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 20:34:31 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

It left me wondering whether there are any games that you can win by
resigning.
Cricket has an option "declared" where a team can choose not to play out
the rest of its innings. It's an option that's worth using if you're so
far ahead that it's desirable to let the other team play, in the hope of
getting a quick victory instead of a draw. But I can't think of any
other game where resignation can be a winning strategy.
There are some quiz games where "pass" is a better option than a random
guess, in a case where you're not confident of knowing the answer. But I
don't think a pass would count as a resignation.

In any form of gambling, quitting while you are ahead is winning by
resigning.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 20:34:31 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

It left me wondering whether there are any games that you can win by
resigning.
Cricket has an option "declared" where a team can choose not to play out
the rest of its innings. It's an option that's worth using if you're so
far ahead that it's desirable to let the other team play, in the hope of
getting a quick victory instead of a draw. But I can't think of any
other game where resignation can be a winning strategy.
There are some quiz games where "pass" is a better option than a random
guess, in a case where you're not confident of knowing the answer. But I
don't think a pass would count as a resignation.

In any form of gambling, quitting while you are ahead is winning by
resigning.

Good point. I didn't even think of that possibility.

And it's even a case where you'd probably lose if you didn't resign.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

It left me wondering whether there are any games that you can win by
resigning.
Cricket has an option "declared" where a team can choose not to play out
the rest of its innings. It's an option that's worth using if you're so
far ahead that it's desirable to let the other team play, in the hope of
getting a quick victory instead of a draw. But I can't think of any
other game where resignation can be a winning strategy.

In kids' baseball, there's a "slaughter rule" that says if a team is
ahead by some immense number of runs, they're declared the winner so
as to spare the other side further humiliation.

No such rule operates in college football or basketball.

[Madhu]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

It left me wondering whether there are any games that you can win by
resigning.

Not a game, but an ex-CEO of a scam-banking-scam expects to keep the fat
severance package because she resigned (before being terminated by the
board). This is a case of winning by resignation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanda_Kochhar (unchecked)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Madhu

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

It left me wondering whether there are any games that you can win by
resigning.

Not a game, but an ex-CEO of a scam-banking-scam expects to keep the fat
severance package because she resigned (before being terminated by the
board). This is a case of winning by resignation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanda_Kochhar (unchecked)

Yes, and I think Carlos Ghosn would have wise to resign from
Renault-Nissan before it was too late.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

I thought it meant he got bored to death (resigned to his fate), and
somehow that caused him to win.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation", though - and not any more meaningless than e.g.
"An inmate died by electrocution", where it's easily inferred
that the inmate didn't electrocute themself.

Another "two-way" phrase is common in chess, BTW, i.e. "win on time"
or "lose on time".

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
2) John won by his opponent's resignation.
(In the above sentences the context is chess, or any similar game where
players can resign)

OK.

Post by a***@gmail.com
3) Henry died by a violent act.
4) Henry died by John's violent act.

More or less OK, but "by" would be better replaced by "from" or "as a
consequence of" or such like.

Post by a***@gmail.com
Which of the above are grammatical?
Which are idiomatic?

--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Ken Blake]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.

Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Post by b***@aol.com
though - and not any more meaningless than e.g.
"An inmate died by electrocution", where it's easily inferred
that the inmate didn't electrocute themself.

Yes. However, these days many people use the word "electrocution" to
mean a severe electrical shock rather than death.


Ken

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

[Ken Blake]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,

Yes.

Post by Paul Wolff
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

OK, but we were talking about chess. In the example I cited, my opponent
ran out of the time allotted to him--two hours for his first forty moves.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,

Yes.

Post by Paul Wolff
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

OK, but we were talking about chess. In the example I cited, my opponent
ran out of the time allotted to him--two hours for his first forty moves.

I am not a chess player, and seeing this does not excite my interest.
Two hours? For a single game?

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,

Yes.

Post by Paul Wolff
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

OK, but we were talking about chess. In the example I cited, my opponent
ran out of the time allotted to him--two hours for his first forty moves.

I am not a chess player, and seeing this does not excite my interest.
Two hours? For a single game?

Two hours for the first forty moves. It's not unknown for a game to
reach a hundred moves, though the pace often picks up toward the
end.

I am nowhere near good enough to spend that kind of time thinking
about chess moves. If I were, then while watching a game, I could
be thinking the same things as the players--what would happen after
such-and-such a move, what then, etc.

Speaking of resignation and being a "patzer", I've occasionally
thought, when looking at the end of a game, "I wish I were good
enough to resign in that position."

[Ken Blake]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,

Yes.

Post by Paul Wolff
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

OK, but we were talking about chess. In the example I cited, my opponent
ran out of the time allotted to him--two hours for his first forty moves.

I am not a chess player, and seeing this does not excite my interest.
Two hours? For a single game?

Two hours for the first forty moves.

For *each* player, as I just said in another message in this thread.
That's potentially a total of four hours for the first forty moves.


It's not unknown for a game to

Post by Jerry Friedman
reach a hundred moves,

Not unknown, but rare. 40-50 moves is more typical. But some have gone
over 100 moves.

Post by Jerry Friedman
though the pace often picks up toward the
end.
I am nowhere near good enough to spend that kind of time thinking
about chess moves. If I were, then while watching a game, I could
be thinking the same things as the players--what would happen after
such-and-such a move, what then, etc.
Speaking of resignation and being a "patzer", I've occasionally
thought, when looking at the end of a game, "I wish I were good
enough to resign in that position."

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,

Yes.

Post by Paul Wolff
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

OK, but we were talking about chess. In the example I cited, my opponent
ran out of the time allotted to him--two hours for his first forty moves.

I am not a chess player, and seeing this does not excite my interest.
Two hours? For a single game?

Two hours for the first forty moves.

For *each* player, as I just said in another message in this thread.
That's potentially a total of four hours for the first forty moves.

I could watch an entire NFL football game, with commercials, in that
amount of time.

[Ken Blake]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,

Yes.

Post by Paul Wolff
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

OK, but we were talking about chess. In the example I cited, my opponent
ran out of the time allotted to him--two hours for his first forty moves.

I am not a chess player, and seeing this does not excite my interest.
Two hours? For a single game?

Two hours for the first forty moves.

For *each* player, as I just said in another message in this thread.
That's potentially a total of four hours for the first forty moves.

I could watch an entire NFL football game, with commercials, in that
amount of time.

Yes, you could, but I couldn't. I know I'm unusual, but I find football
to be the most boring of all games. Yes, it takes around four hours, but
the average length of time the ball is in play is 12 minutes.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,

Yes.

Post by Paul Wolff
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

OK, but we were talking about chess. In the example I cited, my opponent
ran out of the time allotted to him--two hours for his first forty moves.

I am not a chess player, and seeing this does not excite my interest.
Two hours? For a single game?

Two hours for the first forty moves.

For *each* player, as I just said in another message in this thread.
That's potentially a total of four hours for the first forty moves.

I could watch an entire NFL football game, with commercials, in that
amount of time.

Yes, you could, but I couldn't. I know I'm unusual, but I find football
to be the most boring of all games. Yes, it takes around four hours, but
the average length of time the ball is in play is 12 minutes.

And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of
pieces are involved?

It would be interesting to compare the amount of time where the ball
is in play in some way in all sports. In both tennis and golf, I
imagine the time is rather comparable to (Am) football.

If you are going to count ball-in-play time only, then in golf the
walking to the ball, the practice swings, and the lining up of a putt,
don't count. In tennis, extended volleying is not that frequent. It's
a very slow game as far as action is concerned.

Soccer and rugby are probably the games where the ball-in-play time is
the longest compared to the length of the match, with basketball next.

Of all the games, though, while it might be part of the only 12
minutes of action, when there's a long run or a long pass the action
is the most exciting. That's what we wait for.

A score, in tennis, is comparable to an incomplete pass in football.
The equivalent of a score (being the successful end of a series), in
golf, is often a 3-foot putt.

[RH Draney]

Post by Tony Cooper
It would be interesting to compare the amount of time where the ball
is in play in some way in all sports. In both tennis and golf, I
imagine the time is rather comparable to (Am) football.
If you are going to count ball-in-play time only, then in golf the
walking to the ball, the practice swings, and the lining up of a putt,
don't count. In tennis, extended volleying is not that frequent. It's
a very slow game as far as action is concerned.
Soccer and rugby are probably the games where the ball-in-play time is
the longest compared to the length of the match, with basketball next.

Q: What sport features the fastest-moving balls?
A: Skydiving.

....r

[CDB]

Post by Tony Cooper
It would be interesting to compare the amount of time where the
ball is in play in some way in all sports. In both tennis and
golf, I imagine the time is rather comparable to (Am) football.
If you are going to count ball-in-play time only, then in golf the
walking to the ball, the practice swings, and the lining up of a
putt, don't count. In tennis, extended volleying is not that
frequent. It's a very slow game as far as action is concerned.
Soccer and rugby are probably the games where the ball-in-play time
is the longest compared to the length of the match, with basketball
next.

Q: What sport features the fastest-moving balls? A: Skydiving.
....r

I suppose some of them could be metaphorical.

[Lewis]

Post by RH Draney

Post by Tony Cooper
It would be interesting to compare the amount of time where the ball
is in play in some way in all sports. In both tennis and golf, I
imagine the time is rather comparable to (Am) football.
If you are going to count ball-in-play time only, then in golf the
walking to the ball, the practice swings, and the lining up of a putt,
don't count. In tennis, extended volleying is not that frequent. It's
a very slow game as far as action is concerned.
Soccer and rugby are probably the games where the ball-in-play time is
the longest compared to the length of the match, with basketball next.

Q: What sport features the fastest-moving balls?
A: Skydiving.

Funny, but not true.

Skydiver;s terminal velocity is around 200km/h, a long way from Jai-lai
where the ball can reach 300 km/h.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Features? Involves, more like.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tony Cooper
And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of
pieces are involved?
It would be interesting to compare the amount of time where the ball
is in play in some way in all sports. In both tennis and golf, I
imagine the time is rather comparable to (Am) football.

An interesting point. In forty chess moves, the time spent moving the
pieces would probably be under a minute.

But you also have to take into account whether the game is inherently
interesting. I find any kind of football boring to watch, even things
like Australian Rules where the ball is in play almost all of the time.
Tennis is more interesting for the spectator, but golf is far too slow.

Basketball stopped being interested when the players became tall enough
to swing from the hoop.

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 20:00:18 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of
pieces are involved?
It would be interesting to compare the amount of time where the ball
is in play in some way in all sports. In both tennis and golf, I
imagine the time is rather comparable to (Am) football.

An interesting point. In forty chess moves, the time spent moving the
pieces would probably be under a minute.
But you also have to take into account whether the game is inherently
interesting. I find any kind of football boring to watch, even things
like Australian Rules where the ball is in play almost all of the time.
Tennis is more interesting for the spectator, but golf is far too slow.

I understand, and even agree with, that. My point is that
time-in-play is not the reason that football is less interesting for
some to watch than golf or tennis.

It's one of the reasons people give for not being interested, but the
real reason is a general apathy for that particular sport. The real
reason is difficult to articulate, so they come up with reasons like
time-in-play, excess padding, etc.

I love to watch football. I have no interest in watching a tennis
match.

Post by Peter Moylan
Basketball stopped being interested when the players became tall enough
to swing from the hoop.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of
pieces are involved?
It would be interesting to compare the amount of time where the ball
is in play in some way in all sports. In both tennis and golf, I
imagine the time is rather comparable to (Am) football.

Soem of that comparison has been done by better minds than mine:
<URL:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-football-is-even-in-a-football-broadcast/>
(No tennis or chess comparisons,
but the NFL and MLB are matched up
agains the NBA, NHL, and English Premier League.

Post by Peter Moylan
An interesting point. In forty chess moves, the time spent moving the
pieces would probably be under a minute.
But you also have to take into account whether the game is inherently
interesting. I find any kind of football boring to watch, even things
like Australian Rules where the ball is in play almost all of the time.
Tennis is more interesting for the spectator, but golf is far too slow.
Basketball stopped being interested when the players became tall enough
to swing from the hoop.

Swinging from the hoop is a minor part of the game,
usually part of a fast break,
because the other team has /their/ Big
to block you from the hoop most of the time.
Basketball is mostly trying to get someone open for a shot,
usually by drawing the defenders towards someone else.

/dps

[Tak To]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of
pieces are involved?
It would be interesting to compare the amount of time where the ball
is in play in some way in all sports. In both tennis and golf, I
imagine the time is rather comparable to (Am) football.

<URL:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-football-is-even-in-a-football-broadcast/>
(No tennis or chess comparisons,
but the NFL and MLB are matched up
agains the NBA, NHL, and English Premier League.

Post by Peter Moylan
An interesting point. In forty chess moves, the time spent moving the
pieces would probably be under a minute.
But you also have to take into account whether the game is inherently
interesting. I find any kind of football boring to watch, even things
like Australian Rules where the ball is in play almost all of the time.
Tennis is more interesting for the spectator, but golf is far too slow.
Basketball stopped being interested when the players became tall enough
to swing from the hoop.

Swinging from the hoop is a minor part of the game,
usually part of a fast break,
because the other team has /their/ Big
to block you from the hoop most of the time.
Basketball is mostly trying to get someone open for a shot,
usually by drawing the defenders towards someone else.

Just for those who might not be familiar with the details:
Zone Defense is (practically) disallowed in the NBA but is
perfectly OK in the NCAA matches as well as the Olympic
games. Basically, in the NBA, a defensive player cannot
spend more than 3 seconds inside an area in front of and
under the goal ("the key") without guarding a player of the
opposing team.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_three-second_violation

Note also that the NBA has a number of rules that are designed
(IMHO) to reduce the advantage of height and jumping abilities.
https://official.nba.com/rule-no-11-basket-interference-goaltending/

[Tak To]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of
pieces are involved?
It would be interesting to compare the amount of time where the ball
is in play in some way in all sports. In both tennis and golf, I
imagine the time is rather comparable to (Am) football.

An interesting point. In forty chess moves, the time spent moving the
pieces would probably be under a minute.
But you also have to take into account whether the game is inherently
interesting. I find any kind of football boring to watch, even things
like Australian Rules where the ball is in play almost all of the time.
Tennis is more interesting for the spectator, but golf is far too slow.
Basketball stopped being interested when the players became tall enough
to swing from the hoop.

Have you seen Julius Irving ("Dr J") play?

Michael Jordan was great, but he was never as exciting.
YMMV.

[Lewis]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake
Yes, you could, but I couldn't. I know I'm unusual, but I find football
to be the most boring of all games. Yes, it takes around four hours, but
the average length of time the ball is in play is 12 minutes.

And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of
pieces are involved?

Are you suggesting watching a 4 hour chess match is exciting?

Post by Tony Cooper
It would be interesting to compare the amount of time where the ball
is in play in some way in all sports. In both tennis and golf, I
imagine the time is rather comparable to (Am) football.

Uh, not in tennis I wouldn’t think, the time between points is short
and points can be quite long. Golf is mostly walking after the ball and
then looking at it, the time in motion is very short.

Post by Tony Cooper
If you are going to count ball-in-play time only, then in golf the
walking to the ball, the practice swings, and the lining up of a putt,
don't count. In tennis, extended volleying is not that frequent. It's
a very slow game as far as action is concerned.

Not as slow as golf or NFL football I don't think.

Not that I think ball in motion of "action" has anything at all to do
with whether a sport is watchable or not. ALL sports are watchable if
you are interested in the sport, and any sport you are not interested in
is tedious and boring.

** Said as someone who used to watch a lot of sports and now watches,
essentially, none. I did watch a couple of matches from the last
world cup and some of 2018 Wimbledon (maybe a total of 3 hours over
the two weeks, mostly the women's final).

[Rich Ulrich]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:27:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake
Yes, you could, but I couldn't. I know I'm unusual, but I find football
to be the most boring of all games. Yes, it takes around four hours, but
the average length of time the ball is in play is 12 minutes.

And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of
pieces are involved?

Are you suggesting watching a 4 hour chess match is exciting?

Post by Tony Cooper
It would be interesting to compare the amount of time where the ball
is in play in some way in all sports. In both tennis and golf, I
imagine the time is rather comparable to (Am) football.

Uh, not in tennis I wouldn’t think, the time between points is short
and points can be quite long. Golf is mostly walking after the ball and
then looking at it, the time in motion is very short.

I've watched The Tennis Channel since last spring, and just
lately I was thinking about the question of time-in-play. It is
moderately small, for almost all matches.

They sometimes display who won the rallies of varying lengths.
Under 5 strokes and under 10 include most rallies. Those don't
take many seconds to play. Two seconds per shot would be slow
hitting, like "moon balls."

The "serve clock" before the first serve is 25 (or so) seconds,
and it usually gets below 5. The first serve gets into play more
than half the time, but there is no clock for the second serve.
There's a little extra padding between games and sets.

A fast set, 6-0 shutout with barely 5 points (say) per game
accounts for 30 "rallies" and not much more than 60 seconds
of play, but will take more than 20 minutes on the clock.

I discovered when I switched from tennis to squash (30
years ago) that 90 minutes of tennis matched 45 minutes of
squash, for my own exercise and hits on the ball. The squash
ball doesn't travel as far, and the enclosing walls of the court
mean that we take far less time to fetch the ball to start the
next point.

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
If you are going to count ball-in-play time only, then in golf the
walking to the ball, the practice swings, and the lining up of a putt,
don't count. In tennis, extended volleying is not that frequent. It's
a very slow game as far as action is concerned.

Not as slow as golf or NFL football I don't think.
Not that I think ball in motion of "action" has anything at all to do
with whether a sport is watchable or not. ALL sports are watchable if
you are interested in the sport, and any sport you are not interested in
is tedious and boring.

My brother-in-law who had played football saw things on TV that
sometimes the announcers would point out to the rest of us. He
saw a better game than I did.

I've watched enough tennis in recent months that I'm seeing the
games better, and I'm starting to anticipate the announcers, too.
On occasion. My own experience gives me some leg-up in
understanding strategies that were never part of my own slower-
speed game, except by accident.

Post by Lewis
** Said as someone who used to watch a lot of sports and now watches,
essentially, none. I did watch a couple of matches from the last
world cup and some of 2018 Wimbledon (maybe a total of 3 hours over
the two weeks, mostly the women's final).

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:55:31 -0500, Rich Ulrich

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Lewis
Not as slow as golf or NFL football I don't think.
Not that I think ball in motion of "action" has anything at all to do
with whether a sport is watchable or not. ALL sports are watchable if
you are interested in the sport, and any sport you are not interested in
is tedious and boring.

My brother-in-law who had played football saw things on TV that
sometimes the announcers would point out to the rest of us. He
saw a better game than I did.
I've watched enough tennis in recent months that I'm seeing the
games better, and I'm starting to anticipate the announcers, too.
On occasion. My own experience gives me some leg-up in
understanding strategies that were never part of my own slower-
speed game, except by accident.

I normally watch (Am) football on TV. I recently attended the NFL All
Pro game in person, though. TV vs in person is quite different.

On TV, the camera follows the ball and the ball carrier. After the
play, the play is re-played from different perspectives. If you
consider the re-plays, it is almost continuous action except for the
commercials.

In person, it's very difficult to follow the ball. In a pass
formation, I might be following one receiver and the ball is thrown to
a different receiver. Things happened in parts of the field I wasn't
watching. Line action is very difficult to follow. Those TV re-plays
shows how the blocking was done that allow the ball carrier to
advance, but this is not noticeable in person.

The game seems slower and with less action. Without those re-plays,
what is seen is a bunch of players standing around until the next play
is called. The time between action is not filled as it is on TV.

I became fascinated by the Sky Cams. They are cameras on wires above
the field that follow the ball and provide close-ups. On TV, I'm so
used to it that I don't appreciate it. In person, I am terribly
impressed by the skill of the operator of the cameras. There were
only two Sky Cams, but they managed to capture every play.

The stadium has those large TV screens at each end, and they'd show
re-plays on those screens. Not after every play as they do on TV, but
on enough plays to impress me.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Tony Cooper
I became fascinated by the Sky Cams. They are cameras on wires above
the field that follow the ball and provide close-ups. On TV, I'm so
used to it that I don't appreciate it. In person, I am terribly
impressed by the skill of the operator of the cameras. There were
only two Sky Cams, but they managed to capture every play.

Perhaps they manage to sneak a tracking device into the ball?

[Tak To]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:55:31 -0500, Rich Ulrich

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Lewis
Not as slow as golf or NFL football I don't think.
Not that I think ball in motion of "action" has anything at all to do
with whether a sport is watchable or not. ALL sports are watchable if
you are interested in the sport, and any sport you are not interested in
is tedious and boring.

My brother-in-law who had played football saw things on TV that
sometimes the announcers would point out to the rest of us. He
saw a better game than I did.
I've watched enough tennis in recent months that I'm seeing the
games better, and I'm starting to anticipate the announcers, too.
On occasion. My own experience gives me some leg-up in
understanding strategies that were never part of my own slower-
speed game, except by accident.

I normally watch (Am) football on TV. I recently attended the NFL All
Pro game in person, though. TV vs in person is quite different.
On TV, the camera follows the ball and the ball carrier. After the
play, the play is re-played from different perspectives. If you
consider the re-plays, it is almost continuous action except for the
commercials.
In person, it's very difficult to follow the ball. In a pass
formation, I might be following one receiver and the ball is thrown to
a different receiver. Things happened in parts of the field I wasn't
watching. Line action is very difficult to follow. Those TV re-plays
shows how the blocking was done that allow the ball carrier to
advance, but this is not noticeable in person.
The game seems slower and with less action. Without those re-plays,
what is seen is a bunch of players standing around until the next play
is called. The time between action is not filled as it is on TV.

I agree with you. The replays are just an important element
of the game from a spectator's point of view.

Not that it will ever happen, but I have always hoped for
instant replays for fencing events.

Post by Tony Cooper
I became fascinated by the Sky Cams. They are cameras on wires above
the field that follow the ball and provide close-ups. On TV, I'm so
used to it that I don't appreciate it. In person, I am terribly
impressed by the skill of the operator of the cameras. There were
only two Sky Cams, but they managed to capture every play.
The stadium has those large TV screens at each end, and they'd show
re-plays on those screens. Not after every play as they do on TV, but
on enough plays to impress me.

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Post by Tak To

Post by Tony Cooper
I normally watch (Am) football on TV. I recently attended the NFL All
Pro game in person, though. TV vs in person is quite different.
On TV, the camera follows the ball and the ball carrier. After the
play, the play is re-played from different perspectives. If you
consider the re-plays, it is almost continuous action except for the
commercials.
In person, it's very difficult to follow the ball. In a pass
formation, I might be following one receiver and the ball is thrown to
a different receiver. Things happened in parts of the field I wasn't
watching. Line action is very difficult to follow. Those TV re-plays
shows how the blocking was done that allow the ball carrier to
advance, but this is not noticeable in person.
The game seems slower and with less action. Without those re-plays,
what is seen is a bunch of players standing around until the next play
is called. The time between action is not filled as it is on TV.

I agree with you. The replays are just an important element
of the game from a spectator's point of view.
Not that it will ever happen, but I have always hoped for
instant replays for fencing events.

...

In slow motion, with the swords made more visible somehow.

[b***@shaw.ca]

Post by Lewis
Are you suggesting watching a 4 hour chess match is exciting?

It can be, depending on your degree of engagement. If you have played
at a high enough level, you can follow the game in your head, trying
to anticipate both players' moves, spotting traps and opportunities
for errors, etc. You can easily find televised chess matches,
and I think there are sites that allow you to chat with other viewers
as you watch.

I hasten to add that I haven't played at that high a level, and
it has been so long since I played at all that I would probably
be lost within a handful of moves. But some people can and do
engage with chess at that level.

bill

[Ken Blake]

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Lewis
Are you suggesting watching a 4 hour chess match is exciting?

It can be, depending on your degree of engagement. If you have played
at a high enough level, you can follow the game in your head, trying
to anticipate both players' moves, spotting traps and opportunities
for errors, etc. You can easily find televised chess matches,
and I think there are sites that allow you to chat with other viewers
as you watch.
I hasten to add that I haven't played at that high a level, and
it has been so long since I played at all that I would probably
be lost within a handful of moves. But some people can and do
engage with chess at that level.

My level of playing is nowhere near what it was when I was an active
tournament player, 60 years ago and more (I hardly play at all these
days) but I can still watch a game and engage with it at that level.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Lewis
Golf is mostly walking after the ball and
then looking at it, the time in motion is very short.

That's if you're in or at the game.
On TV, there are at lots of cameras,
and the staggered starting times for foursomes
(or pairs in some matches)
give lots of opportunity for cuts from player to player ...
about the only walking shown is to the cup after sinking a putt.

Pebble Beach was hosting a Pro-Am while I was waiting
for my car service to be completed.
Lots going on on the screen.
And in this case, a lovely setting.

/dps

[Mark Brader]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Tony Cooper
I am not a chess player, and seeing this does not excite my interest.
Two hours? For a single game?

Two hours for the first forty moves.

For *each* player...
That's potentially a total of four hours for the first forty moves.

I could watch an entire NFL football game, with commercials, in that
amount of time.

Yes, you could, but I couldn't. I know I'm unusual, but I find football
to be the most boring of all games. Yes, it takes around four hours, but
the average length of time the ball is in play is 12 minutes.

And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of
pieces are involved?

As a person with some (non-expert) appreciation for both games, I must
say that I found these exchange of comments delightful.

[b***@shaw.ca]

And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of pieces
are involved?

That's not the point. Both players and any spectators
observing the game are fully engaged in thinking through
the potential moves and their ramifications.

It's about the thinking, not the physical moving of the pieces.

bill

[Tony Cooper]

Post by b***@shaw.ca

And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of pieces
are involved?

That's not the point. Both players and any spectators
observing the game are fully engaged in thinking through
the potential moves and their ramifications.
It's about the thinking, not the physical moving of the pieces.

How is that different from (Am) football? The observation was that
there is only a small number of minutes of actual play during the
game.

You don't think football fans are engaged? That we doze off between
snaps? That we aren't thinking that our team should pass more, or run
it the middle more? Or that we should have drafted so-and-so?

[b***@shaw.ca]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by b***@shaw.ca

And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of pieces
are involved?

That's not the point. Both players and any spectators
observing the game are fully engaged in thinking through
the potential moves and their ramifications.
It's about the thinking, not the physical moving of the pieces.

How is that different from (Am) football? The observation was that
there is only a small number of minutes of actual play during the
game.
You don't think football fans are engaged? That we doze off between
snaps? That we aren't thinking that our team should pass more, or run
it the middle more? Or that we should have drafted so-and-so?

I think that the thought processes of top-level chess players
playing a game in, say, a world tournament are not comparable
to those of football fans watching a game. Take that or leave it.
If you can't see it, I don't think I can convince you.

bill

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by b***@shaw.ca

And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of pieces
are involved?

That's not the point. Both players and any spectators
observing the game are fully engaged in thinking through
the potential moves and their ramifications.
It's about the thinking, not the physical moving of the pieces.

How is that different from (Am) football? The observation was that
there is only a small number of minutes of actual play during the
game.
You don't think football fans are engaged? That we doze off between
snaps? That we aren't thinking that our team should pass more, or run
it the middle more? Or that we should have drafted so-and-so?

I think that the thought processes of top-level chess players
playing a game in, say, a world tournament are not comparable
to those of football fans watching a game. Take that or leave it.
If you can't see it, I don't think I can convince you.

Many fans liken a football game to a chess match,
particularly at the NFL level.
(I can't offer too many observations of the XFL level yet)

And fans doing the "fantasy team" version of betting
are probably swatting Xs and Os as hard as the coaches are.

But then again, a lot of fans are there for the flashes of excitment
and the party.

/dps

[b***@shaw.ca]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by b***@shaw.ca

And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of pieces
are involved?

That's not the point. Both players and any spectators
observing the game are fully engaged in thinking through
the potential moves and their ramifications.
It's about the thinking, not the physical moving of the pieces.

How is that different from (Am) football? The observation was that
there is only a small number of minutes of actual play during the
game.
You don't think football fans are engaged? That we doze off between
snaps? That we aren't thinking that our team should pass more, or run
it the middle more? Or that we should have drafted so-and-so?

I think that the thought processes of top-level chess players
playing a game in, say, a world tournament are not comparable
to those of football fans watching a game. Take that or leave it.
If you can't see it, I don't think I can convince you.

Many fans liken a football game to a chess match,
particularly at the NFL level.

I think that flatters football fans. In chess, the best players can
calculate 20 or more moves ahead, with a choice of dozens of
options at every move. Keeping all of that straight in your mind
requires a lot more brain work than what football fans need to enjoy
the game they're watching.

Post by s***@gmail.com
(I can't offer too many observations of the XFL level yet)

I don't know it at all.

Post by s***@gmail.com
And fans doing the "fantasy team" version of betting
are probably swatting Xs and Os as hard as the coaches are.

I used to administer and keep score for an office hockey pool.
But I realized several decades ago that fantasy leagues
can take over your life if you let them.

Post by s***@gmail.com
But then again, a lot of fans are there for the flashes of excitment
and the party.

That's a good enough reason to be there. I guess my point is that
it's a lot easier to watch a football game than to be a world-class
chess player.

bill

[Tony Cooper]

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by b***@shaw.ca

And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of pieces
are involved?

That's not the point. Both players and any spectators
observing the game are fully engaged in thinking through
the potential moves and their ramifications.
It's about the thinking, not the physical moving of the pieces.

How is that different from (Am) football? The observation was that
there is only a small number of minutes of actual play during the
game.
You don't think football fans are engaged? That we doze off between
snaps? That we aren't thinking that our team should pass more, or run
it the middle more? Or that we should have drafted so-and-so?

I think that the thought processes of top-level chess players
playing a game in, say, a world tournament are not comparable
to those of football fans watching a game. Take that or leave it.
If you can't see it, I don't think I can convince you.

Many fans liken a football game to a chess match,
particularly at the NFL level.

I think that flatters football fans. In chess, the best players can
calculate 20 or more moves ahead, with a choice of dozens of
options at every move. Keeping all of that straight in your mind
requires a lot more brain work than what football fans need to enjoy
the game they're watching.

Post by s***@gmail.com
(I can't offer too many observations of the XFL level yet)

I don't know it at all.

Post by s***@gmail.com
And fans doing the "fantasy team" version of betting
are probably swatting Xs and Os as hard as the coaches are.

I used to administer and keep score for an office hockey pool.
But I realized several decades ago that fantasy leagues
can take over your life if you let them.

Post by s***@gmail.com
But then again, a lot of fans are there for the flashes of excitment
and the party.

That's a good enough reason to be there. I guess my point is that
it's a lot easier to watch a football game than to be a world-class
chess player.

You've moved the goal posts. This thread has been about games where
more time is used between moments of action than in moments of action.
(ball-in-play and chess-piece moved) from the spectator's point of
view. The implication has been that sports/games where the actions
are just a small part of the total time are uninteresting.

In the above you are comparing the mental acuity of a world-class
chess player with the spectator at a football game.

If that's what is being compared, then let's compare a professional
football quarterback and a world-class chess player. The quarterback
has to memorize a foot-thick playbook of routes, and be able to adjust
on-the-fly to unanticipated reactions by the opponent during the flow
of the play. The quarterback has to familiarize himself with the
defensive alignments and plays of every opposing team, and be able to
anticipate modifications of those alignments.

To top it off, when he starts to move his piece (the ball), several
very large men charge at him with intent to viciously throw him to the
ground and stop him from successfully moving his piece.

Which is the easier job? Chess player or quarterback?

[s***@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 6:45:32 AM UTC-8, Tony Cooper wrote:

[responding to BillVan]

Post by Tony Cooper
You've moved the goal posts. This thread has been about games where
more time is used between moments of action than in moments of action.
(ball-in-play and chess-piece moved) from the spectator's point of
view. The implication has been that sports/games where the actions
are just a small part of the total time are uninteresting.

I don't think he has moved the goal posts.
I think he understands the fan base for watching chess matches
is people who play chess.
Because those fans are analyzing the game,
the time factor is less important to them.

The fan base for football includes a high percentage of
people who have never played football,
or have played only grade school flag football.
They may pay more attention to the band
and the video boards
than to analyzing the game.

/dps

[Tony Cooper]

Post by s***@gmail.com
[responding to BillVan]

Post by Tony Cooper
You've moved the goal posts. This thread has been about games where
more time is used between moments of action than in moments of action.
(ball-in-play and chess-piece moved) from the spectator's point of
view. The implication has been that sports/games where the actions
are just a small part of the total time are uninteresting.

I don't think he has moved the goal posts.
I think he understands the fan base for watching chess matches
is people who play chess.
Because those fans are analyzing the game,
the time factor is less important to them.
The fan base for football includes a high percentage of
people who have never played football,
or have played only grade school flag football.
They may pay more attention to the band
and the video boards
than to analyzing the game.

But that doesn't mean the football spectator is less engaged in the
game. The football spectator is just less engaged with the strategy
of the play that is called than is the chess spectator. The football
spectator is engaged because he/she is interested in the results of
the play.

[Lewis]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by b***@shaw.ca

And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of pieces
are involved?

That's not the point. Both players and any spectators
observing the game are fully engaged in thinking through
the potential moves and their ramifications.
It's about the thinking, not the physical moving of the pieces.

How is that different from (Am) football? The observation was that
there is only a small number of minutes of actual play during the
game.
You don't think football fans are engaged? That we doze off between
snaps? That we aren't thinking that our team should pass more, or run
it the middle more? Or that we should have drafted so-and-so?

I think that the thought processes of top-level chess players
playing a game in, say, a world tournament are not comparable
to those of football fans watching a game. Take that or leave it.
If you can't see it, I don't think I can convince you.

Many fans liken a football game to a chess match,

But no chess fans would do that.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by b***@shaw.ca

And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of pieces
are involved?

That's not the point. Both players and any spectators
observing the game are fully engaged in thinking through
the potential moves and their ramifications.
It's about the thinking, not the physical moving of the pieces.

How is that different from (Am) football? The observation was that
there is only a small number of minutes of actual play during the
game.
You don't think football fans are engaged? That we doze off between
snaps? That we aren't thinking that our team should pass more, or run
it the middle more? Or that we should have drafted so-and-so?

I think that the thought processes of top-level chess players
playing a game in, say, a world tournament are not comparable
to those of football fans watching a game. Take that or leave it.
If you can't see it, I don't think I can convince you.
bill

I have to admit to being a little offended by your comment. What you
are saying is that the chess spectator is much smarter than the
football spectator because watching the game requires a great deal
more complex level of thought.

I thought we were talking about the "engagement" factor of watching a
game based on the amount of time in which the game piece is actually
moved compared to the amount of time between movements.

I'm taking into account that the football spectator need not
contemplate the various moves possible to be able to remain engaged.
The football spectator is engaged by the result of the moves.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by b***@shaw.ca

And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of pieces
are involved?

That's not the point. Both players and any spectators
observing the game are fully engaged in thinking through
the potential moves and their ramifications.
It's about the thinking, not the physical moving of the pieces.

How is that different from (Am) football? The observation was that
there is only a small number of minutes of actual play during the
game.
You don't think football fans are engaged? That we doze off between
snaps? That we aren't thinking that our team should pass more, or run
it the middle more? Or that we should have drafted so-and-so?

I think that the thought processes of top-level chess players
playing a game in, say, a world tournament are not comparable
to those of football fans watching a game. Take that or leave it.
If you can't see it, I don't think I can convince you.

Welcome to my world.

(BTW I'm not interested in football _or_ chess, and the distinction
is obvious to me.)

[Ken Blake]

Post by b***@shaw.ca

And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of pieces
are involved?

That's not the point. Both players and any spectators
observing the game are fully engaged in thinking through
the potential moves and their ramifications.
It's about the thinking, not the physical moving of the pieces.

Exactly.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake
Yes, you could, but I couldn't. I know I'm unusual, but I find football
to be the most boring of all games. Yes, it takes around four hours, but
the average length of time the ball is in play is 12 minutes.

And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of
pieces are involved?

As a person with some (non-expert) appreciation for both games, I must
say that I found these exchange of comments delightful.

Bravo!

/dps

[Tak To]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,

Yes.

Post by Paul Wolff
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

OK, but we were talking about chess. In the example I cited, my opponent
ran out of the time allotted to him--two hours for his first forty moves.

I am not a chess player, and seeing this does not excite my interest.
Two hours? For a single game?

Two hours for the first forty moves.

For *each* player, as I just said in another message in this thread.
That's potentially a total of four hours for the first forty moves.

I could watch an entire NFL football game, with commercials, in that
amount of time.

Yes, you could, but I couldn't. I know I'm unusual, but I find football
to be the most boring of all games. Yes, it takes around four hours, but
the average length of time the ball is in play is 12 minutes.

And that four hours of chess? How many seconds of actual moving of
pieces are involved?
It would be interesting to compare the amount of time where the ball
is in play in some way in all sports. In both tennis and golf, I
imagine the time is rather comparable to (Am) football.
If you are going to count ball-in-play time only, then in golf the
walking to the ball, the practice swings, and the lining up of a putt,
don't count. In tennis, extended volleying is not that frequent. It's
a very slow game as far as action is concerned.
Soccer and rugby are probably the games where the ball-in-play time is
the longest compared to the length of the match, with basketball next.

Ice hockey probably has higher in-play time than soccer because
out-of-bound is rarer.

Post by Tony Cooper
Of all the games, though, while it might be part of the only 12
minutes of action, when there's a long run or a long pass the action
is the most exciting. That's what we wait for.

Also, a game such as US football has a multi-tier build-up
process: a number of attempts to gain 10 yards, and then a
number of first downs to advance into scoring position. The
spectators are drawn into the progress and have time to feel
happy about the achievement at each step. In comparison,
basketball for example has no build-up at all. And in games
like soccer the partial achievements come and go so suddenly
that the spectators almost have no time to respond emotionally.

Post by Tony Cooper
A score, in tennis, is comparable to an incomplete pass in football.
The equivalent of a score (being the successful end of a series), in
golf, is often a 3-foot putt.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Tak To

Post by Tony Cooper
Soccer and rugby are probably the games where the ball-in-play time is
the longest compared to the length of the match, with basketball next.

Ice hockey probably has higher in-play time than soccer because
out-of-bound is rarer.

Before they started delaying the game for commercials, a game that
started at 8 pm typically used to end between 10:05 and 10:15 pm.
On the CBC it would be followed by a 15-minute country-music show at
10:15, although this did occasionally get shortened.

(And the games actually did start at 8:00 in those days, not 8:05
or 8:07 or something -- it wasn't necessary to begin the time slot
with several minutes of the TV commentators yammering away, because
there *was no* TV coverage of the start of the game.)

Taking 8:00 to 10:10 to be typical, that means that for 60 minutes of
playing time there would be 30 minutes of intermissions and 40 minutes
of other stoppages. A higher proportion of "in-play time" than football,
but not as high as soccer or rugby, from what I've seen of those.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tak To
Ice hockey probably has higher in-play time than soccer because
out-of-bound is rarer.

Before they started delaying the game for commercials, a game that
started at 8 pm typically used to end between 10:05 and 10:15 pm.
On the CBC it would be followed by a 15-minute country-music show at
10:15, although this did occasionally get shortened.
(And the games actually did start at 8:00 in those days, not 8:05
or 8:07 or something -- it wasn't necessary to begin the time slot
with several minutes of the TV commentators yammering away, because
there *was no* TV coverage of the start of the game.)
Taking 8:00 to 10:10 to be typical, that means that for 60 minutes of
playing time there would be 30 minutes of intermissions and 40 minutes
of other stoppages. A higher proportion of "in-play time" than football,
but not as high as soccer or rugby, from what I've seen of those.

The fivethirtyeight reference in another post has actual numbers for recent play.
Scroll down to the bar chart.


/dps

[Ken Blake]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,

Yes.

Post by Paul Wolff
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

OK, but we were talking about chess. In the example I cited, my opponent
ran out of the time allotted to him--two hours for his first forty moves.

I am not a chess player, and seeing this does not excite my interest.
Two hours? For a single game?

Two hours for the first forty moves. It's not unknown for a game to
reach a hundred moves, though the pace often picks up toward the
end.
I am nowhere near good enough to spend that kind of time thinking
about chess moves. If I were, then while watching a game, I could
be thinking the same things as the players--what would happen after
such-and-such a move, what then, etc.
Speaking of resignation and being a "patzer", I've occasionally
thought, when looking at the end of a game, "I wish I were good
enough to resign in that position."

Speaking of not knowing why someone resigned, I'm reminded of a
tournament game I played many years ago, against a player I knew was
much weaker than me. Despite my being the stronger player, that day I
played very poorly and my opponent quickly had much the better position.
But he was afraid of me and offered a draw. I turned him down, hoping to
improve my position. A couple of moves later he offered a draw again and
I tuned him down again. I don't remember how many times I turned down
his draw offers, but he continued to outplay me and I soon had an
impossible position. I couldn't find any move that would permit me to
play on.

So I resigned. I did it by holding out my hand to shake his and I said "OK."

I marked my score sheet "Resigns," and he interpreted my "OK" as finally
accepting his draw offers, and he marked his score sheet "Draw."

When the tournament director (Hans Kmoch, if you know the name) saw the
score sheets, he immediately ruled the game a loss for me. I think he
made the right decision, but I was very surprised at how quickly he
decided, without even spending any time thinking about the situation.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Ken Blake
I marked my score sheet "Resigns," and he interpreted my "OK" as finally
accepting his draw offers, and he marked his score sheet "Draw."
When the tournament director (Hans Kmoch, if you know the name) saw the
score sheets, he immediately ruled the game a loss for me. I think he
made the right decision, but I was very surprised at how quickly he
decided...

Well, rule 5.1b specifies:
# The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he
# resigns. This immediately ends the game.

And rule 9.1b(1) states that when a draw is legally offered:
# the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent
# accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with
# the intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded
# in some other way.

I think the director consided that by writing "Resigns", you had
concluded the game in some other way under rule 5.1b.

[Ken Blake]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Ken Blake
I marked my score sheet "Resigns," and he interpreted my "OK" as finally
accepting his draw offers, and he marked his score sheet "Draw."
When the tournament director (Hans Kmoch, if you know the name) saw the
score sheets, he immediately ruled the game a loss for me. I think he
made the right decision, but I was very surprised at how quickly he
decided...

# The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he
# resigns. This immediately ends the game.
# the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent
# accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with
# the intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded
# in some other way.
I think the director consided that by writing "Resigns", you had
concluded the game in some other way under rule 5.1b.

This was around 1957. I don't know whether that rule existed back then.

[b***@shaw.ca]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,

Yes.

Post by Paul Wolff
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

OK, but we were talking about chess. In the example I cited, my opponent
ran out of the time allotted to him--two hours for his first forty moves.

I am not a chess player, and seeing this does not excite my interest.
Two hours? For a single game?

Oh, yes. And that's only one player's time; his clock runs only when
it is his turn to move. His opponent may be taking as much time again,
and it can certainly take four hours or more for both players to make 40 moves.

Wikipedia to the rescue:

The longest tournament chess game (in terms of moves) ever to be played
was Nikolić–Arsović, Belgrade 1989, which lasted for 269 moves
and took 20 hours and 15 minutes to complete a drawn game.

bill

[Ken Blake]

Post by b***@shaw.ca

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,

Yes.

Post by Paul Wolff
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

OK, but we were talking about chess. In the example I cited, my opponent
ran out of the time allotted to him--two hours for his first forty moves.

I am not a chess player, and seeing this does not excite my interest.
Two hours? For a single game?

Oh, yes. And that's only one player's time; his clock runs only when
it is his turn to move. His opponent may be taking as much time again,
and it can certainly take four hours or more for both players to make 40 moves.

No, if the time limit is 40 moves in two hours, it can take almost four
hours to play 40 moves, but "or more" is not possible. If either player
goes over two hours before making his 40th move, he loses instantly and
the game is over.

[Ken Blake]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,

Yes.

Post by Paul Wolff
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

OK, but we were talking about chess. In the example I cited, my opponent
ran out of the time allotted to him--two hours for his first forty moves.

I am not a chess player, and seeing this does not excite my interest.
Two hours? For a single game?

*Up to* two hours for *each* player for the first forty moves. That's
potentially four hours for the first forty moves--more if the game goes
over forty moves.

I say "up to," but note that most players would use most of their
available time.

The tournament I mentioned where my opponent overstepped his time limit
was the New York State Championship in 1955. That was the time limit for
most American tournaments. International tournament were usually slower;
if I remember correctly, each player had 2.5 hours for the first forty
moves.


These days time limits have changed. For example, in The recently
completed Tata Steel Tournament (one of the strongest field of
contenders ever), the time limit was 100 minutes for 40 moves, followed
by 50 minutes for 20 moves. Then 15 minutes for the remaining moves with
30 seconds cumulative increment for each move starting from the first
move.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:24:42 GMT, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,

Yes.

Post by Paul Wolff
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

OK, but we were talking about chess. In the example I cited, my opponent
ran out of the time allotted to him--two hours for his first forty moves.

I am not a chess player, and seeing this does not excite my interest.

But are you quoting Murray Head?

Post by Tony Cooper
Two hours? For a single game?

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

A quite different "on", though - it expresses cause for chess (a player
loses *because* his time has expired), and defines a given point in time
for croquet and many sports (the lesser-scoring team loses *at* the expiry
of the playing time).

Post by Paul Wolff
--
Paul

[Paul Wolff]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

A quite different "on", though - it expresses cause for chess (a player
loses *because* his time has expired), and defines a given point in time
for croquet and many sports (the lesser-scoring team loses *at* the expiry
of the playing time).

I'm not at all sure that the score "on time" is normal for most games
played to a strict time limit. Taking a standard soccer game as an
example, the matches finishes "at" the expiry of its allotted time, and
then the whole score is given - so many goals to each side, the winner
having the greater number, a tie or draw if the goals scored are equal.

I chose croquet because, as in chess, "on time" is also a standard
phrase for a non-standard finish. Croquet is essentially a race to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The final score is
recorded by points different. So a player who wins +6 has scored 26 to
the opponent's 20. The phrase "on time" is only added if the game wasn't
finished in the regular manner, but was given a maximum time and neither
side reached 26. The actual score for a "+6 on time" result could have
been anything from 6-0 to 25-19. [Isn't this interesting!]

OTOH, when time runs out in a cricket match, the result is simply a
draw.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Paul Wolff
I chose croquet because, as in chess, "on time" is also a standard
phrase for a non-standard finish. Croquet is essentially a race to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The final score is
recorded by points different. So a player who wins +6 has scored 26 to
the opponent's 20. The phrase "on time" is only added if the game wasn't
finished in the regular manner, but was given a maximum time and neither
side reached 26. The actual score for a "+6 on time" result could have
been anything from 6-0 to 25-19. [Isn't this interesting!]

More interesting than the chess discussion.

Post by Paul Wolff
OTOH, when time runs out in a cricket match, the result is simply a
draw.

In baseball, "draw" or "tie" doesn't exist. A game must continue until
an inning ends with one team at least one run ahead of the other. (The
only way a game can end with a margin of more than 1 is if the last hit
is a home run with at least one man on base. If a hit causes several
on-base men to reach home plate, the game ends when the first one does so.)

"Rain" and "darkness" are reasons for _suspending_ a game, and very
occasionally, if its outcome will make no difference in the standings
after the 162-game season, it won't be resumed.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

A quite different "on", though - it expresses cause for chess (a player
loses *because* his time has expired), and defines a given point in time
for croquet and many sports (the lesser-scoring team loses *at* the expiry
of the playing time).

I'm not at all sure that the score "on time" is normal for most games
played to a strict time limit. Taking a standard soccer game as an
example, the matches finishes "at" the expiry of its allotted time, and
then the whole score is given - so many goals to each side, the winner
having the greater number, a tie or draw if the goals scored are equal.
I chose croquet because, as in chess, "on time" is also a standard
phrase for a non-standard finish. Croquet is essentially a race to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The final score is
recorded by points different. So a player who wins +6 has scored 26 to
the opponent's 20. The phrase "on time" is only added if the game wasn't
finished in the regular manner, but was given a maximum time and neither
side reached 26. The actual score for a "+6 on time" result could have
been anything from 6-0 to 25-19. [Isn't this interesting!]

Very interesting indeed, thanks, I didn't know the rules of croquet.
However, that doesn't seem to change the two different meanings of "on"
defined above, and the extra time played in croquet for one player to
reach the score of 26 in timed games is somehow comparable e.g. to the
two 15-minute periods of extra-time or the "sudden death" rule that can
apply in soccer if neither team has won at the expiry of the regular
90-minute period.

Post by Paul Wolff
OTOH, when time runs out in a cricket match, the result is simply a
draw.
--
Paul

[Paul Wolff]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

A quite different "on", though - it expresses cause for chess (a player
loses *because* his time has expired), and defines a given point in time
for croquet and many sports (the lesser-scoring team loses *at* the expiry
of the playing time).

I'm not at all sure that the score "on time" is normal for most games
played to a strict time limit. Taking a standard soccer game as an
example, the matches finishes "at" the expiry of its allotted time, and
then the whole score is given - so many goals to each side, the winner
having the greater number, a tie or draw if the goals scored are equal.
I chose croquet because, as in chess, "on time" is also a standard
phrase for a non-standard finish. Croquet is essentially a race to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The final score is
recorded by points different. So a player who wins +6 has scored 26 to
the opponent's 20. The phrase "on time" is only added if the game wasn't
finished in the regular manner, but was given a maximum time and neither
side reached 26. The actual score for a "+6 on time" result could have
been anything from 6-0 to 25-19. [Isn't this interesting!]

Very interesting indeed, thanks, I didn't know the rules of croquet.

Taking you at your word, I'm gratified. It's hard to tell when one's
just being boring.

Post by b***@aol.com
However, that doesn't seem to change the two different meanings of "on"
defined above, and the extra time played in croquet for one player to
reach the score of 26 in timed games is somehow comparable e.g. to the
two 15-minute periods of extra-time or the "sudden death" rule that can
apply in soccer if neither team has won at the expiry of the regular
90-minute period.

I understand. For innocent reasons, I didn't tell the whole story. I
still maintain that "on time" in croquet doesn't mean "at the end of the
time allowed" so much as "on the basis of the rules that govern time
limits". The rules are more complex than I have (so far) wished to fill
my posts with. When "time" is called, the in-player - the player on the
court executing a sequence of strokes - may continue to play until his
turn comes to a natural end, whereupon the opponent is allowed one
complete turn, and it's only when that turn ends that the score is
reckoned - and if points are then equal, they have to keep playing
alternate turns until one of them scores a point. That's what winning
"on time" implies.

But I doubt if there's another croquet player who cares that much about
the nuances of language to have given the phrase any thought at all.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Ken Blake

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
1) John won by resignation.

Grammatical, but basically meaningless as is.

Standard in the chess world (either as "win" or "lose" "by
resignation",

Yes. The great majority of games that are not drawn end that way.
Back in my tournament-playing days, I won one game on time. All the
other ended either by resignation or were drawn by agreement.

Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

A quite different "on", though - it expresses cause for chess (a player
loses *because* his time has expired), and defines a given point in time
for croquet and many sports (the lesser-scoring team loses *at* the expiry
of the playing time).

I'm not at all sure that the score "on time" is normal for most games
played to a strict time limit. Taking a standard soccer game as an
example, the matches finishes "at" the expiry of its allotted time, and
then the whole score is given - so many goals to each side, the winner
having the greater number, a tie or draw if the goals scored are equal.
I chose croquet because, as in chess, "on time" is also a standard
phrase for a non-standard finish. Croquet is essentially a race to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The final score is
recorded by points different. So a player who wins +6 has scored 26 to
the opponent's 20. The phrase "on time" is only added if the game wasn't
finished in the regular manner, but was given a maximum time and neither
side reached 26. The actual score for a "+6 on time" result could have
been anything from 6-0 to 25-19. [Isn't this interesting!]

Very interesting indeed, thanks, I didn't know the rules of croquet.

Taking you at your word, I'm gratified. It's hard to tell when one's
just being boring.

Post by b***@aol.com
However, that doesn't seem to change the two different meanings of "on"
defined above, and the extra time played in croquet for one player to
reach the score of 26 in timed games is somehow comparable e.g. to the
two 15-minute periods of extra-time or the "sudden death" rule that can
apply in soccer if neither team has won at the expiry of the regular
90-minute period.

I understand. For innocent reasons, I didn't tell the whole story. I
still maintain that "on time" in croquet doesn't mean "at the end of the
time allowed" so much as "on the basis of the rules that govern time
limits". The rules are more complex than I have (so far) wished to fill
my posts with. When "time" is called, the in-player - the player on the
court executing a sequence of strokes - may continue to play until his
turn comes to a natural end, whereupon the opponent is allowed one
complete turn, and it's only when that turn ends that the score is
reckoned - and if points are then equal, they have to keep playing
alternate turns until one of them scores a point. That's what winning
"on time" implies.

I see, but, given those rules, couldn't a score of e.g. "Plus 2 on time"
be interpreted as "on time" (at the expiry of the alloted time in timed
games), one of the player (or team) then scored two more points than the
other? (I may have missed something, though.)

Post by Paul Wolff
But I doubt if there's another croquet player who cares that much about
the nuances of language to have given the phrase any thought at all.
--
Paul

[Paul Wolff]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff
Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

A quite different "on", though - it expresses cause for chess (a player
loses *because* his time has expired), and defines a given point in time
for croquet and many sports (the lesser-scoring team loses *at* the expiry
of the playing time).

I'm not at all sure that the score "on time" is normal for most games
played to a strict time limit. Taking a standard soccer game as an
example, the matches finishes "at" the expiry of its allotted time, and
then the whole score is given - so many goals to each side, the winner
having the greater number, a tie or draw if the goals scored are equal.
I chose croquet because, as in chess, "on time" is also a standard
phrase for a non-standard finish. Croquet is essentially a race to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The final score is
recorded by points different. So a player who wins +6 has scored 26 to
the opponent's 20. The phrase "on time" is only added if the game wasn't
finished in the regular manner, but was given a maximum time and neither
side reached 26. The actual score for a "+6 on time" result could have
been anything from 6-0 to 25-19. [Isn't this interesting!]

Very interesting indeed, thanks, I didn't know the rules of croquet.

Taking you at your word, I'm gratified. It's hard to tell when one's
just being boring.

Post by b***@aol.com
However, that doesn't seem to change the two different meanings of "on"
defined above, and the extra time played in croquet for one player to
reach the score of 26 in timed games is somehow comparable e.g. to the
two 15-minute periods of extra-time or the "sudden death" rule that can
apply in soccer if neither team has won at the expiry of the regular
90-minute period.

I understand. For innocent reasons, I didn't tell the whole story. I
still maintain that "on time" in croquet doesn't mean "at the end of the
time allowed" so much as "on the basis of the rules that govern time
limits". The rules are more complex than I have (so far) wished to fill
my posts with. When "time" is called, the in-player - the player on the
court executing a sequence of strokes - may continue to play until his
turn comes to a natural end, whereupon the opponent is allowed one
complete turn, and it's only when that turn ends that the score is
reckoned - and if points are then equal, they have to keep playing
alternate turns until one of them scores a point. That's what winning
"on time" implies.

I see, but, given those rules, couldn't a score of e.g. "Plus 2 on time"
be interpreted as "on time" (at the expiry of the alloted time in timed
games), one of the player (or team) then scored two more points than the
other?

That's possible. It is also possible that one side was ahead at the
moment time was called, then more points were scored by either side
during the completion of the turn of the side in play and/or the
allotted extra turn of the other side.

Post by b***@aol.com
(I may have missed something, though.)

Each side is always given one opportunity after time is called to finish
one turn and score as much as they can in that turn ("the extension
period"). Only if the scores are level after that do alternate turns
continue until a point is scored, which point immediately ends the game
with a score of plus one on time.

Actually, if the scores were 25-25 after the regular extension period, I
don't know whether the winning score (26-25) would be "on time" or not,
because the progression of the game would have been identical to that of
an untimed game - though the players' tactics would undoubtedly have
taken the rules of timed games into account. I must make enquiries.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff
Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

A quite different "on", though - it expresses cause for chess (a player
loses *because* his time has expired), and defines a given point in time
for croquet and many sports (the lesser-scoring team loses *at* the expiry
of the playing time).

I'm not at all sure that the score "on time" is normal for most games
played to a strict time limit. Taking a standard soccer game as an
example, the matches finishes "at" the expiry of its allotted time, and
then the whole score is given - so many goals to each side, the winner
having the greater number, a tie or draw if the goals scored are equal.
I chose croquet because, as in chess, "on time" is also a standard
phrase for a non-standard finish. Croquet is essentially a race to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The final score is
recorded by points different. So a player who wins +6 has scored 26 to
the opponent's 20. The phrase "on time" is only added if the game wasn't
finished in the regular manner, but was given a maximum time and neither
side reached 26. The actual score for a "+6 on time" result could have
been anything from 6-0 to 25-19. [Isn't this interesting!]

Very interesting indeed, thanks, I didn't know the rules of croquet.

Taking you at your word, I'm gratified. It's hard to tell when one's
just being boring.

Post by b***@aol.com
However, that doesn't seem to change the two different meanings of "on"
defined above, and the extra time played in croquet for one player to
reach the score of 26 in timed games is somehow comparable e.g. to the
two 15-minute periods of extra-time or the "sudden death" rule that can
apply in soccer if neither team has won at the expiry of the regular
90-minute period.

I understand. For innocent reasons, I didn't tell the whole story. I
still maintain that "on time" in croquet doesn't mean "at the end of the
time allowed" so much as "on the basis of the rules that govern time
limits". The rules are more complex than I have (so far) wished to fill
my posts with. When "time" is called, the in-player - the player on the
court executing a sequence of strokes - may continue to play until his
turn comes to a natural end, whereupon the opponent is allowed one
complete turn, and it's only when that turn ends that the score is
reckoned - and if points are then equal, they have to keep playing
alternate turns until one of them scores a point. That's what winning
"on time" implies.

I see, but, given those rules, couldn't a score of e.g. "Plus 2 on time"
be interpreted as "on time" (at the expiry of the alloted time in timed
games), one of the player (or team) then scored two more points than the
other?

That's possible. It is also possible that one side was ahead at the
moment time was called, then more points were scored by either side
during the completion of the turn of the side in play and/or the
allotted extra turn of the other side.

Post by b***@aol.com
(I may have missed something, though.)

Each side is always given one opportunity after time is called to finish
one turn and score as much as they can in that turn ("the extension
period"). Only if the scores are level after that do alternate turns
continue until a point is scored, which point immediately ends the game
with a score of plus one on time.
Actually, if the scores were 25-25 after the regular extension period, I
don't know whether the winning score (26-25) would be "on time" or not,
because the progression of the game would have been identical to that of
an untimed game - though the players' tactics would undoubtedly have
taken the rules of timed games into account. I must make enquiries.

An intriguing intricacy. If my take on this is correct, the score should
still be called "on time", as this scenario would also happen after the
initial expiry time (what I understand to mean "on time").

Post by Paul Wolff
--
Paul

[Paul Wolff]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff
Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

A quite different "on", though - it expresses cause for chess
loses *because* his time has expired), and defines a given point in time
for croquet and many sports (the lesser-scoring team loses *at* the expiry
of the playing time).

I'm not at all sure that the score "on time" is normal for most games
played to a strict time limit. Taking a standard soccer game as an
example, the matches finishes "at" the expiry of its allotted time, and
then the whole score is given - so many goals to each side, the winner
having the greater number, a tie or draw if the goals scored are equal.
I chose croquet because, as in chess, "on time" is also a standard
phrase for a non-standard finish. Croquet is essentially a race to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The final score is
recorded by points different. So a player who wins +6 has scored 26 to
the opponent's 20. The phrase "on time" is only added if the game wasn't
finished in the regular manner, but was given a maximum time and neither
side reached 26. The actual score for a "+6 on time" result could have
been anything from 6-0 to 25-19. [Isn't this interesting!]

Very interesting indeed, thanks, I didn't know the rules of croquet.

Taking you at your word, I'm gratified. It's hard to tell when one's
just being boring.

Post by b***@aol.com
However, that doesn't seem to change the two different meanings of "on"
defined above, and the extra time played in croquet for one player to
reach the score of 26 in timed games is somehow comparable e.g. to the
two 15-minute periods of extra-time or the "sudden death" rule that can
apply in soccer if neither team has won at the expiry of the regular
90-minute period.

I understand. For innocent reasons, I didn't tell the whole story. I
still maintain that "on time" in croquet doesn't mean "at the end of the
time allowed" so much as "on the basis of the rules that govern time
limits". The rules are more complex than I have (so far) wished to fill
my posts with. When "time" is called, the in-player - the player on the
court executing a sequence of strokes - may continue to play until his
turn comes to a natural end, whereupon the opponent is allowed one
complete turn, and it's only when that turn ends that the score is
reckoned - and if points are then equal, they have to keep playing
alternate turns until one of them scores a point. That's what winning
"on time" implies.

I see, but, given those rules, couldn't a score of e.g. "Plus 2 on time"
be interpreted as "on time" (at the expiry of the alloted time in timed
games), one of the player (or team) then scored two more points than the
other?

That's possible. It is also possible that one side was ahead at the
moment time was called, then more points were scored by either side
during the completion of the turn of the side in play and/or the
allotted extra turn of the other side.

Post by b***@aol.com
(I may have missed something, though.)

Each side is always given one opportunity after time is called to finish
one turn and score as much as they can in that turn ("the extension
period"). Only if the scores are level after that do alternate turns
continue until a point is scored, which point immediately ends the game
with a score of plus one on time.
Actually, if the scores were 25-25 after the regular extension period, I
don't know whether the winning score (26-25) would be "on time" or not,
because the progression of the game would have been identical to that of
an untimed game - though the players' tactics would undoubtedly have
taken the rules of timed games into account. I must make enquiries.

An intriguing intricacy. If my take on this is correct, the score should
still be called "on time", as this scenario would also happen after the
initial expiry time (what I understand to mean "on time").

Until I get a definitive ruling, I would decide to the contrary. I will
follow it up in the appropriate circles, anyway.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff
Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time
limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

A quite different "on", though - it expresses cause for chess
loses *because* his time has expired), and defines a given
point in time
for croquet and many sports (the lesser-scoring team loses *at*
the expiry
of the playing time).

I'm not at all sure that the score "on time" is normal for most games
played to a strict time limit. Taking a standard soccer game as an
example, the matches finishes "at" the expiry of its allotted time, and
then the whole score is given - so many goals to each side, the winner
having the greater number, a tie or draw if the goals scored are equal.
I chose croquet because, as in chess, "on time" is also a standard
phrase for a non-standard finish. Croquet is essentially a race to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The final score is
recorded by points different. So a player who wins +6 has scored 26 to
the opponent's 20. The phrase "on time" is only added if the game wasn't
finished in the regular manner, but was given a maximum time and neither
side reached 26. The actual score for a "+6 on time" result could have
been anything from 6-0 to 25-19. [Isn't this interesting!]

Very interesting indeed, thanks, I didn't know the rules of croquet.

Taking you at your word, I'm gratified. It's hard to tell when one's
just being boring.

Post by b***@aol.com
However, that doesn't seem to change the two different meanings of "on"
defined above, and the extra time played in croquet for one player to
reach the score of 26 in timed games is somehow comparable e.g. to the
two 15-minute periods of extra-time or the "sudden death" rule that can
apply in soccer if neither team has won at the expiry of the regular
90-minute period.

I understand. For innocent reasons, I didn't tell the whole story. I
still maintain that "on time" in croquet doesn't mean "at the end of the
time allowed" so much as "on the basis of the rules that govern time
limits". The rules are more complex than I have (so far) wished to fill
my posts with. When "time" is called, the in-player - the player on the
court executing a sequence of strokes - may continue to play until his
turn comes to a natural end, whereupon the opponent is allowed one
complete turn, and it's only when that turn ends that the score is
reckoned - and if points are then equal, they have to keep playing
alternate turns until one of them scores a point. That's what winning
"on time" implies.

I see, but, given those rules, couldn't a score of e.g. "Plus 2 on time"
be interpreted as "on time" (at the expiry of the alloted time in timed
games), one of the player (or team) then scored two more points than the
other?

That's possible. It is also possible that one side was ahead at the
moment time was called, then more points were scored by either side
during the completion of the turn of the side in play and/or the
allotted extra turn of the other side.

Post by b***@aol.com
(I may have missed something, though.)

Each side is always given one opportunity after time is called to finish
one turn and score as much as they can in that turn ("the extension
period"). Only if the scores are level after that do alternate turns
continue until a point is scored, which point immediately ends the game
with a score of plus one on time.
Actually, if the scores were 25-25 after the regular extension period, I
don't know whether the winning score (26-25) would be "on time" or not,
because the progression of the game would have been identical to that of
an untimed game - though the players' tactics would undoubtedly have
taken the rules of timed games into account. I must make enquiries.

An intriguing intricacy. If my take on this is correct, the score should
still be called "on time", as this scenario would also happen after the
initial expiry time (what I understand to mean "on time").

Until I get a definitive ruling, I would decide to the contrary. I will
follow it up in the appropriate circles, anyway.

Thanks, I'd really be interested to know their opinion.

Post by Paul Wolff
--
Paul

[Paul Wolff]

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff
Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit
just one player may run out of time and lose on that
basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time
limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score
recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

A quite different "on", though - it expresses cause for chess
loses *because* his time has expired), and defines a given
point in time
for croquet and many sports (the lesser-scoring team loses *at*
the expiry
of the playing time).

I'm not at all sure that the score "on time" is normal for most games
played to a strict time limit. Taking a standard soccer game as an
example, the matches finishes "at" the expiry of its
allotted time, and
then the whole score is given - so many goals to each side, the winner
having the greater number, a tie or draw if the goals scored are equal.
I chose croquet because, as in chess, "on time" is also a standard
phrase for a non-standard finish. Croquet is essentially a race to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The final score is
recorded by points different. So a player who wins +6 has scored 26 to
the opponent's 20. The phrase "on time" is only added if the game wasn't
finished in the regular manner, but was given a maximum time and neither
side reached 26. The actual score for a "+6 on time" result could have
been anything from 6-0 to 25-19. [Isn't this interesting!]

Very interesting indeed, thanks, I didn't know the rules of croquet.

Taking you at your word, I'm gratified. It's hard to tell when one's
just being boring.

Post by b***@aol.com
However, that doesn't seem to change the two different
meanings of "on"
defined above, and the extra time played in croquet for one player to
reach the score of 26 in timed games is somehow comparable e.g. to the
two 15-minute periods of extra-time or the "sudden death" rule that can
apply in soccer if neither team has won at the expiry of the regular
90-minute period.

I understand. For innocent reasons, I didn't tell the whole story. I
still maintain that "on time" in croquet doesn't mean "at the end of the
time allowed" so much as "on the basis of the rules that govern time
limits". The rules are more complex than I have (so far) wished to fill
my posts with. When "time" is called, the in-player - the player on the
court executing a sequence of strokes - may continue to play until his
turn comes to a natural end, whereupon the opponent is allowed one
complete turn, and it's only when that turn ends that the score is
reckoned - and if points are then equal, they have to keep playing
alternate turns until one of them scores a point. That's what winning
"on time" implies.

I see, but, given those rules, couldn't a score of e.g. "Plus 2 on time"
be interpreted as "on time" (at the expiry of the alloted time in timed
games), one of the player (or team) then scored two more points than the
other?

That's possible. It is also possible that one side was ahead at the
moment time was called, then more points were scored by either side
during the completion of the turn of the side in play and/or the
allotted extra turn of the other side.

Post by b***@aol.com
(I may have missed something, though.)

Each side is always given one opportunity after time is called to finish
one turn and score as much as they can in that turn ("the extension
period"). Only if the scores are level after that do alternate turns
continue until a point is scored, which point immediately ends the game
with a score of plus one on time.
Actually, if the scores were 25-25 after the regular extension period, I
don't know whether the winning score (26-25) would be "on time" or not,
because the progression of the game would have been identical to that of
an untimed game - though the players' tactics would undoubtedly have
taken the rules of timed games into account. I must make enquiries.

An intriguing intricacy. If my take on this is correct, the score should
still be called "on time", as this scenario would also happen after the
initial expiry time (what I understand to mean "on time").

Until I get a definitive ruling, I would decide to the contrary. I will
follow it up in the appropriate circles, anyway.

Thanks, I'd really be interested to know their opinion.

Here's one opinion addressed to me:

"You may find it easier to think as follows:
*time is called to notify the players that the
initially-allocated time has expired
*time actually expires when the extension period ends
(including, if necessary, the extra extension if scores are
level)
*therefore any game pegged out" [Paul: Jargon for a side having
scored its full 26 points] "before the end of the extension
period is won within time, all other games "on time"."

I don't agree with the reasoning, but do tend to agree with the
conclusion.

Other contributors to the closed-group discussion have drifted into more
unlikely scenarios, like two points being scored simultaneously by two
balls in the same stroke, and the Laws of the game giving the striker
(the player of the stroke) the option of declaring which ball scored its
point first. It's a challenging game for thinking persons.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:22:04 +0000, Paul Wolff

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff
Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in
different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit
just one player may run out of time and lose on that
basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time
limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score
recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

A quite different "on", though - it expresses cause for chess
loses *because* his time has expired), and defines a given
point in time
for croquet and many sports (the lesser-scoring team loses *at*
the expiry
of the playing time).

I'm not at all sure that the score "on time" is normal for most games
played to a strict time limit. Taking a standard soccer game as an
example, the matches finishes "at" the expiry of its
allotted time, and
then the whole score is given - so many goals to each side, the winner
having the greater number, a tie or draw if the goals scored
are equal.
I chose croquet because, as in chess, "on time" is also a standard
phrase for a non-standard finish. Croquet is essentially a race
to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The final score is
recorded by points different. So a player who wins +6 has scored 26 to
the opponent's 20. The phrase "on time" is only added if the
game wasn't
finished in the regular manner, but was given a maximum time
and neither
side reached 26. The actual score for a "+6 on time" result could have
been anything from 6-0 to 25-19. [Isn't this interesting!]

Very interesting indeed, thanks, I didn't know the rules of croquet.

Taking you at your word, I'm gratified. It's hard to tell when one's
just being boring.

Post by b***@aol.com
However, that doesn't seem to change the two different meanings of "on"
defined above, and the extra time played in croquet for one player to
reach the score of 26 in timed games is somehow comparable e.g. to the
two 15-minute periods of extra-time or the "sudden death" rule that can
apply in soccer if neither team has won at the expiry of the regular
90-minute period.

I understand. For innocent reasons, I didn't tell the whole story. I
still maintain that "on time" in croquet doesn't mean "at the end of the
time allowed" so much as "on the basis of the rules that govern time
limits". The rules are more complex than I have (so far) wished to fill
my posts with. When "time" is called, the in-player - the player on the
court executing a sequence of strokes - may continue to play until his
turn comes to a natural end, whereupon the opponent is allowed one
complete turn, and it's only when that turn ends that the score is
reckoned - and if points are then equal, they have to keep playing
alternate turns until one of them scores a point. That's what winning
"on time" implies.

I see, but, given those rules, couldn't a score of e.g. "Plus 2 on time"
be interpreted as "on time" (at the expiry of the alloted time in timed
games), one of the player (or team) then scored two more points than the
other?

That's possible. It is also possible that one side was ahead at the
moment time was called, then more points were scored by either side
during the completion of the turn of the side in play and/or the
allotted extra turn of the other side.

Post by b***@aol.com
(I may have missed something, though.)

Each side is always given one opportunity after time is called to finish
one turn and score as much as they can in that turn ("the extension
period"). Only if the scores are level after that do alternate turns
continue until a point is scored, which point immediately ends the game
with a score of plus one on time.
Actually, if the scores were 25-25 after the regular extension period, I
don't know whether the winning score (26-25) would be "on time" or not,
because the progression of the game would have been identical to that of
an untimed game - though the players' tactics would undoubtedly have
taken the rules of timed games into account. I must make enquiries.

An intriguing intricacy. If my take on this is correct, the score should
still be called "on time", as this scenario would also happen after the
initial expiry time (what I understand to mean "on time").

Until I get a definitive ruling, I would decide to the contrary. I will
follow it up in the appropriate circles, anyway.

Thanks, I'd really be interested to know their opinion.

*time is called to notify the players that the
initially-allocated time has expired
*time actually expires when the extension period ends
(including, if necessary, the extra extension if scores are
level)
*therefore any game pegged out" [Paul: Jargon for a side having
scored its full 26 points] "before the end of the extension
period is won within time, all other games "on time"."
I don't agree with the reasoning, but do tend to agree with the
conclusion.
Other contributors to the closed-group discussion have drifted into more
unlikely scenarios, like two points being scored simultaneously by two
balls in the same stroke, and the Laws of the game giving the striker
(the player of the stroke) the option of declaring which ball scored its
point first. It's a challenging game for thinking persons.

Is there a limit on the time you are permitted fot thinking about it?
-:)

[Paul Wolff]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2020, at 19:07:38, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:22:04 +0000, Paul Wolff

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff
Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in
different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit
just one player may run out of time and lose on that
basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time
limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score
recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

A quite different "on", though - it expresses cause for chess
loses *because* his time has expired), and defines a given
point in time
for croquet and many sports (the lesser-scoring team loses *at*
the expiry
of the playing time).

I'm not at all sure that the score "on time" is normal for
most games
played to a strict time limit. Taking a standard soccer game as an
example, the matches finishes "at" the expiry of its
allotted time, and
then the whole score is given - so many goals to each side,
the winner
having the greater number, a tie or draw if the goals scored
are equal.
I chose croquet because, as in chess, "on time" is also a standard
phrase for a non-standard finish. Croquet is essentially a race
to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The
final score is
recorded by points different. So a player who wins +6 has
scored 26 to
the opponent's 20. The phrase "on time" is only added if the
game wasn't
finished in the regular manner, but was given a maximum time
and neither
side reached 26. The actual score for a "+6 on time" result
could have
been anything from 6-0 to 25-19. [Isn't this interesting!]

Very interesting indeed, thanks, I didn't know the rules of croquet.

Taking you at your word, I'm gratified. It's hard to tell when one's
just being boring.

Post by b***@aol.com
However, that doesn't seem to change the two different meanings of "on"
defined above, and the extra time played in croquet for one
reach the score of 26 in timed games is somehow comparable
two 15-minute periods of extra-time or the "sudden death" rule that can
apply in soccer if neither team has won at the expiry of the regular
90-minute period.

I understand. For innocent reasons, I didn't tell the whole story. I
still maintain that "on time" in croquet doesn't mean "at the end of the
time allowed" so much as "on the basis of the rules that govern time
limits". The rules are more complex than I have (so far) wished to fill
my posts with. When "time" is called, the in-player - the player on the
court executing a sequence of strokes - may continue to play
turn comes to a natural end, whereupon the opponent is allowed one
complete turn, and it's only when that turn ends that the score is
reckoned - and if points are then equal, they have to keep playing
alternate turns until one of them scores a point. That's what winning
"on time" implies.

I see, but, given those rules, couldn't a score of e.g. "Plus 2 on time"
be interpreted as "on time" (at the expiry of the alloted time in timed
games), one of the player (or team) then scored two more points than the
other?

That's possible. It is also possible that one side was ahead at the
moment time was called, then more points were scored by either side
during the completion of the turn of the side in play and/or the
allotted extra turn of the other side.

Post by b***@aol.com
(I may have missed something, though.)

Each side is always given one opportunity after time is called to finish
one turn and score as much as they can in that turn ("the extension
period"). Only if the scores are level after that do alternate turns
continue until a point is scored, which point immediately ends the game
with a score of plus one on time.
Actually, if the scores were 25-25 after the regular extension period, I
don't know whether the winning score (26-25) would be "on time" or not,
because the progression of the game would have been identical to that of
an untimed game - though the players' tactics would undoubtedly have
taken the rules of timed games into account. I must make enquiries.

An intriguing intricacy. If my take on this is correct, the score should
still be called "on time", as this scenario would also happen after the
initial expiry time (what I understand to mean "on time").

Until I get a definitive ruling, I would decide to the contrary. I will
follow it up in the appropriate circles, anyway.

Thanks, I'd really be interested to know their opinion.

*time is called to notify the players that the
initially-allocated time has expired
*time actually expires when the extension period ends
(including, if necessary, the extra extension if scores are
level)
*therefore any game pegged out" [Paul: Jargon for a side having
scored its full 26 points] "before the end of the extension
period is won within time, all other games "on time"."
I don't agree with the reasoning, but do tend to agree with the
conclusion.
Other contributors to the closed-group discussion have drifted into more
unlikely scenarios, like two points being scored simultaneously by two
balls in the same stroke, and the Laws of the game giving the striker
(the player of the stroke) the option of declaring which ball scored its
point first. It's a challenging game for thinking persons.

Is there a limit on the time you are permitted fot thinking about it?
-:)

There's a law requiring expedition in play, but extended trips to
Darkest Peru are not encouraged.

[b***@aol.com]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by b***@aol.com

Post by Paul Wolff
Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in
different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit
just one player may run out of time and lose on that
basis. In other
games, such as croquet, where there might be an overall time
limit set
for the game as a whole, the winner "on time" is the player who's
leading on hoops scored after time expires, by a score
recorded (for
example) as "plus six on time".

A quite different "on", though - it expresses cause for chess
loses *because* his time has expired), and defines a given
point in time
for croquet and many sports (the lesser-scoring team loses *at*
the expiry
of the playing time).

I'm not at all sure that the score "on time" is normal for
most games
played to a strict time limit. Taking a standard soccer game as an
example, the matches finishes "at" the expiry of its
allotted time, and
then the whole score is given - so many goals to each side,
the winner
having the greater number, a tie or draw if the goals scored
are equal.
I chose croquet because, as in chess, "on time" is also a standard
phrase for a non-standard finish. Croquet is essentially a race
to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The
final score is
recorded by points different. So a player who wins +6 has
scored 26 to
the opponent's 20. The phrase "on time" is only added if the
game wasn't
finished in the regular manner, but was given a maximum time
and neither
side reached 26. The actual score for a "+6 on time" result
could have
been anything from 6-0 to 25-19. [Isn't this interesting!]

Very interesting indeed, thanks, I didn't know the rules of croquet.

Taking you at your word, I'm gratified. It's hard to tell when one's
just being boring.

Post by b***@aol.com
However, that doesn't seem to change the two different meanings of "on"
defined above, and the extra time played in croquet for one player to
reach the score of 26 in timed games is somehow comparable e.g. to the
two 15-minute periods of extra-time or the "sudden death" rule that can
apply in soccer if neither team has won at the expiry of the regular
90-minute period.

I understand. For innocent reasons, I didn't tell the whole story. I
still maintain that "on time" in croquet doesn't mean "at the end of the
time allowed" so much as "on the basis of the rules that govern time
limits". The rules are more complex than I have (so far) wished to fill
my posts with. When "time" is called, the in-player - the player on the
court executing a sequence of strokes - may continue to play until his
turn comes to a natural end, whereupon the opponent is allowed one
complete turn, and it's only when that turn ends that the score is
reckoned - and if points are then equal, they have to keep playing
alternate turns until one of them scores a point. That's what winning
"on time" implies.

I see, but, given those rules, couldn't a score of e.g. "Plus 2 on time"
be interpreted as "on time" (at the expiry of the alloted time in timed
games), one of the player (or team) then scored two more points than the
other?

That's possible. It is also possible that one side was ahead at the
moment time was called, then more points were scored by either side
during the completion of the turn of the side in play and/or the
allotted extra turn of the other side.

Post by b***@aol.com
(I may have missed something, though.)

Each side is always given one opportunity after time is called to finish
one turn and score as much as they can in that turn ("the extension
period"). Only if the scores are level after that do alternate turns
continue until a point is scored, which point immediately ends the game
with a score of plus one on time.
Actually, if the scores were 25-25 after the regular extension period, I
don't know whether the winning score (26-25) would be "on time" or not,
because the progression of the game would have been identical to that of
an untimed game - though the players' tactics would undoubtedly have
taken the rules of timed games into account. I must make enquiries.

An intriguing intricacy. If my take on this is correct, the score should
still be called "on time", as this scenario would also happen after the
initial expiry time (what I understand to mean "on time").

Until I get a definitive ruling, I would decide to the contrary. I will
follow it up in the appropriate circles, anyway.

Thanks, I'd really be interested to know their opinion.

*time is called to notify the players that the
initially-allocated time has expired
*time actually expires when the extension period ends
(including, if necessary, the extra extension if scores are
level)
*therefore any game pegged out" [Paul: Jargon for a side having
scored its full 26 points] "before the end of the extension
period is won within time, all other games "on time"."

Which seems to include the (26-25 score) scenario you described above
and maybe confirm my take on the phrase.

Post by Paul Wolff
I don't agree with the reasoning, but do tend to agree with the
conclusion.
Other contributors to the closed-group discussion have drifted into more
unlikely scenarios, like two points being scored simultaneously by two
balls in the same stroke, and the Laws of the game giving the striker
(the player of the stroke) the option of declaring which ball scored its
point first. It's a challenging game for thinking persons.

Thanks again for all the feedback.

Post by Paul Wolff
--
Paul

[Mark Brader]

Post by Paul Wolff
Croquet is essentially a race to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The final score is
recorded by points different.

Interesting, I did not know that. Playing the family version of the game
with my parents as a child, there was no point scoring and whoever was
first to complete the circuit of hoops was the winner.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Paul Wolff
Croquet is essentially a race to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The final score is
recorded by points different.

Interesting, I did not know that. Playing the family version of the game
with my parents as a child, there was no point scoring and whoever was
first to complete the circuit of hoops was the winner.

I don't even know how a point is scored in croquet.

The first one to knock their ball through the final hoop was the
winner in the times I've played.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Paul Wolff
Croquet is essentially a race to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The final score is
recorded by points different.

Interesting, I did not know that. Playing the family version of the game
with my parents as a child, there was no point scoring and whoever was
first to complete the circuit of hoops was the winner.

I don't even know how a point is scored in croquet.
The first one to knock their ball through the final hoop was the
winner in the times I've played.

We required their ball to go further and hit the stake beyond the
final hoop.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Paul Wolff
Croquet is essentially a race to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The final score is
recorded by points different.

Interesting, I did not know that. Playing the family version of the game
with my parents as a child, there was no point scoring and whoever was
first to complete the circuit of hoops was the winner.

I expect there are as many sets of rules as there are owners of garden
croquet sets. And people might say we'll stop at tea-time, and whoever's
ahead then wins.

I chose the World Croquet Federation laws to explain my comments.
There's no need to record points at all if you only want to find the
winner, because whether you count them or not, 26 points are scored by
the first side to complete the course. That's 12 hoop points and one peg
point scored for each ball of the side on its journey around the court.
(There are only six hoops but the prescribed course for each ball
carries on through each hoop in the opposite direction after the first
six have been scored, and only then to the peg and removal from the
game.)

[Katy Jennison]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Paul Wolff
Croquet is essentially a race to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The final score is
recorded by points different.

Interesting, I did not know that.  Playing the family version of the game
with my parents as a child, there was no point scoring and whoever was
first to complete the circuit of hoops was the winner.

I expect there are as many sets of rules as there are owners of garden
croquet sets. And people might say we'll stop at tea-time, and whoever's
ahead then wins.
I chose the World Croquet Federation laws to explain my comments.
There's no need to record points at all if you only want to find the
winner, because whether you count them or not, 26 points are scored by
the first side to complete the course. That's 12 hoop points and one peg
point scored for each ball of the side on its journey around the court.
(There are only six hoops but the prescribed course for each ball
carries on through each hoop in the opposite direction after the first
six have been scored, and only then to the peg and removal from the game.)

A friend of ours has an annual summer party at which garden croquet is
played, and the rules appear to be those set out in the leaflet which
came with the box, many decades ago.

[Stoat]

Post by Paul Wolff
I chose croquet because, as in chess, "on time" is also a standard
phrase for a non-standard finish. Croquet is essentially a race to score
26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The final score is
recorded by points different. So a player who wins +6 has scored 26 to
the opponent's 20. The phrase "on time" is only added if the game wasn't
finished in the regular manner, but was given a maximum time and neither
side reached 26. The actual score for a "+6 on time" result could have
been anything from 6-0 to 25-19. [Isn't this interesting!]
OTOH, when time runs out in a cricket match, the result is simply a draw.

That is very UK-centric. In most of the croquet world, the score is
spelled out, so 19-13 would be an instance of "+6 on time". It has the
advantage of being both more informative and shorter.

--brian

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Stoat

Post by Paul Wolff
I chose croquet because, as in chess, "on time" is also a standard
phrase for a non-standard finish. Croquet is essentially a race to
score 26 points - the first side to reach 26 points wins. The final
score is recorded by points different. So a player who wins +6 has
scored 26 to the opponent's 20. The phrase "on time" is only added if
the game wasn't finished in the regular manner, but was given a
maximum time and neither side reached 26. The actual score for a "+6
on time" result could have been anything from 6-0 to 25-19. [Isn't
this interesting!]
OTOH, when time runs out in a cricket match, the result is simply a draw.

That is very UK-centric. In most of the croquet world, the score is
spelled out,

I didn't know that. But if it were true of the UK too, I'd have had
nothing to say about the usage of "on time" in English.

Post by Stoat
so 19-13 would be an instance of "+6 on time". It has the advantage of
being both more informative and shorter.

True. And perhaps the windy Wellington courts contribute to longer
games, so imposed time limits are more common. Or you Kiwis are just
better players.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Paul Wolff
Winning or losing "on time" can mean different things in different
games. In chess, where each player has their own time limit I believe,
just one player may run out of time and lose on that basis...

Similarly in curling, of course, except in curling it's teams that
win or lose.