10 Sep 08
Originally posted by mcstankbootyBobby Fischer once claimed a draw by repetition in his 1972 World Championship match with Boris Spassky. Spassky did not realize that he had allowed the position to repeat three times.
Man, you guys are incredible, the way you descend on someone who doesn't agree with you. The way you play the holier-than-thou card while calling me names and telling me I don't know anything, it's amazing.
I stand by everything I said. I would love for any one of you to prove to me that, in this instance, that rule was being used in the spirit in ...[text shortened]... lfway through a game that you stand a decent chance of winning, yeah, that's cowardace.
Fischer's position, if I recall, was slightly worse, but not yet lost.
The consensus was not that Fischer was a coward, but that Spassky should have been more careful not to allow the 3rd repetition.
These players were most certainly interested in the 'meat of the game' as you put it - they were the two best players in the world at the time.
10 Sep 08
Originally posted by sh76Again, thank you for being evenhanded and not even slightly patronizing. Let me address this harassment thing again.
I have to say that I commend you for hanging in there. If everyone ganged up on me like that, I'd probably just ignore the thread and wait until it disappears forever. It does show a certain level of guts to (basically) own up to your mistake on the boards.
I'm not sure if everyone felt this way, but I don't have a problem with your opinion about perpetual ...[text shortened]... of the fundamental chess rules to avoid or cancel the perpetual check method of drawing.
It takes a couple of things to bully someone. First of all it takes leverage--of which I had none over snjortp. Secondly, it takes an "or else." "Resign or else I'll..." which didn't happen. The nature of a bully is usually that he's not alone--he feels comfortable bossing people around because he is in a position where other people have his back. This was obviously not the case with me before or after snjortp resigned.
Similarly, harassment requires a patern of behavior and clear intention. Not only did I not ask snjortp to resign, but I didn't expect him to, nor did I really want him to--which I think is really obvious in the message. Bullies don't start by saying "Whatever"--it's a dismissive word. If anything, my message expressed why I felt he shouldn't have taken the perpetual check route, but I never urged him to do anything else. I simply said "You gave up, and you wasted my time." Notice also that the perpetual check went on for quite a number of moves and it wasn't until he asked for a draw that I expressed my opinion. Again: no indication of harassment.
What I was was abrasive, nothing more. In hindsight, when he brought up the draw I should have told him that I thought he had a chance of winning and we should play it out--I messed up there, and I do regret calling him a coward.
The problem with the kind of stuff that happens in this forum is that you guys develop such a mob mentality that you ignore the content of the message, the game, and my actual point. And that was sparked by no1marauder calling me an imbecile and telling me to shut up, and trickled on down through the patronizing attitude of a lot of the posters. I really do appreciate people like you who are interested in having an actual conversation--ESPECIALLY since I was regretfully unable to do that with snjortp--and I am taking in the stuff you are saying.
But at no point do I deserve to be treated with the hateful, elitist, ignorant contempt that a lot of these posters came in here slinging around. Nobody does. I feel fairly satisfied that I've made my point of view clear, even if I am enormously in the minority, but, really, all the abuse and harassment talk is over the top.
Obviously it's well within anybody's rights to put me on their ignore list, and I doubt that anyone would do that that I would actually want to play with anyway. I don't play here for the same reasons a lot of you do. I started in order to play with my friends, then joined in tournaments in order to improve my game. I get that learning to guard against a perpetual check would improve my game, but I still don't think that going for the perpetual check when the game is far from over is a cool move. Then again, I'm not really interested in win/loss records and my self-esteem is not tied up in my player rating. If there was an option to let opponents take back stupid moves, I would probably exercise it frequently for the sake of better games. I don't expect anyone else to feel the same way, but when someone asks me--Like Snjortp Did--I'm gonna tell them. Even if my response was abrasive, it sure as hell was neither bullying nor harassment.
10 Sep 08
Originally posted by no1marauderI guess that's what I get for assuming you're not a complete and total sack of crap.
You imagine wrong; it's sarcastic advice that would give up your Queen for a Bishop. So you'd lose. Just like snjortp would have lost if he didn't go for the perpetual.
10 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by mcstankbootySo an in-game message calling someone a "coward", saying they are exhibiting "poor sportsmanship" and are "totally dishonorable" is not harassing them in your "mind"? You should simply apologize to snjortp and vow not to act in such an asinine manner in the future and the subject would be closed. Instead, you keep trying to defend the indefensible.
Again, thank you for being evenhanded and not even slightly patronizing. Let me address this harassment thing again.
It takes a couple of things to bully someone. First of all it takes leverage--of which I had none over snjortp. Secondly, it takes an "or else." "Resign or else I'll..." which didn't happen. The nature of a bully is usually that he ponse was abrasive, it sure as hell was neither bullying nor harassment.
Like I said, shut up and play. Any legal move anyone can make in a chess game is "sporting". Your ideas to the contrary communicated with abusive insults thrown at your opponents are not what RHP players expect from their fellow players here.
10 Sep 08
Originally posted by mcstankbootyYou sound like a real asshat
Again, thank you for being evenhanded and not even slightly patronizing. Let me address this harassment thing again.
It takes a couple of things to bully someone. First of all it takes leverage--of which I had none over snjortp. Secondly, it takes an "or else." "Resign or else I'll..." which didn't happen. The nature of a bully is usually that he ...[text shortened]... ponse was abrasive, it sure as hell was neither bullying nor harassment.
10 Sep 08
Mac,I guess you have some sort of romantic knighthood approach to chess.That's ok,so do I,but this approach cannot be forced upon your opponents.And even with this way of thinking about chess you are wrong here.Let me clarify.So you understand the 'rule' of perpetual check.What you still do not seem to understand,or agree with,is that at move 38,somewhere in this thread you claim at that point Black still had a lot of play left so let's go from there,Black's best option is Qe4+ aiming for a perp.Any other move leaves you with a much better position.This means,by your own admission,you had no right to demand a resignation from him.Playing any other,and thus weaker,move would be wrong even for medieval kings and knights 😉
Now,while we're on the subject.I checked the FIDE laws of chess and there is no longer a perpetual check rule.Has there ever been one? 😕 Of course it is a draw because you'll eventually reach threefold repetition or the 50-move rule will kick in.Therefore players usually agree to a draw when one makes the clear intention of giving perpetual check and the other cannot escape it.
This raises a question with me: I always thought that in a tournament if you run out of time while having a perp you can call the arbiter and claim the draw if you can demonstrate it's unavoidable.Am I correct?
10 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderActually, yes.
So an in-game message calling someone a "coward", saying they are exhibiting "poor sportsmanship" and are "totally dishonorable" is not harassing them in your "mind"? You should simply apologize to snjortp and vow not to act in such an asinine manner in the future and the subject would be closed. Instead, you keep trying to defend the indefensible.
http://www.militarylawoffice.com/legal_dictionary
Harassment: Systematic, annoying and continued actions which include threats and demands.
Annoying: sure. Systematic and continued: absolutely not. Not one threat. Not one demand. Do the math.
You know, I'll take the shots that I deserve, but you in particular continue to be totally ignorant and absolutely out of line.
I'll be glad to apologize to snjortp for calling him a coward. Bring him out here.
10 Sep 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitI'm sorry, did you just compare snjortp to Bobby Fisher? Because that's reaching a bit. Even if we weren't talking about our game in particular, let me use a sports analogy since those seem to go over well here: you're talking about, say, an intentional foul in a professional game where there's a great deal of money and who knows what else at stake to an intentional foul in a recreational game at a community center. The first is strategy and everyone knows that it may be a kinda skeevy part of that world; the second is just cheap and a little creepy.
Bobby Fischer once claimed a draw by repetition in his 1972 World Championship match with Boris Spassky. Spassky did not realize that he had allowed the position to repeat three times.
Fischer's position, if I recall, was slightly worse, but not yet lost.
The consensus was not that Fischer was a coward, but that Spassky should have been more carefu ...[text shortened]... e 'meat of the game' as you put it - they were the two best players in the world at the time.
In general, I think jumping to a forced draw in these kinds of situations is kind of cowardly--especially in a game you're not sure you're going to lose, you're just afraid you're going to lose. In particular, as I've said before, snjortp had tons of other options for the win before resorting to the low forced draw. He was well within the rules of the game, but in my opinion, totally spineless.
It was not, as someone else said, clever strategy, but an easy out way too early. One which, I'll mention again, I wouldn't have even said anything about if he hadn't drawn me into conversation AND into the forum. It's not wrong for me to have an opinion on his game, nor express that opinion. You all have been doing that throughout this whole forum.
10 Sep 08
Originally posted by mcstankbootyFrom Merriam-Webster:
Actually, yes.
http://www.militarylawoffice.com/legal_dictionary
Harassment: Systematic, annoying and continued actions which include threats and demands.
Annoying: sure. Systematic and continued: absolutely not.
You know, I'll take the shots that I deserve, but you in particular continue to be totally ignorant and absolutely out of line.
I'll be glad to apologize to snjortp for calling him a coward. Bring him out here.
Harass - 1 a: exhaust, fatigue b (1): to annoy persistently (2): to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
You sent three in-game messages that were abusive. And you even concede your opponent resigned so he wouldn't have to deal with any more of your crap. Case closed.
10 Sep 08
We're seriously breaking out dictionary definitions of the word "harass" on a post about forced draws? I think some people need to not get so incredibly butt-hurt about what someone else says about/to them on the internet, on a freaking chess messageboard of all places. Seriously, I've got to say that while I thoroughly enjoy and try to learn from a lot of these posts, I've seen more pompousness, arrogance, whining, and petty arguments on this board than I have on any other message board I've ever read. Besides being pointless, it definitely discourages anyone from wanting to read it, especially since seemingly innocuous posts such as this one can turn into such a whinefest.
[/Rant]
10 Sep 08
Originally posted by mcstankbootyYou are expressing a moronic, insulting opinion about your opponent - that he is "cowardly" and "spineless" - for doing what is expected of any chess player i.e. making the best possible move at the time. Your continued attacks on this player are beyond any question harassment. What kind of a jerk are you? The more you pile abuse upon snjortp the more you seem to deserve more than a mere admonishment - perhaps a forum ban AND the permanent suspension of your ability to make in-game messages would be most appropriate as you cannot seem to realize the gravity of your offense.
I'm sorry, did you just compare snjortp to Bobby Fisher? Because that's reaching a bit. Even if we weren't talking about our game in particular, let me use a sports analogy since those seem to go over well here: you're talking about, say, an intentional foul in a professional game where there's a great deal of money and who knows what else at stake t ...[text shortened]... r express that opinion. You all have been doing that throughout this whole forum.
10 Sep 08
Originally posted by hamltnblueI can't help but appreciate this post... You are so right!!! I feel that married people are a bit 'stable' to handle such situations... (Not to undermine the abilities of bachelors here) 🙂
Obviously you're not married Mcstankbooty, or you would have crawled in a corner with a six pack of beer by now and let the storm pass. Oh by the way that's my suggestion. No response expected 😉
10 Sep 08
Originally posted by stockton1984Then don't read it. Problem solved.
We're seriously breaking out dictionary definitions of the word "harass" on a post about forced draws? I think some people need to not get so incredibly butt-hurt about what someone else says about/to them on the internet, on a freaking chess messageboard of all places. Seriously, I've got to say that while I thoroughly enjoy and try to learn from a l ...[text shortened]... ce seemingly innocuous posts such as this one can turn into such a whinefest.
[/Rant]