Lack of Good Manners on RHP

Originally posted by thaughbaer
It doesn't matter whether or not you think it's "bad manners" that's a different argument. The whole premise that nothing can be "bad manners" simply because you managed to gain something from your action ( or inaction ) is flawed.

My whole premise was that anything that happens ON THE BOARD and is within the rules can't be "bad manners". Do we agree on this one?

Originally posted by greenpawn34
But that is what this whole row is about (again.)

Is it bad manners to play on knowing you are lost and need a blunder to win or draw?

It depends on what you mean by lost. If you need your opponent to make a tactical error then no. If you need your oppenent to give back a piece then no.

If you need your opponent, who apparently was good enough to go a queen, bishop, knight and two rooks up, to blunder them all away again then yes. If you play every game to the bitter end on the off-chance you might get a stalemate then yes.

There's a point in a game where the position goes from hopeful to hopeless and it's up to each individual to decide when they have reached that point and act accordingly. You've posted games like this yourself where your swindle has failed and when you've completely run out of steam you resign.

I suspect those that think it's good manners to allow your opponent to mate you are outnumbered by those who cling on in the hope of a skull crack ( and no I won't be presenting any evidence for that ).

Originally posted by greenpawn34
But that is what this whole row is about (again.)

Is it bad manners to play on knowing you are lost and need a blunder to win or draw?

I'm saying you can play on because there is no rule that says you must resign.
Also some on here think the only natural conclussion to a game is to play on
to the checkmate and may regard resignation as a form of ...[text shortened]... vise they take themselves far too seriously and
need to lighten up a bit. It's only a game.

I presented an actual example of the kind of position I had in mind.

I'm NOT talking about positions with:
- genuine chances of a swindle, including stalemate
- hard to convert the win (e.g. B+N mate)
- the result of some nice combination

I'd play on in these positions too and have! You are "attacking a straw man". Look at the actual position I posted and see if it matches any of the above criteria.

Originally posted by iru
My whole premise was that anything that happens ON THE BOARD and is within the rules can't be "bad manners". Do we agree on this one?

No!

As others have said, this is not about situations where there is a swindle or where someone may not know the mating pattern.

I put a simple K+R v K+P endgame into Shredder. A position I could win against a GM. It took 36 moves to deliver mate.

Suppose I found myself on the losing side against a 2100 player and we are playing 21 day timeout, but have until this position been playing a move a day.

If I now slow down (because I'm sulking) and play every move at the end of 21 days I could drag this game out for 2 years.

If you accept this would be bad manners, then the debate only becomes one of where the line in the sand is.

If you don't think this is bad manners, well I don't know what more I can say.

Originally posted by Varenka
You tried to contrive a "help stalemate" and even then failed to do so, since your line doesn't end in stalemate. And that's you choosing the moves for both sides! 🙂

It's harder than you might think to compose a help-stalemate. 😛

Originally posted by Rank outsider
No!

As others have said, this is not about situations where there is a swindle or where someone may not know the mating pattern.

I put a simple K+R v K+P endgame into Shredder. A position I could win against a GM. It took 36 moves to deliver mate.

Suppose I found myself on the losing side against a 2100 player and we are playing 21 day timeo ...[text shortened]... he sand is.

If you don't think this is bad manners, well I don't know what more I can say.

Thanks for this good and clear example. I don't think it's bad manners. I will be annoyed of course but at same time will use it as an opportunity to train this particular mating pattern. I will not complain about the whole thing in the forums or anywhere else.

Originally posted by Varenka
I presented an actual example of the kind of position I had in mind.

I'm NOT talking about positions with:
- genuine chances of a swindle, including stalemate
- hard to convert the win (e.g. B+N mate)
- the result of some nice combination

I'd play on in these positions too and have! You are "attacking a straw man". Look at the actual position I posted and see if it matches any of the above criteria.

Doesn't this positionfall outside of those 3 bullet points?

Originally posted by iru
Thanks for this good and clear example. I don't think it's bad manners. I will be annoyed of course but at same time will use it as an opportunity to train this particular mating pattern. I will not complain about the whole thing in the forums or anywhere else.

No mating pattern involved that you couldn't do in your sleep. And for someone at 2100?

But I don't understand, why would something you consider perfectly acceptable behaviour annoy you?

That seems illogical to me.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Doesn't this position[fen]8/6p1/7p/1q6/6PP/4p3/3k2K1/8 b - - 0 56[/fen]fall outside of those 3 bullet points?

No, this position has chances of a stalemate as the game proved. We've halved the number of pawns compared to my example, and White can try to run himself out of pawn moves while Black spends time getting a 2nd queen (in my example Black starts with two queens). We've also reduced the Black player's rating by 350 points or so.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
No mating pattern involved that you couldn't do in your sleep. And for someone at 2100?

But I don't understand, why would something you consider perfectly acceptable behaviour annoy you?

That seems illogical to me.

Sorry I didn't understand your example correctly - there is no mating pattern but it doesn't really change anything. Being annoyed is my personal feeling about the game. I can be annoyed already at move 5 depending on position. That doesn't mean my opponent is displaying "bad manners". I can only repeat myself - anything going on on the board and remaining within the rules is just fine, there is no breach of etiquette IMHO.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
"Except that with White to move, the best Black can force is mate in 4. "

[fen]6k1/2K5/pp5p/6pq/P7/2P4P/6P1/4q3 w - - 0 1[/fen]
Agreed.

But with White to play Black can stalemate White in [b]3 moves.

[pgn]
[FEN "6k1/2K5/pp5p/6pq/P7/2P4P/6P1/4q3 w - - 0 1"]
1. g4 Qxc3+ {Grabs a pawn with check.} 2. Kxb6 Qb3+ {Now chases the King into a ma ...[text shortened]... game message
will kick one off. Be careful what you send....or post in a forum. 😉[/b]

Here's what you wanted, GP.

Originally posted by Varenka
No, this position has chances of a stalemate as the game proved. We've halved the number of pawns compared to my example, and White can try to run himself out of pawn moves while Black spends time getting a 2nd queen (in my example Black starts with two queens). We've also reduced the Black player's rating by 350 points or so.

I don't think you would say that white had good stalemating chances in that example if you didn't have the benefit of hindsight. I know I wouldn't.

But it seems like we've reduced the set of mannerly-resignable positions to something very very small now; almost enough to make the whole question of mannerly resignation negligible. 🙂

Originally posted by iru
Sorry I didn't understand your example correctly - there is no mating pattern but it doesn't really change anything. Being annoyed is my personal feeling about the game. I can be annoyed already at move 5 depending on position. That doesn't mean my opponent is displaying "bad manners". I can only repeat myself - anything going on on the board and remaining within the rules is just fine, there is no breach of etiquette IMHO.

Sorry, but when you said 'I will be annoyed of course', you must have meant you were annoyed for the game being dragged out. You are winning the game, after all. Why the game position should annoy you for any other reason is beyond me.

OK let's add one thing.

Suppose the reason I drag it out is because I know it will annoy you.

So let's look at the facts:

1. The game is lost with no chance of a draw or win.

2. I have established a pattern of playing a move a day.

3. There is nothing to be gained from playing on, no training value etc.

4. I change my move pattern solely for the purpose of annoying you, no other reason.

5. I play on for 2 years and lose.

If you think this is not an example of bad manners, you live in a very different world to me.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I don't think you would say that white had good stalemating chances in that example if you didn't have the benefit of hindsight.

I didn't say there were *good* chances, even with hindsight! 🙂

But it seems like we've reduced the set of mannerly-resignable positions to something very very small now

The number of positions where one side has a huge material advantage and the other side has no realistic chance of a swindle is anything but very very small.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Sorry, but when you said 'I will be annoyed of course', you must have meant you were annoyed for the game being dragged out. You are winning the game, after all. Why the game position should annoy you for any other reason is beyond me.

OK let's add one thing.

Suppose the reason I drag it out is because I know it will annoy you.

So let's look ...[text shortened]... f you think this is not an example of bad manners, you live in a very different world to me.

Position can annoy me for many reasons - for example because it's boring and I shouldn't have started so many games in first place...

As for your example - I still don't think it's bad manners. I don't care what are your motives. We agreed to play on certain terms and that's what we do. And it can't last for 2 years because I only play 7 days/move 😀