Hi V.
Without a doubt sulking takes place.
It's never happened to me but I've seen it on here.
Game being played not in the best of spirits. 🙂
Often something behind it. A silly PM (why don't you just resign) will set off a sulker.)
Hi thaughbaer
I am not going to stick my beak up your arse. Sorry. 🙂
I cannot see your name on that thread you linked.
Skeeter was well within the rules...It's a bit shady but that is the way it goes.
I also recall arguing with Skeets about this same subject.
She was bemoaning the fact someone was playing on and on...and on...and on.
What goes around comes around.
Originally posted by greenpawn34If that was always the case, I'd agree. But either you don't think that sore losers exist in chess, or you think their actions are usually justified by an action of their opponent.
Often something behind it. A silly PM (why don't you just resign) will set off a sulker.)
I've never asked anyone to resign. I've had people offer me a draw in positions I can easily win; I decline; and then they become a sore loser. I find it hard to believe that RHP has it's share of cheats (engine users, etc.) but yet the concept of a sore loser doesn't exist - just good guys and bad guys, and nothing inbetween.
Sore losers certainly exist in chess outwith RHP. I recently read about Adolf Anderssen resigning in admiration for Morphy's play, and I admire him more for this account. Alternatively I see Janowski being described as "detestable" and "unpopular" with his peers due to his "playing out a game even in a dead lost position".
You recently posted about some lack of fighting spirit in the Russian Championship. It's another area where we can check the rule book and see that everything is in order. So there are many things outwith the rules that can affect the appeal and image of chess and chess players.
I think you know exactly the kind of thing which is being suggested are
bad manners here."
Of course I do.
There are those who think that an opponent should resign because they
are that great and good they will never lose a won game.
Their nose goes out of joint if their opponent plays on in a position they
would have resigned. Chess Snobs.
Big deal, get over it, just play the game.
Hi V
..."but yet the concept of a sore loser doesn't exist - just good guys and
bad guys, and nothing inbetween. "
All depends how you define sore loser.
What actions did they take after the game and did it (and this is important)
go on for weeks, months, years?
Chess players do some very silly things they regret moments later
after they have just lost a game.
Re - The Russian report.
I was yanking ChessBase saying the Women's event showed more fighting chess
and it had another one of those sister draws in it.
Different matter all together.
Originally posted by VarenkaWell, that just makes my sentence stronger. "The loser, already taxed with a hopelessly lost position..."
No, not "bad positions". Hopelessly lost positions! There's a big difference. 🙂
You're painting a picture of the loser suffering, but players who know that they're completely lost don't choose to do so.
The reality that we're talking about here is someone saying to themself "ok, I'm not going to avoid losing this but I'm going to make him wait". Th ...[text shortened]... before I'd also label them a "sulker". Do you agree that "sulking" takes place?
Your 2nd para just isn't true. There are people too obstinate to resign even though they are suffering.
I've played a sulker - one guy over the board who just let his time run out and kept shaking his head because he knew the game was lost and he couldn't do anything about it. I thought it was a bit surprising given that we had played a few times before and he'd never done anything like that, but it didn't offend me, nor did I feel 'disrespected'. His decision was no reflection on me at all. He was just mad at himself for blowing the game.
Originally posted by SwissGambitSo you're fine with obstinate people playing on in hopelessly lost positions. Ok, we differ on that - agreed. Personally I prefer my chess to be a little more challenging.
Well, that just makes my sentence stronger. "The loser, already taxed with a hopelessly lost position..."
Your 2nd para just isn't true. There are people too obstinate to resign even though they are suffering.
Originally posted by VarenkaNo, I'm not 'fine' with it. But neither did I take it personally.
So you're fine with obstinate people playing on in hopelessly lost positions. Ok, we differ on that - agreed. Personally I prefer my chess to be a little more challenging.
As for your last sentence, your opponent doesn't give a sh it about your chess preferences, nor should he.
Originally posted by VarenkaOn the contrary, passion, fighting spirit and competitveness sells. As do swindles and quotes like "why must i lose to this idiot?" and "i like the moment when i break a man's ego".
Hardly a great advertisement for chess or chess players. Not that you care about such things.
Hi V.
"It was chess players getting slated..."
No, it was ChessBase getting slated. (read it again.)
Where did you get stuff about Janowski and Anderssen from?.
In some games Anderssen never had the chance to play on v Morphy as most
Morphy wins were under 25 moves.
(Possibly a bit harsh on Anderssen but at least 5 were. I know one cracker was 17 moves.)
And I do recall a longer game with Anderssen playing on a Rook down.
(he may have had perpetual chances - but he was a Rook down and needed a blunder
- possible Anderssen sac that just failed and he had one last trick to pull).
Have also heard of Anderssen praising Morphy to the roof.
If one players style was suitable to Morphy (or not suitable, it all depends what way you look at it)
it's was Anderssen's. Both played open entertaining chess.
But Janowski detested? Nah. (I cannot recall reading that anywhere.)
I love the guy. He played some brilliant games.
Never missed a chance to go over a Janowski game. Always fun.
It was from him I got my games are won in the middle game
and endings should never appear from.
Just Wiki'd him. (what a stoop.)
"He [Fine] also noted that Janowski was sometimes unpopular with his colleagues
because of his predilection for doggedly playing on even in an obviously lost
position, hoping his opponent might blunder. "
'sometimes unpopular' is a long way from 'detestable.'
And of course I've no problem with someone playing on because their
opponent might blunder. Been there, done it and did lose one wink of sleep. 😉
Janowski's hatred of endings is also mentioned.
Let's check Winter. (should have gone there first)
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/janowsky.html
Nothing but praise from Capablanca and Alekhine.
"Capablanca wrote in My Chess Career that Janowsky had been
‘one of the most feared of all the players’
Who ever wrote that stuff about Janowski should have checked his Edward Winter.
No mention of him being destested anywhere.
I'd give the Winter link a read V. It's one of Winter's best pieces.
It might balance it up a bit.
Awfully sad last note from Winters site.
'A lonely man (he had never married), no relatives near to him, no religion, no
income and apparently no friends, for he was not really a sociable man to make
them. What a sad end to a successful career devoted almost wholly to chess.’
I wonder if they (who ever it is) have taken 'no friends' and blamed it on
Janowski gambling for a swindle.
