12 Sep 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitI knew someone in golf who, if his opponent drove into the rough, would rush across and pace up and down over a particular patch of grass staring intently at the ground. He never said a word. In golf, it is generally regarded as good manners to look for your opponent's ball if it is lost, though there is no requirement to do so.
It is not poor sportsmanship to bluff your opponent.
The opponent would often look elsewhere, on the basis that this would cover more ground and the other player would let him know if he found the ball.
In fact, the opponent had already found the ball, and was pacing up and down staring at the ground precisely to encourage the person to think this.
Legal. Yes (well, probably). Poor sportmanship? Definitely. Cheating? Not technically.
Does this apply to the chess clock issue? Well, that depends on whether an expectation exists that you should point it out. It appears that it doesn't, and that actually taking steps to encourage the view that it has been pressed is acceptable.
Which I think is a pity, as I can't see that this makes the experience of playing chess better, and I can see why it makes it worse.
After all, how many of us have complained about pedantic bureaucrats who insist that 'rules is rules'? Do we want chess to be played in a way which moves closer to this or moves away from it?
So, by all means play on every game to mate, regardless of the position, win your games by pretending the clock has been pressed when it hasn't, blow smoke in your opponent's eyes until an arbiter is called to stop you.....
....but don't complain the next time a civil servant tells you he sent back your application because the photo you supplied with your form 124-5 X1200 was not glued to the form as clearly requested (even though he had glue sitting on his table when he rejected it) and that it was returned to you on the last day of his legal duty to return it within 30 working days. So what's the issue?
He's probably a chess player.
12 Sep 12
Originally posted by greenpawn34The TD's decision is final. Why should it be any responsibility of Reshevsky, since the decision was in his favor and he did not call over the TD in the first place?
HI No1.
"It's poor sportsmanship IMO even if legal under the rules."
I'd say it's a cross between sortsmanship/gamesmanship.
You are using his error against him, just like you would a bad move.
I always do but if my opponent keeps forgetting as happened once then
I 'forgot' to remind him and then tried to forget about it.
It would come do ...[text shortened]... onlookers the result stood!
(you would have thought Sammy may have said something) 🙂
12 Sep 12
The post that was quoted here has been removedDear Duchess64: Sorry, I did not mean to duck your question. I owe you an answer to your question as you asked it.
Even though my opponent had a history of frequently timing out, I would nevertheless resign if clearly lost because it would be inconsiderate to play on. Here at RHP, I play for enjoyment and I find no enjoyment (but only frustration) in winning a a game that I have clearly lost because my opponent timed out. In the situation you pose, I would find it frustrating and painful to keep look at a board showing me to have been completely outplayed for three or more days waiting for my opponent to move.
What I do enjoy most is winning a hard fought game against an equal opponent or winning or drawing a hard fought game against a superior opponent. I even enjoy losing if I have done my best (and not blundered) against a player who has outplayed me. At RHP, we are not playing for money or blood but only enjoyment.
P.S. Even though there is no rule prohibiting this, I deem it inconsiderate and bad manners for a player to take on too many games simultaneously than he can deal with during the agreed time limits.
12 Sep 12
Originally posted by AldanWouldn't you enjoy seeing a few of your games in which you checkmated your opponent appear of the RHP Homepage?
Dear Duchess64: Sorry, I did not mean to duck your question. I owe you an answer to your question as you asked it.
Even though my opponent had a history of frequently timing out, I would nevertheless resign if clearly lost because it would be inconsiderate to play on. Here at RHP, I play for enjoyment and I find no enjoyment (but only frustration) in wi ...[text shortened]... er to take on too many games simultaneously than he can deal with during the agreed time limits.
12 Sep 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI think I would have played along for a few minutes and then
The TD's decision is final. Why should it be any responsibility of Reshevsky, since the decision was in his favor and he did not call over the TD in the first place?
pointed out that the TD had made an error.
But you are correct!!!!!
Frame this post. RJ got one right. 🙂
The TD's decision is final.
(though these days I think a players committee would have over turned it.)
It is common to see footballers diving and buying penalties.
I recall seeing Geoff Hurst playing for West Ham v Stoke.
Hurst fell in the box, the ref awarded a penalty.
Hurst got up and told the ref he simply fell over, it was not a foul.
No penalty.
But then of course there was not the hundreds of thousands of pounds win bonus at stake.
12 Sep 12
Originally posted by RJHindsNo -- not if my opponent had been completely busted for twenty or thirty moves before resigning. Only a sadist rejoices in the public humiliation of a chess opponent.
Wouldn't you enjoy seeing a few of your games in which you checkmated your opponent appear of the RHP Homepage?
12 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderSorry, but my golf experience is limited to putt-putt and the Nintendo Wii. What advantage do you gain from delaying or thwarting the finding of the ball?
I knew someone in golf who, if his opponent drove into the rough, would rush across and pace up and down over a particular patch of grass staring intently at the ground. He never said a word. In golf, it is generally regarded as good manners to look for your opponent's ball if it is lost, though there is no requirement to do so.
The opponent would turn it within 30 working days. So what's the issue?
He's probably a chess player.
I think it makes chess 100% better to encourage the idea that you are responsible for managing your own resources. I wouldn't want it any other way. Too many in this thread have put the blame on the wrong player - the one who didn't make the mistake!
I am all for changing flawed rules. I just find the current rules far more objective and sensible than the vague, subjective standards of 'class' and 'manners' floating around in this thread. The rules have developed from practical experience over years of tournament chess; threads like this develop from one game which twists someone's panties because they actually had to checkmate an opponent.
I usually dislike the attitude of 'rules are rules', but I'll take it in a hot second over the alternatives given in this thread.
Blowing smoke in the eyes is not at all the same as pretending the clock has been pressed. You can't equate active [and illegal] attempts to annoy your opponent to passively sitting and looking at the board.
I do not advocate for unfair conditions. I am not of the school that says "place the board so your opponent's eyes are in the sun" or any of that BS. However, by contrast, it is completely fair that each player is solely responsible for pressing their own clock.
In your last example, yes, it would be nice if the civil servant would cut me a break, and I'd be irritated that he waited so long to return it, but I would not blame him for my failure to follow simple instructions.
[Cue stereotypical "that's what's wrong with society today!" rant.]
12 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsToday, you can appeal a TD's ruling to the USCF. I wonder if Denker had that option in 1942.
The TD's decision is final. Why should it be any responsibility of Reshevsky, since the decision was in his favor and he did not call over the TD in the first place?
Here is the game, as well as Denker's version of what happened:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1415894&kpage=1#kibitzing
12 Sep 12
Hi Aldan.
Playing on is their choice. I'm sure they don't feel humilated else they would resign.
They play on because they want to.
Some of the lads on here honestly do think resigning is snubbing their opponent.
They really do believe that the only way for a game of chess to end is checkmate.
They are not weak club players, they are home and casual players.
Some have never seen the inside of a chess club or even played anyone OTB.
To them all this is just a game.......a simple game.
Some of the poor souls don't even know all the rules.
There are loads of threads asking what En Passant is.
In all complete innocence they will be thinking you are enjoying
the game because you are winning and closing in for the kill.
Please leave them alone. They are enjoying themselves, they are happy.
We are happy playing them.
(Gosh. Wait until this lad meets his first engine user. Then he definetly will have
something to complain about. Sparks will fly that day. His keyboard will have a meltdown.)
12 Sep 12
Dear GreenPawn: As you correctly remind me, bad manners can and perhaps should be excused if arising from ignorance, inexperience, or naivety, etc. -- But bad manners is one thing; cheating by using a chess software program is incomparably worse and should arouse the anger and indignation of all those who love the game of Chess and enjoy playing it here. I am happy to report that I have not suspected any of my opponents cheating in this way.
12 Sep 12
Originally posted by Paul LeggettIf my opponent is late and we're using the old clocks I'll often offer to divide the time to equalise the clocks
I do this, too.
Once or twice, I've also sat and let my clock run on the first move when my opponent has been delayed at the start of the game through no fault of their own, until the clocks were even.
For me, winning on a technicality is a result, but not an accomplishment.
12 Sep 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitBack in the last century ( or the one before ) I played OTB in the Essex Leagues. There was a guy on our team who was a bit eccentric ( even more than me.. hard to believe I know ). He'd just got himself a coffee in a plastic cup and had put some sugar in it.. then proceeded to stir it. He'd put in a lot of sugar.. no I mean a *lot* of sugar.. and it was making a grinding noise. Unable to accept the laws of chemistry, whenever it was not his move the grinding would start. I could see the other guy giving him looks.. and eventually he snapped. "WILL YOU STOP STIRRING THAT F@CKIN COFFEE !!!" It wasn't a deliberate ploy and he jumped out of his seat. I suppose my laughing didn't help matters.
I'm not a big fan of people eating at the board, but it's tolerable if they're not too loud or messy. Some of the slow TC tourneys eat up so much of the day that there may be little choice but to eat at the board on occasion.
I've nothing against college kids, and I think that some kids are utter jerks, as bad as the adult jerks. I have nothing agains ...[text shortened]... t doesn't motivate people to exercise more control of their circumstances, nothing will.
12 Sep 12
Originally posted by AldanUsing a chess engine is fine as long as you don't get caught. This is not necessarily my opinion but I'm just following GP's instructions.
Dear GreenPawn: As you correctly remind me, bad manners can and perhaps should be excused if arising from ignorance, inexperience, or naivety, etc. -- But bad manners is one thing; cheating by using a chess software program is incomparably worse and should arouse the anger and indignation of all those who love the game of Chess and enjoy playing it here. I am happy to report that I have not suspected any of my opponents cheating in this way.