12 Sep 12
Originally posted by thaughbaerNo, it is not "fine" even if "you don't get caught". Not only are you cheating your opponent but if you win you are depriving yourself of the satisfaction of actually winning and if you lose (undoubtedly because your opponent has cheated with a stronger machine), you are depriving yourself of the benefit of learning from your mistakes.
Using 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.
P.S. I don't recall GP saying that.
12 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by AldanPay attention this is your thread :-)
No, it is not "fine" even if "you don't get caught". Not only are you cheating your opponent but if you win you are depriving yourself of the satisfaction of actually winning and if you lose (undoubtedly because your opponent has cheated with a stronger machine), you are depriving yourself of the benefit of learning from your mistakes.
P.S. I don't recall GP saying that.
"And don't worry about how petty the subject is. The important thing is you must disagree."
12 Sep 12
🙂
If I start arguing for - then some bright spark will copy it and
drop it into another thread.
So I'll argue that I can decline the right to argue if I wish to and
follow the rules. (you cannot argue with the rules). No cheating.
Anyway it's not my thread.
Just started playing a 40 board simul against 1300-1500 players on here.
That will keep me off here for a good while. (I've already sacced.)
Originally posted by SwissGambitIf you need to win a game of chess that badly (presumably to buff up your self-esteem), you have my pity. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Forgetting to hit the clock is a mismanagement of one of your chess resources. It's no different than forgetting your opponent was threatening something. As a competitive player, I like to take advantage of my opponent's lapses in concentration, not correct them for him. In my view, telling someone to punch their own clock is equal to telling them not to ...[text shortened]... . Do you not set traps for your opponent? Or is that not a 'sportsmanlike' way to play?
"Bluffing an opponent" by any action other than moving your pieces isn't considered sporting. I suppose you could roll your eyes or wave your hand in disgust after you made your move pretending you have blundered when you have set a trap. Maybe that's "legal" but you're still a jerk for doing it.
USCF 20A. Conduct of players. Players shall participate in the spirit of fair play and good sportsmanship.
Try it some time.
12 Sep 12
Originally posted by AldanUnfortunately, manners are not a necessary requirement to play chess. If someone is playing within the rules, even in a hopelessly lost position, TIME is a factor of chess that can not be disputed. So just play on and don't play that particular player when you find out they don't have "manners". And think of it this way, if you played chess professionally, you definitely would run in to players with no "manners".
I deem it very bad manners and insulting for a player who has an obviously lost position to play on in the forlorn hope that his adversary will commit a childish blunder. RHP appears to approve and institutionalize these bad manners in the posted diagrams of checkmates appearing on the home page as almost all of these diagrammed checkmates involve games wit ...[text shortened]... as to indicate that the games had been lost many moves before the checkmate. What to you think?
12 Sep 12
First, let me say that none of my tournament opponents ever forgot to punch the clock. A friend of mine and I used to play for fun, and when I forgot to punch the clock, he wouldn't warn me. He would just sink into deep "thought". After a few minutes, I got wise and punched the clock. He looked and grinned. It was important that I learn to do it. It is part of the game, like it or not. My question to those who think it is wrong is, do you enforce touchmove? That's a rule too. If your opponent is trying to make a better move, and you force him to move the touched piece, do you really want to win that way?
12 Sep 12
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsIf an opponent clearly accidentally touched a piece, I wouldn't insist on touchmove. If they had touched a piece intending to move it and then saw a better move and tried to move a different piece, I would.
First, let me say that none of my tournament opponents ever forgot to punch the clock. A friend of mine and I used to play for fun, and when I forgot to punch the clock, he wouldn't warn me. He would just sink into deep "thought". After a few minutes, I got wise and punched the clock. He looked and grinned. It was important that I learn to d ...[text shortened]... etter move, and you force him to move the touched piece, do you really want to win that way?
Looking it up, that is the rule. See 10B and 10E of the USCF rules. A lot of players seem to think that players who accidentally touch a piece are required to move it, but that is not the rule.
12 Sep 12
Originally posted by no1marauderI stand by my actions; I consider them eminently fitting under the guidelines of sportsmanship and fair play, and I don't give a sh it about meeting any of your personal standards.
If you need to win a game of chess that badly (presumably to buff up your self-esteem), you have my pity. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
"Bluffing an opponent" by any action other than moving your pieces isn't considered sporting. I suppose you could roll your eyes or wave your hand in disgust after you made your move pretending y ...[text shortened]... ticipate in the spirit of fair play and good sportsmanship.
Try it some time.
12 Sep 12
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsExactly. What if your opponent intentionally touches a piece, and then immediately realizes that moving it is a blunder that falls into mate in 1? He takes his hand off of it and groans; both of you see the mate. Do you make him move that piece and lose?
First, let me say that none of my tournament opponents ever forgot to punch the clock. A friend of mine and I used to play for fun, and when I forgot to punch the clock, he wouldn't warn me. He would just sink into deep "thought". After a few minutes, I got wise and punched the clock. He looked and grinned. It was important that I learn to d ...[text shortened]... etter move, and you force him to move the touched piece, do you really want to win that way?
Isn't it more "gentlemanly" to win by outplaying your opponent instead of merely exploiting a crude blunder? 🙄
See how ridiculous things get when people aren't held accountable for their own mental lapses?
13 Sep 12
Here's an example and I wonder where it lies on the spectrum. Playing a game with timebank only; my opponent has a forced mate in three, but only a few hours left. I can choose strange moves so he cannot use the conditional or queued move; is this ethical? In the end I managed to get him to timeout, but felt bad and decided to offer a draw instead of taking the skull.