Originally posted by sonhouseThank you for the welcome. I am happy to answer your questions. I am an even older "old fart" than you. I am in New Jersey and would welcome the opportunity of playing OTB with you. I have not played OTB for more than 40 years. When I last played OTB, my USCF rating was about 1850. If I played OTB now, it would probably be lower. I was a member of the Westfield N.J. Chess Club and played on one of the low boards on the Club team.
So did Bobby actually swindle him?
BTW, Aldan, welcome to Red Hot Pawn! What is your OTB rating if you don't mind me asking? Also, are you in the US, if so, what state? Not trying to get your address just wondered if you were nearby. I don't get much chance for OTB play. I think we are rated fairly close to each other, at least here. You may be on your w ...[text shortened]... I am a genuine old fart, 71 yo and so am not going to advance much beyond 1700 where I am now.
Originally posted by AldanWe are fairly close then. I live north of Allentown in Pa and work deep into NJ every day, South Plainfield. How close is that to your place? I go out 78 east to 287 south to exit 5, Stelton Blvd, every day except weekends of course. This weekend we are planning a little retreat in Ashokan.
Thank you for the welcome. I am happy to answer your questions. I am an even older "old fart" than you. I am in New Jersey and would welcome the opportunity of playing OTB with you. I have not played OTB for more than 40 years. When I last played OTB, my USCF rating was about 1850. If I played OTB now, it would probably be lower. I was a member of the Westfield N.J. Chess Club and played on one of the low boards on the Club team.
Originally posted by sonhouseI live in Maplewood which is about a 30 minute drive from South Plainfield. Coincidentally, the Westfield Chess Club used to meet at the Sangerhalle in South Plainfield before it moved to the Westfield, YMCA.
We are fairly close then. I live north of Allentown in Pa and work deep into NJ every day, South Plainfield. How close is that to your place? I go out 78 east to 287 south to exit 5, Stelton Blvd, every day except weekends of course. This weekend we are planning a little retreat in Ashokan.
Originally posted by Paul LeggettAre you telling him not to play the guy again?
It is uncivil for you to want to force the conduct of another player to your whims beyond what the rules of the game allow you to do. I appreciate that the tempo is not what you would like, but projecting your frustrations on the other guy is pointless.
(At the same time, you should read kingshill's profile!)
I recently had a game with petetheswe ...[text shortened]... trol at the beginning of the game, so if I want to blame someone, I have to start with myself.
Several cases may be distinguished:
1. Between players ranked Class A (1900) and above, it would be an insult not to resign in a clearly lost position. It is a sign of respect to credit one's opponent with the ability to carry it through.
2. Between players of unknown/uncertain/provisional rank, I do not consider it an insult to play on--after all, one's opponent might not know how to carry it through (even if he doesn't blunder). Minor piece endings, for example, can be extremely tricky, and if you're not very familiar with them, even a 2-pawn advantage might not be sufficient to force a win against trenchant resistance. It is one thing to be lost 'according to the book' and quite another for your opponent to carry it through OTB. You're not playing a book, you're playing a human; if you have reason to doubt that your opponent knows how to carry through a 'theoretical win', make him prove it OTB!
3. There are many cases of players managing to find stalemates in what appeared to be lost positions. I would cite Marshall vs Lasker, NY 1924, Round Nine. Marshall had a clear advantage, but Lasker led him up the primrose path to a brilliant stalemate.
4. Between players of widely divergent rank, it might be very educational for the weaker player to play on in a lost position, to learn how it is done. While this is tedious for the stronger player, this is how weaker players get stronger. I myself would not begrudge a weaker player hanging on, just to see how it is done. If a strong player (2000+) does not wish to run the risk of playing out a theoretical win to checkmate against a much weaker player, he need not accept the game offer in the first place.
5. There are time controls in effect, in both tournament and correspondence play. As one writer above already wryly observed, you are entitled to hope that your opponent croaks before completing the game within the time limit. If you are lost positionally, but your opponent is getting into time trouble, play for complications! That is not rude, just good strategy.
Chess is a lot like war, in so much as you can adapt the quote thus:
"Chess begins when you want, but it does not end when you will"
If someone has lacked your perception of etiquette during a game, don't play them again. If you've agreed to play them, then RHP has set out clear rules and essentially your opponent can do whatever they want within those rules.
There are occasions when I wish someone would have played on so that I could do a pretty mate and visa versa, but it really isn't that big a deal.
1st world problems...
Originally posted by moonbusYours is a thoughtful response. When one's lone king is confronting two queens and one's opponent has a decent rating (say more than 1600) I deem it bad manners to play on in the hope that one's opponent will blunder into a stalemate even though, of course, the rules permit .... just as in real life, the fact that bad manners are not subject to criminal penalties does not make them socially acceptable.
Several cases may be distinguished:
1. Between players ranked Class A (1900) and above, it would be an insult not to resign in a clearly lost position. It is a sign of respect to credit one's opponent with the ability to carry it through.
2. Between players of unknown/uncertain/provisional rank, I do not consider it an insult to play on--after all, one ...[text shortened]... tting into time trouble, play for complications! That is not rude, just good strategy.
Hi Alden
"When one's lone king is confronting two queens and one's opponent has a decent
rating (say more than 1600) I deem it bad manners to play on in the hope that
one's opponent will blunder into a stalemate ."
I've just checked the rules. It does not say anywhere:
If playing a player of say '....more than 1600' is beating you then you must resign
it is bad manners to play on.
It is totally illegal to play on if your opponent has two Queens to your none.
Luck (highest grade here 1600) -v- Duckboy (highest grade acjeived 1950) RHP 2008
Duckboy never resigned he played 57...e6+ 58.Kxe6.
Stalemate.
I have 1,506 stalemates on RHP 90% of them could have been avoided.
The remaining 10% are players playing out to the end this type of ending.
If one of the lads on here has pulled of a stalemate (Marko Krale has been
involed in 27! stalemates) then the lad will go for it again and again.
They are playing within the rules of the game and have every right to so.
Stalemate is part of the game.
And how about the players who have resigned in won positions?
Do they get a pat on the back for having good manners.
Three times players have resigned in won positions against me.
Should I have refused their resignations and resigned instead?
How high does your code of ethics go?
(actually in one I quickly pointed out the missed win and offered an accepted draw.)
Thankfully telling players when they should resign is not yet part of the game.
Leave them alone. They will resign when they want to resign and there is
nothing you can do about it.
(Od course you could pay a sub instead of riding on the back of all these bad
mannered players, then you will not have to wait for a resignation to free up a slot) 😉
Originally posted by RJHindsI think that is a reasonable option.
Are you telling him not to play the guy again?
I play people for fun, and if it's not fun, then I don't repeat the experience.
There are plenty of players here, and it's not too hard to find lots of people to play in a mutually enjoyable manner.
I think the real issue is that the OP is a non-sub, and drawn out games waste a game slot. That can be annoying when you only have six game slots total.
Originally posted by AldanThis may just be a semantic point, but I think this statement begs the question.
... just as in real life, the fact that bad manners are not subject to criminal penalties does not make them socially acceptable.[/b]
Regardless of the legal ramifications, if bad manners were socially acceptable, they wouldn't be called bad manners. Perhaps it would have been better to replace the words "bad manners" with "the behavior in question", but I hesitate to second-guess someone from the legal profession too much!
I myself feel bad about busting on petethesweep for his delaying tactics, as Greenpawn34 clearly demonstrates that a won game and a win are two different things, and one does not lead by force to the other.
GP has made the point before, and I should know better.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I remember someone resigning a game and all I really had was a draw. Not by stalemate.
Hi Alden
"When one's lone king is confronting two queens and one's opponent has a decent
rating (say more than 1600) I deem it bad manners to play on in the hope that
one's opponent will blunder into a stalemate ."
I've just checked the rules. It does not say anywhere:
If playing a player of say '....more than 1600' is beating you then you m ...[text shortened]... mannered players, then you will not have to wait for a resignation to free up a slot) 😉
The Japanese game of GO is the only game I know which ends by mutual agreement; when both players agree that neither can improve his position, the game ends. Wow. Now that's -- er, uh, Japanese politeness!
The assertion that it is legal to play on in a lost position is non sequitur. No one here disputes that it is legal. The question is, is it bad manners to do so, is it disrespectful of the other player's ability. Maybe, maybe not--I have listed some different cases above.
The two-queen stalemate above is a terrific example. Bravo for doing the research--and even if it never happened over the board, it makes an excellent chess puzzle. (Richard Reti was famous for positing such puzzles.)
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by AldanHave you considered the possibility that most people here may simply not agree with you on what constitutes bad manners? Personally, I find it much worse manners to tell someone else that he must not play on because you, not he, think he is lost.
I find it sad that not one contributor has considered that civil behavior is as important on the chess board as it is in "real life". I hope that you do not insult your friends, members of your family, and business associates treating them (or expecting them to act as incompetent ninnies.
Richard