Go back
Lack of Good Manners on RHP

Lack of Good Manners on RHP

Only Chess

ka
The Axe man

Brisbane,QLD

Joined
11 Apr 09
Moves
103371
Clock
30 Aug 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Rank outsider
My view on this is that, if you know that there is no realistic, conceivable chance of avoiding defeat, then it is good etiquette to resign. It is for you to decide when this is, based on the position, skill of opponent etc and the benefit of doubt should always be given to you if you decide to play on.

However, if you know that you are only playin ...[text shortened]... or some other drawing situation, which is entirely different.

In that case, I say play on!
I've had an opponent slow down in rate of moves then in-game msg me that he was trying to achieve his highest rating and wanted to prolong his enevitable downfall in our game. I was happy with him doing that, despite the fact that it was only to protect a rating.

P
Mystic Meg

tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4

Joined
27 Mar 03
Moves
17242
Clock
30 Aug 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I've had an opponent slow down in rate of moves then in-game msg me that he was trying to achieve his highest rating and wanted to prolong his enevitable downfall in our game. I was happy with him doing that, despite the fact that it was only to protect a rating.
What makes me laugh about this tactic, is by the formula... if you take your LOST games quickly as possible saving up the wins your rating will go up higher by a few points.

Stalling out on lost games will cause you a sharp drop in rating, making it more work to get to each 'high point' and also your average rating will be lower than it could be.

Oh, and it is just a number that shows others what level of play to expect from you, not a award like the Nobel Peace Prize.

D

Joined
08 Jun 07
Moves
2120
Clock
30 Aug 12
1 edit

moonbus
Über-Nerd (emeritus)

Joined
31 May 12
Moves
8703
Clock
30 Aug 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

I stand corrected. Chinese.

D

Joined
08 Jun 07
Moves
2120
Clock
30 Aug 12

i

Joined
21 Dec 06
Moves
3169
Clock
30 Aug 12
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed
I had exactly same problem with one opponent - draw offer on every move in lost position. In OTB this is prohibited - you can't make repeated draw offers. I wonder if RHP could enforce this too: let's say no more than 3 draw offers during a game. What do you think?

tvochess

Joined
08 Apr 09
Moves
20026
Clock
30 Aug 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by iru
I had exactly same problem with one opponent - draw offer on every move in lost position. In OTB this is prohibited - you can't make repeated draw offers. I wonder if RHP could enforce this too: let's say no more than 3 draw offers during a game. What do you think?
That's a reasonable idea. You could put it in the site ideas forum. I guess it hardly ever happens though...

thaughbaer
Duckfinder General

223b Baker Street

Joined
25 Apr 06
Moves
33101
Clock
30 Aug 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed
Finally something we agree on. Plenty of games/sports have etiquette.

Tour de France. No attacks when the Yellow Jersey has a mechanical issue. It happened this year when Evans suffered multiple mechanicals due to tacks being thrown. Rolland attacks and claims his earpiece is broken but still gets a tongue lashing from the peloton when they reel him in.
Cricket. No underarm bowling along the floor to prevent a six. "No Greg no, you can't do that" from his own brother. Richie Benaud calls it the most disgraceful thing he's seen on a cricket pitch.
Returning the ball to the opposition in soccer ( proper football ) when an opponent is injured. I remember Kanu intercepting the ball and scoring for Arsenal. The referee could do nothing and the goal stood.
Snooker. Conceding a frame when multiple snookers needed to win ( this one is probably closest to resigning ).

Saccing the QB is a bad example because it's one of the objectives of the game. So is roughing the passer because it's against the rules.

For it to be etiquette it can't be a rule but just generally accepted ( or unaccepted ) behaviour.

A

Maplewood, New Jerse

Joined
18 May 12
Moves
3907
Clock
30 Aug 12

The post that was quoted here has been removed
Yes, you have provided a very good example of when behavior permitted by the rules is nevertheless a breach of good manners. Sadly, some of the contributors to this discussion seem oblivious of this distinction.

tvochess

Joined
08 Apr 09
Moves
20026
Clock
30 Aug 12

Originally posted by thaughbaer

Saccing the QB is a bad example because it's one of the objectives of the game. So is roughing the passer because it's against the rules.
Who else thought he meant Queen's Bishop? πŸ˜•

D

Joined
08 Jun 07
Moves
2120
Clock
30 Aug 12
1 edit

t

Joined
15 Jun 06
Moves
16334
Clock
30 Aug 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

The post that was quoted here has been removed
These hold true for me 😏

It is my objective to sac the QB in every game of chess I play it is also against the rules for you to rough my passer. πŸ˜€

Kegge

Joined
23 Nov 09
Moves
140300
Clock
30 Aug 12

Originally posted by Aldan
Sadly, some of the contributors to this discussion seem oblivious of this distinction.
You included.

Paul Leggett
Chess Librarian

The Stacks

Joined
21 Aug 09
Moves
114073
Clock
30 Aug 12
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Yes that's it, a Help Mate. Often get the two mixed up.

Yes a blog on Help Mates and then Self Mates would be good.
Some of them are fascinating.

No 109 movers though.
You could do a self-help book...

Paul Leggett
Chess Librarian

The Stacks

Joined
21 Aug 09
Moves
114073
Clock
30 Aug 12
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.