they do have draws on gameknot but over there players play, not chase loopholes. to say that it is legal is one thing to say that it is ethical is another.
but as it's happened on this site so much, maybe it's par for the course and that's why so many people agree with it. the people saying it's good are probably the same ones doing it.
just becuase something can be done, does not mean it should. when you play someone at chess you owe them the courtesy of not drawing a move out so much further than it needs to be.
i understand the rand-like argument that "it's legal and therefor must be ethical, and so it is best for players to try to do it"
i just disagree. i would not do it in a game, and i consider no one who does it to be a true chess enthusiast. they may have a high score, they may even win tournaments, but it's the equivalent of calling out of position in poker. it is not forbidden, but it is unethical. the same is true of players of any game that have too much class to behave that way.
a similar point to arguing for it would be to say "it is not illegal to spit in someone's face, therefor when someone makes you mad, you are to be commended for doing it. the proof of that is that lots of people spit in people's faces when they're mad. it must be a clever thing to do. as a matter of fact, anyone who thinks you shouldn't spit in people's faces is the immoral one. after all, people have been spitting in each others faces for milleniums."
let's try another example:
"in the u.s. it is not illegal to hit your child repeatedly. there is an imaginary line (although ti's seldom enforced), but it's not in and of itself illegal. so therefor, beating your children is the moral thing to do. it must be done. it's within the rules. to disagree with beating your child is immoral."
or another example:
"tearing up someone's rose garden is not illegal, and so by that standard we know that clearly anyone who wants good roses and doesn't have them, should by all moral standards tear up someone else's. it's clearly the only clever thing to do."
these are just a couple examples of things that are legal but not ethical. i understand that many people cannot make the distinction (and many of them have fancy chess titles), but the behavior of others is not an appropriate standard for how you should behave. if that were true we could all torture anyone we wanted: after all, there's a guy in the US who has a shiny job title that says he's in charge and he's doing it, so clearly it's the best option available to anyone anytime they are too incompotent to acheive anything else.
i am not arguing that it is against the rules. i know it's not. i am arguing that not being against the rules and being gentlemanly are two very different things. for people who cannot distinguish between legal and ethical, i see how you feel as you do. and for people who cannot distinguish between someone "important" doing it and it being gentlemanly, i also see how you disagree.
i'm after a gentleman's game of chess, not a "i didn't break the law but narrowly avoided losing, therefor i am a good player."
it all depends on your perspective. i would never behave so badly and therefor i hold (according to some people, incorrectly) others to that same standard. perhaps that's unfair. but then, i don't mind losing. if i get beat, i get beat. i accept losing as a part of winning. i challenge others to see the game the same way.
but clearly, to force perpetual check in an effort to avoid losing a game you are not good enough to win is the textbook defination of being a "sore loser."
it's not like we're playing for money, here. i don't see any need for "sore losers" or as it is also called "poor sportsmanship."
it comes down to this: there are two ways to build the tallest building in town. you can work harder and smarter than everyone else and build the tallest building or you can build an average building and then knock down any that are taller than the one you built.
neither one is explicitly illegal, but is there really any question to which is more ethical?
Originally posted by lightfallsupYou are talking plain nonsense. I don't know where you live, but all three of your examples are illegal where I live. Spitting in someone's face? Assault, and thus illegal. Repeatedly hitting your child? Child abuse, and thus illegal. Destroying someone's rose garden? Destruction of private property. Illegal.
a similar point to arguing for it would be to say "it is not illegal to spit in someone's face, therefor when someone makes you mad, you are to be commended for doing it. the proof of that is that lots of people spit in people's faces when they're mad. it must be a clever thing to do. as a matter of fact, anyone who thinks you shouldn't spit in peopl losers" or as it is also called "poor sportsmanship."
Anyway, why is it unethical to give perpetual check when one is facing defeat? Simply because you say it is? It is a part of the game; it has been for a long time. You will not find many people here, or anywhere, who share your views, and it's not because we're not "gentlemanly". It's because we know that when you're winning, the burden is on you to not allow your opponent to get that kind of counterplay. You believe that an opponent should go down in defeat and just lose gracefully, why? Because you believe you've played well enough to win, so you deserve to win? Well if you let him find a perpetual check, guess what? You didn't play well enough to win, and don't deserve it.
Not that this matters at all, what what would your opinion be of someone who played a perpetual check in a game that was pretty much even?
Edit: speaking of behaving "gentlemanly", during the Romantic era of chess, it was considered unsportsmanlike to refuse to accept a sacrifice. Where does your opinion fall on that matter?
Originally posted by lightfallsupI'd love to live where you live, apparently you get to just make up your own laws. Since when is it legal for a developer to just knock over any building just because it's taller than the one that he built?
it comes down to this: there are two ways to build the tallest building in town. you can work harder and smarter than everyone else and build the tallest building or you can build an average building and then knock down any that are taller than the one you built.
neither one is explicitly illegal, but is there really any question to which is more ethical?
Originally posted by lightfallsupIf you cannot avoid a perpetual its a draw;
i've only been playing here for a few months (i used to play on gameknot), and one of the things i've noticed is that the most common strategem here on this site (it's happened in 20% of my games) is that when it's clear you can no longer win you just perpetually put the player who is about to win in check so taht they may not deliver the final blow. n ...[text shortened]... that might let them feel like they didn't lose a match they did.
any thoughts?
If the same position occurs 3 X its a draw;
If 50 moves pass without a pawn being moved or a piece being taken its a draw.
All of these are legitimate strategies. You opponent is not lost if you cannot stop him checking you. This is not bad sportsmanship from him. It is bad sportsmanship from you to not accept the inevitable draw. These are the rules of chess.
Originally posted by omulcusobolaniAnother good point. Take this game, for instance, where I am clearly losing until White's 44th move.
How about checkmate? Is checkmating your opponent when you have an inferior position ethical, after all you were outplayed until your opponent allowed mate.
Game 2588074
If there had been a perpetual check, rather than the checkmate that I found, by lightfallsup's reasoning I would have been doing something unethical and unsportsmanlike.
here's the deal. in chess, each person makes a move one at a time. you agree? im sure you do so i'll move on. if i threaten your king (Check) then you either have to 1. move it 2. capture the threatening piece or 3. put a piece blocking its path. do we agree? im sure we do. so if i choose to threaten your king on every move, you have to move it on every move. correct? i'll just answer for you..."uhhh.....yea". if i feel like forcing the game on forever im allowed to do that, right? cause it's my right to move my pieces where i want to (except for putting my own king in check). so why should the number of pieces or the position on the board dictate where i can move my pieces? it shouldn't and it doesn't. if you can't understand this concept....i dont think they have this problem in checkers, so i think you could take that up.