the only thing i know about kasparov's sportmanship is the interview he did after he lost to deep blue where he was a very sore loser. so, no i don't consider that true chess enthusiasm, i consider it brilliance, obsession, but a true love of the game exists in losing as much as winning. kasparov did not display that in the interview i saw.
of course, that was only one interview which is by no means a complete picture.
but once again, YOU ARE NOT LISTENING TO WHAT I AM SAYING.
so again for the cheap seats:
i understand that it is legal for an opponent to make the exact same move back and forth for 50 moves to avoid losing.
playing against someone playing that way is not fun.
chess is a game.
games are supposed to be fun.
i consider it better to lose and have fun: that is the essence of sportsmanship. what is the cliche? "it's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game" playing boringly is part of how you play the game.
i disagree with the idea that every chess player everywhere in the world plays the same way. especially this style, since i have not seen it but on this site.
i understand it is legal to make this move (i want to say this twice since no one seems to hear this even though i've said it nearly every time)
i also do not believe that ethical and legal are the same concept.
i like to play chess. moving back and forth for weeks is not playing chess to me.
i disagree with the notion that holding up what could otherwise be an enjoyable game to move back and forth is to be comended.
his postion is not unwinnable. he is not trying.
trying is part of playing.
oh, and i understand the move is legal. (in case that has been thus far unclear: i seem to be doing a poor job of communicating this point)
i do not beleive that because something is legal that it should be done.
i like to play against players who see the game as i do.
those players are everywhere! (despite what you all think)
i am entitled to play whomever i want and begginning with whatever standard i want.
i am allowed to not like the way a player plays for no toehr reason that that it's not fun.
i do consider the perpetual check to be a loophole in the rules. you disagree, but i don't need your approval for my opinion.
there are a great many players everywhere who agree with me on these points. don't let yourself be fooled into thinking there's not just because there in shortage on rhp.
there are a great many ways to play chess. every player does not play the same way.
i understand the move is legal. (is this point coming through?)
i disagree with using the move even though it is legal.
all of the above are my right, your condescention not withstanding.
Your opponent has no chance of winning that game so he decided to go for a draw, if you see no way of stopping the checks the ethical thing to do is agree to a draw.You don't have to move back and forth for weeks, you can propose a draw or click the claim draw button because i think you had a 3 fold repetition.
Originally posted by lightfallsupyou keep saying perpetual check is legal according to the rules, yet you fail to grasp the significance of that.
it cracks me up when someone quotes me saying "you're not listening to what i'm saying" and comments in a way that indicates he/she is not listening to what i am saying.
Originally posted by lightfallsupYou could also say that when you see you have no chance of winning because your opponent has the opportunity to repeat the same position three times, and xe has shown that xe knows it and is going to make use of it, it would be good sportsmanship from your side to offer a draw instead of dragging on the game.
i consider it better to lose and have fun: that is the essence of sportsmanship.
i like to play chess. moving back and forth for weeks is not playing chess to me.
Nobody forces you to do that.
I wish I knew it was unethical to draw a game when my opponent thought he should win. Now that I know that, I'll look for ways to give wins to my opponents whenever possible!
On a more serious note...
GameKnot is not a serious chess site, which is why you won't find people who know about things like perpetual check, threefold repetition and the like. If they do know it, they're unlikely to get to a point where it becomes relevant. However, any chess site that has good, tournament-level players will have people who look for the best move in a given situation, and who look to find ways to save games that aren't looking good. If a draw is the best result I can aim for, why should I let you win instead? That's silly.
Edit: Wow, I just went back and found this ridiculous quote:
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.
1) Unless you think virtually every serious chessplayer in the world, and certainly every single GM, IM, FM, national master of every country, expert and most people well below that is "not a true chess enthusiast," you are wrong.
2) It is not the equivalent of calling out of position in poker - which, by the way, is technically a violation of the rules, although there's not much that can be or is done to prevent it - because the tactics you are describing in chess are a VERY important part of the game. They are not loopholes, they are designed to ensure games do not go on forever.
See, if we repeat a position 3 times, it means we aren't making any progress. It means that we're likely to repeat that position again and again. If making other moves loses for either of us, why shouldn't we? Thus, instead of making people play on and on, we say that the game is a draw, and we start a new one. Same goes for 50 moves without progress - it's not a loophole, it's a way to force one player to prove they have some sort of an advantage. If you can't make a capture or move a pawn in 50 moves, you rare almost always in a position where it is impossible to win.
3) Did you really just say that no good chessplayers have class? Because I'd think that out of every good chessplayer in the world (all of whom take full advantage of these tactics), at least a few have some class.
Originally posted by lightfallsupI suggest getting a book on chess tactics. Sorry to say, but you are a bit uninformed about how chess is played.... Since you seem to think that RHP is unique, forget it, this is how tournament chess is played also.
the only thing i know about kasparov's sportmanship is the interview he did after he lost to deep blue where he was a very sore loser. so, no i don't consider that true chess enthusiasm, i consider it brilliance, obsession, but a true love of the game exists in losing as much as winning. kasparov did not display that in the interview i saw.
of co ...[text shortened]... gh it is legal.
all of the above are my right, your condescention not withstanding.
Since you cannot win, and can't force your opponent to resign, You need to offer a draw or resign yourself if you insist on a winner.
Here is an example of "unfair" play: My opponent should have resigned here? I was 2 pawns up....but he is experienced and saw how to draw, and I was overconfident and fell into it. He saved a lost game, fair and square. We agreed to a draw instead of moving 50 times. Game 2780652
Originally posted by lightfallsupYour opponent can have just a king while you have your entire army. If you can't figure out how to checkmate with that, then it is a draw. That is how chess is played. It isn't down to personal preference. Speak to any advanced player and they will agree.
the only thing i know about kasparov's sportmanship is the interview he did after he lost to deep blue where he was a very sore loser. so, no i don't consider that true chess enthusiasm, i consider it brilliance, obsession, but a true love of the game exists in losing as much as winning. kasparov did not display that in the interview i saw.
of co gh it is legal.
all of the above are my right, your condescention not withstanding.
The purpose of the game is to checkmate your opponent, not get more material than your opponent.
- Joined
- 06 Aug 05
- Moves
- 42926
It's clear that lightfallsup isn't listening or taking account of any argument that NUMEROUS people are putting forward. I really find his/her statement that Kasparov isn't a chess enthusiast quite laughable.
I actually believe that this 'loophole' makes chess a much more deep and complicated game, indeed making it much more exciting.
If you don't agree with this, after so many experienced players try to put you right, well, go back to gameknow where the play isn't so good. sorry to say, but in the long run it's your loss.
Originally posted by iraxAbsolutely. It makes the game a lot more interesting (and - gasp - fun!) in very unbalanced positions which otherwise pretty much would be the end of the game.
I actually believe that this 'loophole' makes chess a much more deep and complicated game, indeed making it much more exciting.