Views differ on the need for etiquette, and indeed what good etiquette is. Some people (bad, bad people) think that any behaviour within the rules is acceptable.
Others compare us to other chess websites. But come on. Surely, at RHP, we stand for something nobler? Will we not rise above the base and vulgar?
Others seem to revel in the bad manners of others.
So I wondered whether it would be possible to establish an RHP etiquette which would set the standard for other sites to follow.
To see if this is possible, please post statements which you think amount to good RHP chess etiquette. If you agree with the statement, post a thumbs up. If you disagree, post a thumbs down.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 07
- Moves
- 27922
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI don't understand what's annoying about that. Losing is annoying. When I'm losing, I usually resign and move on to something less annoying.
Let's rephrase this.
You should not drag out a game that you know is lost simply to annoy your opponent or protect your rating.
Winning, however slowly, is not annoying.
Originally posted by aquatabbyYes, but some people do find it annoying. So the question is whether dragging on a game for this sole purpose is bad etiquette.
I don't understand what's annoying about that. Losing is annoying. When I'm losing, I usually resign and move on to something less annoying.
Winning, however slowly, is not annoying.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderIn bullet or blitz chess I can understand! But in correspondence chess when you have a bunch of other games going and you keep dragging on a lost game??
Let's rephrase this.
You should not drag out a game that you know is lost simply to annoy your opponent or protect your rating.
Originally posted by RBHILLI think we should bear in mind greenpawn34's comment, which I have never forgotten, that some people may genuinely think it is correct to allow you to mate them. I can even imagine someone thinking 'I wish this bugger would hurry up and finish me off, I am getting bored!' It is, after all, the point of the game.
In bullet or blitz chess I can understand! But in correspondence chess when you have a bunch of other games going and you keep dragging on a lost game??
The reason for having an established etiquette is to help avoid these type of misunderstandings.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI would love to disagree with that one. The worst is resigning with one move left from mate what's the point? I could understand being mated by GM, like in a simul because you right out the game. I could see only doing mating if it's less than 30 moves.
I think we should bear in mind greenpawn34's comment, which I have never forgotten, that some people may genuinely think it is correct to allow you to mate them. I can even imagine someone thinking 'I wish this bugger would hurry up and finish me off, I am getting bored!' It is, after all, the point of the game.
The reason for having an established etiquette is to help avoid these type of misunderstandings.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderOK ... so standardized etiquette.
Views differ on the need for etiquette, and indeed what good etiquette is. Some people (bad, bad people) think that any behaviour within the rules is acceptable.
Others compare us to other chess websites. But come on. Surely, at RHP, we stand for something nobler? Will we not rise above the base and vulgar?
Others seem to revel in the bad man ...[text shortened]... uette. If you agree with the statement, post a thumbs up. If you disagree, post a thumbs down.
Trying to bring together all these viewpoints:
1. You should not just time people out automatically, because they may have a good reason for not moving.
2. You should time all people out automatically, because that keeps playing conditions fair, and heads off feuds over whether we should have taken a skull or not.
3. You should resign when you think you are losing.
4. You should not resign because you'll deprive the opponent of a chance to execute a spiffy checkmate.
5. You should not move when you on vacation because that means you are unfairly protected from timeout, and your opponent is not.
6. You should be allowed to move on vacation because the opponent wants the game to keep going if possible. No one likes waiting weeks for a move.
All etiquette (ie politeness and civility between human equals) can be explained by Kant's Categorical Imperative. This states that you should behave towards others as if you would have that behaviour universalised.
So, roughly speaking, you should behave towards others as you would have them behave towards you.
For example: I'm currently finishing a game that has been dragging along since last June. I've been a piece up since August. My opponent has no timebank left (14 days); and moves once every seven days. The tournament has long since been completed apart from this game.
I could be excused for feeling annoyed. But I'm not. My opponent has violated no rule; and I signed up willingly to a slow 7-14 tourney. My tough luck. Do I think he should resign? Of course - he is lost beyond redemption. But do I tell him to resign? Of course, I do not. Is my opponent guilty of poor etiquette? I guess he is in some way. But etiquette doesn't trump the rules.
So we play on, slowly and quietly. It'll be all over in a month or so. And yes, I would wish patience to be universalised 🙂
Originally posted by SwissGambitI don't think I need to bring these viewpoints together. I am not claiming that every situation has a clear and simple answer.
OK ... so standardized etiquette.
Trying to bring together all these viewpoints:
1. You should not just time people out automatically, because they may have a good reason for not moving.
2. You should time all people out automatically, because that keeps playing conditions fair, and heads off feuds over whether we should have taken a skull or not. ...[text shortened]... se the opponent wants the game to keep going if possible. No one likes waiting weeks for a move.