Originally posted by SwissGambitYou should time people out because it's part of the game it's just like running out of time like in blitz or bullet. Some of these games they have a week or whatever to make a move. But say if you only have a king left it should be declared a draw when you time someone out. It should be a must to time someone out in tournaments and in clan games and possibly even ladder games. I would say only in friendly matches it's up in the air. And definitely the one day games should be timed out.
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.
And obviously at the end of your vacation time you should be able to make a move before your vacation flag goes away or otherwise they will beable to time you out. Someone like at the end of my yearly membership I like to use up the vacation time just so it doesn't go to waste.
Originally posted by atticus2I agree that 'You should not message someone to ask them to resign' would be part of good etiquette.
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 ...[text shortened]... ietly. It'll be all over in a month or so. And yes, I would wish patience to be universalised 🙂
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe OP wasn't intended for me to try and resolve contentious issues, but just to see whether there was a consensus on any matters of etiquette. However, it is clear that most people don't want to discuss this.
Those were the 3 most contentious I could think of. Perhaps the goal is not to fix an issue of importance.
However, my answers to your examples would be:
1,2: A combination of:
You should always move within your allotted time unless you are unable to.
You should not automatically claim a win on the first occasion someone times out.
Players who find themselves in a position where the time controls have been exceeded should contact each other to discuss the situation.
3,4: You should resign in a position you know is lost, except to allow your opponent to checkmate you when this is imminent.
5,6: I think there was a vote to allow this functionality. I can't see any issue with people moving on vacation. You may not like the functionality, in which case suggest it be altered, but I can't see why it should be considered poor form to use it as it was intended. It is like people who complain that using databases is bad form.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 11
- Moves
- 143494
When it comes to chess etiquette it's much about what we (usually) don't want others to do to us than what we have in mind everyone should do.
Just remember the famous match Spassky vs. Kortchnoi in Belgrade 1977/78.
Spassky introduced "a new way of thinking" by using a thinking box which sparked discussion in style 'noone had evere written in the rules that a chess player must be seated at the chess table while thinking of his next move... BUT it was unwritten custom..." etc.
Speaking of online chess, the matter of etiquette usually reduces to the questions of
- "not resigning in lost position"
and
- time out
Sometimes one can protest against long vacations.
Time-out should be automatic (not with sculls as in Phantom movie).
Originally posted by Rank outsiderTimely thread. A few observations: 1) The whole person comes to work, so to speak, whether making chess moves or posting in the site's forums; 2) A person's level of maturity or immaturity, acquired poise and etiquette or lack thereof eventually manifests itself publically to the benefit or detriment of our collective membership and RHP's reputation online;
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.
3) Learning frequently requires unlearning; immaturity learns slowly if at all (often because it struggles against authority).
Strewth.
Some of you guys think everytime you click a skull an angel dies.
Keep it simple.
At the start of the game:
"Hi. Good Luck."
During the game:
If a guy leaves a piece hanging. Take it.
If a guy leaves his time hanging. Take it
If your opponent won't resign when you are clearly winning. Live with it.
At the end of the game:
If you lost. "Well played."
If you won. "Well played."
If the game was drawn. "Shall we play again colours reversed."
If you won by clicking his skull say nothing.
Infact it's proably good etiquette to say nothing at all no matter what
happened in the game. How can you be rude and display bad etiquette
if you put up a wall of silence.
Someone pop down to the 'Site Ideas' section and ask Russ to remove
the PM feature so no one can say anthing to anyone ever again.
Originally posted by greenpawn34The Final Word! Frame it, Geoff. Thanks.
Strewth.
Some of you guys think everytime you click a skull an angel dies.
Keep it simple.
[b]At the start of the game:
"Hi. Good Luck."
During the game:
If a guy leaves a piece hanging. Take it.
If a guy leaves his time hanging. Take it
If your opponent won't resign when you are clearly winning. Live with it.
At ...[text shortened]... ' section and ask Russ to remove
the PM feature so no one can say anthing to anyone ever again.
That Geoff guy is an idiot. Listen to greenpawn.
After the PM's have been banned, remove blogs, names, profiles, gradings
and most important of all, all the forums.
Keep in the skulls, infact make them randomly appear in every game being played.
They pop up for 10 seconds and then disappear.
Originally posted by greenpawn34"Listen to greenpawn" or to the g34 bloke?
That Geoff guy is an idiot. Listen to greenpawn.
After the PM's have been banned, remove blogs, names, profiles, gradings
and most important of all, all the forums.
Keep in the skulls, infact make them randomly appear in every game being played.
They pop up for 10 seconds and then disappear.
Originally posted by RBHILLIt's not always clear when a position is hopeless, I don't think people should be criticized for playing on to the bitter end - provided they move reasonably promptly when they are more than a couple of pieces down. Having an obviously won game drag on for a couple of months is a pain. If they are moving daily then it's not a problem.
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??
Originally posted by RBHILLWhat about the move before you know it's a lost game?
Another thought on resigning and not having your opponent checkmate you for some kind of respect. I have probably played over 20,000 Chess matches in my life of all sites and on the board Chess. I would think I would know by then if I have a lost game to resign at.
Presumably your opponent has just played a good move for you to
realise its a lost game. But that means the game was lost before he
made the move providing he was about to play his optimum move
Now if you were waiting to see if he would find that optimum move
you could apply that to any subsequent moves. So when is the game lost??
Originally posted by wolfgang59I would say if you've played that position over a dozen times and you lost from that position than you know it's over. Or maybe being 5 to 7 points down in pieces count.
What about the move before you know it's a lost game?
Presumably your opponent has just played a good move for you to
realise its a lost game. But that means the game was lost before he
made the move providing he was about to play his optimum move
Now if you were waiting to see if he would find that optimum move
you could apply that to any subsequent moves. So when is the game lost??
Originally posted by wolfgang59I have not lost every game where I was dead lost, and I haven't won every game where the other guy was. And I imagine I am not the only one.
What about the move before you know it's a lost game?
Presumably your opponent has just played a good move for you to
realise its a lost game. But that means the game was lost before he
made the move providing he was about to play his optimum move
Now if you were waiting to see if he would find that optimum move
you could apply that to any subsequent moves. So when is the game lost??
Such is the joy and agony of chess.