Originally posted by SwissGambitI see your point. A very amusing example, btw.
http://www.chessatwork.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=110369&page=4#post_2069429
Was shocked to hear that site admins provide hints about the rules during games. This means that if this kind of position arises, and neither player knows the en passant rule:
[fen]3Q4/k7/p1P5/Pp6/K7/2q5/8/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]
(Last move was ...b7-b5+)
The site admins change the result of the game by informing the players of the EP rule. 😞
How would you think the game moderator, or someone from the staff, should react? By saying nothing and let the times run to zero?
I think I have in some occations have responded: "Read the rules". Was I wrong to do this?
Originally posted by KingDavid403And therefore no harm was done
No one said anything to the player who might think he's in checkmate here. The person who was referred to the en passant rule was the player who made the last move. He thought he had checkmate and that there was a site glitch.
Tricky situation. In an OTB game the players would probably agree that it was checkmate and that would be the final result.
In a junior tournament a few weeks ago there was a situation where the position was stalemate but both players thought it was checkmate. I was one of the controllers and wasn't 100% sure what the result should be so I called over the strongest player nearby (GM Graham Buckley) and he said that since they both thought it was checkmate, that's what the result should be, which is what I thought as well. However when I later checked with an experienced arbiter, he said that stalemate, like checkmate, is the end of the game, so I should have informed the players that the game was a draw.
Originally posted by Fat LadyInteresting. Thanks for sharing that info.
Tricky situation. In an OTB game the players would probably agree that it was checkmate and that would be the final result.
In a junior tournament a few weeks ago there was a situation where the position was stalemate but both players thought it was checkmate. I was one of the controllers and wasn't 100% sure what the result should be so I called over th ...[text shortened]... kmate, is the end of the game, so I should have informed the players that the game was a draw.
Originally posted by Fat LadyI have the same experience. A few weeks ago I was an arbiters assistant for a tournament for 12 year olds. They played without clocks, and no protocolls.
Tricky situation. In an OTB game the players would probably agree that it was checkmate and that would be the final result.
In a junior tournament a few weeks ago there was a situation where the position was stalemate but both players thought it was checkmate. I was one of the controllers and wasn't 100% sure what the result should be so I called over th ...[text shortened]... kmate, is the end of the game, so I should have informed the players that the game was a draw.
Often they asked me for assistance and asked "Is this a check mate?" "No," I said "it's not even check." And they were confused. I gave them the rules of checkmate and stalemate, and they agreed what the result would be. They were happy because they've learned something.
But when I see them playing with two kings only, not sponaneous agree for a draw, or when one cannot mate with a queen against a lone king, then I ask myself 'why are they here?'. But then I remind myself 'Because they have fun!' And they really have fun. Some are there to win the tournament, but most of them they was there for sheer joy.
Originally posted by FabianFnas😉🙂
I have the same experience. A few weeks ago I was an arbiters assistant for a tournament for 12 year olds. They played without clocks, and no protocolls.
Often they asked me for assistance and asked "Is this a check mate?" "No," I said "it's not even check." And they were confused. I gave them the rules of checkmate and stalemate, and they agreed what ...[text shortened]... Some are there to win the tournament, but most of them they was there for sheer joy.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI think the most the admins should say is, "There is no glitch in the site." Time should be allowed to run, as usual.
I see your point. A very amusing example, btw.
How would you think the game moderator, or someone from the staff, should react? By saying nothing and let the times run to zero?
I think I have in some occations have responded: "Read the rules". Was I wrong to do this?
Originally posted by SwissGambitMay I join in the drama?
I think the most the admins should say is, "There is no glitch in the site." Time should be allowed to run, as usual.
I agree totally to what you say. The rules are very clear, I can't understand why the admins make an exception here.
In the game with which this whole discussion started no harm was done. But as this policy gets widely adopted, for sure the outcome of some games will be influenced by it.
I think this is all becoming a bit silly. I'll even put a silly smiley face to let you know I'm being serious: 🙄
In just the few months that I've been here I've seen several posts of new (and not-so new) players thinking something technical is wrong with the site because the don't know the rule of en passant. Telling them "read up on the rule of en passant" is just as harmless a courtesy as saying "read the rules of chess" or "there is no bug on the site."
If we are really worried that this is considered "3rd party assistance" from the site admins (or anyone who responds to a forum post) according to the rules of this site -- "While a game is in progress you may not refer to chess engines, chess computers or be assisted by a third party" then what is the difference for getting assistance on how to use conditional moves or how to in-game message my opponent or how to physically move a piece (do I drag it and drop it or do I click it then click the square I want it to go to?). See how silly that would sound if we accuse someone of getting 3rd part assistance for asking a question like that? If we're worried about following the rule to the exact letter of the law then the exact letter of the law doesn't restrict the assistance of a 3rd party to the moves being made in the game.
But, I can see how this would matter if telling someone that a theoretical game is not over because of en passant would result in the everlasting destruction of the human race.
Here's another silly face: 😲
Originally posted by Traveling AgainTelling them "read up on the rule of en passant" is just as harmless a courtesy as saying "read the rules of chess" or "there is no bug on the site."
I think this is all becoming a bit silly. I'll even put a silly smiley face to let you know I'm being serious: 🙄
In just the few months that I've been here I've seen several posts of new (and not-so new) players thinking something technical is wrong with the site because the don't know the rule of en passant. Telling them "read up on the rule ...[text shortened]... he everlasting destruction of the human race.
Here's another silly face: 😲
I disagree. There is a huge difference between simply denying there is a bug on the site and telling them a specific move that they should play in a specific position. Good intentions don't change the fact that a move hint is being given by a 3rd party.
If we're worried about following the rule to the exact letter of the law then the exact letter of the law doesn't restrict the assistance of a 3rd party to the moves being made in the game.
My concern is that the spirit of the law is being violated. IMO, the spirit of the law is to prevent players from getting move suggestions or move hints in a game in progress. I agree that the rule could be better worded.
Originally posted by SwissGambitI say tell 'em about en passant if otherwise it looks like a checkmate. Players who aren't aware of the rules should be. The purpose of the site is for people to play and improve their chess; making them helplessly stare at the board while their time runs out when they have a move is ridiculous. Surely it's not a legitimate ending and doesn't help either player if after the game they are still unaware of the rule.
[b]Telling them "read up on the rule of en passant" is just as harmless a courtesy as saying "read the rules of chess" or "there is no bug on the site."
I disagree. There is a huge difference between simply denying there is a bug on the site and telling them a specific move that they should play in a specific position. Good intentions don't change ...[text shortened]... ions or move hints in a game in progress. I agree that the rule could be better worded.[/b]
This will be an extremely rare occurrence at any rate. This thread is making Mount Everest out of a molehill.
Originally posted by no1marauderBut they don't have to helplessly stare at the board while time runs. This is CC. They are allowed to go look up the rules during the game.
I say tell 'em about en passant if otherwise it looks like a checkmate. Players who aren't aware of the rules should be. The purpose of the site is for people to play and improve their chess; making them helplessly stare at the board while their time runs out when they have a move is ridiculous. Surely it's not a legitimate ending and doesn't help either ...[text shortened]... xtremely rare occurrence at any rate. This thread is making Mount Everest out of a molehill.
I'm all for helping new players learn; I just don't support doing it in a way that is unfair to their opponent. Getting 3rd-party hints certainly qualifies as unfair.
Edit: Let's say you were playing a 10-year old kid OTB, and you 'checkmate' him, except for the fact that he can play EP. Would you object if his coach came over to him and said, "Remember, you can play en passant!"?
Originally posted by SwissGambitIt's been pointed out many times and in many contexts, this isn't OTB.
But they don't have to helplessly stare at the board while time runs. This is CC. They are allowed to go look up the rules during the game.
I'm all for helping new players learn; I just don't support doing it in a way that is unfair to their opponent. Getting 3rd-party hints certainly qualifies as unfair.
Edit: Let's say you were playing a 10-year you object if his coach came over to him and said, "Remember, you can play en passant!"?
A feature of this site is that it automatically ends the game when there is a legitimate checkmate, which doesn't happen OTB.
There's nothing "unfair" about both players knowing the rules of a game. I think the Site Admins are correct to inform players of the en passant rule in these limited circumstances.
To answer your question, I wouldn't. I don't want to win based on a child's ignorance of the rules; it's really not that important to me. It's only checkmate if he can't make a move without his King being in check, so I'm not being deprived of anything I actually deserve.
Whenever we move a rule-check is performed automatically. What if the opponent had the responsibility to point out an illegal move, thus winning the game?
Whenever a mate position is reached, the system terminates the game automatically. What if the opponent had to point out the mate in order to win the game?
Whenever a draw position is reached, according to 50-move rule or a tripple position rule... What if the opponent have to claim the draw before he can have it?
I know, this is not OTB... This is CC. But why is one of the examples above not automatical? (Which one?)
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's been pointed out many times and in many contexts, this isn't OTB.
It's been pointed out many times and in many contexts, this isn't OTB.
A feature of this site is that it automatically ends the game when there is a legitimate checkmate, which doesn't happen OTB.
There's nothing "unfair" about both players knowing the rules of a game. I think the Site Admins are correct to inform players of th ...[text shortened]... his King being in check, so I'm not being deprived of anything I actually deserve.
I used an OTB example only to find out if you viewed OTB as a more serious form of competition than correspondence.
There's nothing "unfair" about both players knowing the rules of a game.
There is, however, something unfair about informing a player of a rule at the precise moment when they can make a profitable use of it during a game.
I think the Site Admins are correct to inform players of the en passant rule in these limited circumstances.
So, you are just fine with the Site Admins reversing the result of a game by giving a hint in this type of position?
(last move was ...b7-b5+; neither player knows the EP rule)
To answer your question, I wouldn't. I don't want to win based on a child's ignorance of the rules; it's really not that important to me.
Let's change the situation a bit. Same kid, but now it's a time scramble with only seconds left for each side. Now, after you put the kid in check, the kid panics for a few seconds. Coach yells, "Remember EN PASSANT!" and then he plays it and beats you. Still OK with that?
If yes, I suggest you are in the extreme minority of competitive chess players. 😛