31 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitI think OTB is a more serious form of competition than correspondence, esp. the half-assed CC played at RHP.
[b]It's been pointed out many times and in many contexts, this isn't OTB.
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 [i
If yes, I suggest you are in the extreme minority of competitive chess players. 😛[/b]
I saw your hypothetical example (you've posted it about 5 times already) in the other thread. My answer stands for the reasons already given.
Changing the situation to an OTB time scramble changes everything. Getting an opponent to panic is certainly a goal in such situations. Of course, in the situations here BOTH players don't know the rule.
You really need to stop this ridiculous harping over a minor issue which the Site Admins have already decided on. If you hate their decision soooooooooooooooo much, perhaps you should find a more "serious" site to play on.
While you're at it, you might as well bitch about the fact that when your pawn hits the 8th, a little box pops up giving the pieces you can promote to. That should be worth a two thread campaign also.
31 Mar 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhenever 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 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, acc ...[text shortened]... his is not OTB... This is CC. But why is one of the examples above not automatical? (Which one?)
Loss of the game for an illegal move is a penalty typically used only in blitz [5-minute] chess, and not slower controls.
In slower games, if either player notices the illegal move at any time before the game is complete, it is usually required to go back to the last legal position and resume play from there.
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?
How would the game end if the mate was not claimed? Mate should take precedence over the clock.
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?
He does have to claim it.
I know, this is not OTB... This is CC. But why is one of the examples above not automatical?
Good question. This is a hold-over from OTB tradition. I actually support the automation of the 3-fold repetition rule and 50-move rule. Automation would mean fair enforcement. I have also advocated the automation of the draw by insufficient material [the most common cases that can be easily programmed].
31 Mar 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitMaybe we could program in a "touch rule" while you're at it. I imagine that could be done easily enough.
[b]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?
Loss of the game for an illegal move is a penalty typically used only in blitz [5-minute] chess, and not slower controls.
In slower games, if either player notices the illegal move at any ...[text shortened]... tion of the draw by insufficient material [the most common cases that can be easily programmed].[/b]
31 Mar 09
Originally posted by no1marauderI think OTB is a more serious form of competition than correspondence, esp. the half-assed CC played at RHP.
I think OTB is a more serious form of competition than correspondence, esp. the half-assed CC played at RHP.
I saw your hypothetical example (you've posted it about 5 times already) in the other thread. My answer stands for the reasons already given.
Changing the situation to an OTB time scramble changes everything. Get ...[text shortened]... s up giving the pieces you can promote to. That should be worth a two thread campaign also.
"If you hate RHP soooooooooooooooo much, then why not just leave the site?" 🙄
My answer stands for the reasons already given.
Your answer assumes that only beginners are unaware of the EP rule; I've known a USCF 1700 that constantly missed this possibility in his games. Under your 'logic', it is OK if I warn him about it before he blunders. After all, I'd hate to hinder his chess development. 🙄
Changing the situation to an OTB time scramble changes everything. Getting an opponent to panic is certainly a goal in such situations.
So you do admit that there are other ways to win, and deserve the win, besides just checkmating the opponent.
Of course, in the situations here BOTH players don't know the rule.
Whether it's one or both, 3rd party interference during the game is not the way to resolve it.
You really need to stop this ridiculous harping over a minor issue which the Site Admins have already decided on.
That's the pansy way out. Give up because the admins don't instantly agree? Not my style. And it's not yours, either. Remind me: how many threads did you start over how many years, all advocating a new clan scoring system?!
While you're at it, you might as well bitch about the fact that when your pawn hits the 8th, a little box pops up giving the pieces you can promote to. That should be worth a two thread campaign also.
Hey, if they don't know the promotion rule, the popup will make no sense to them. If they're clever enough to figure it out on their own, great. They should do the same with rules like EP.
31 Mar 09
Originally posted by no1marauderThe reason for the touch rule OTB is to avoid the distraction of your opponent endlessly fiddling with the pieces while you're trying to think.
Maybe we could program in a "touch rule" while you're at it. I imagine that could be done easily enough.
Thus, no reason for this rule in online CC.
31 Mar 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitNonsense; there's already rules against deliberately distracting your opponent.
The reason for the touch rule OTB is to avoid the distraction of your opponent endlessly fiddling with the pieces while you're trying to think.
Thus, no reason for this rule in online CC.
31 Mar 09
Originally posted by no1marauderYeah, but you can't prove it's deliberate. The guy could be legitimately considering different moves.
Nonsense; there's already rules against deliberately distracting your opponent.
This is a case where it's worthwhile to prohibit the distraction, whether deliberate or not.
31 Mar 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitI am leaving the site. I have one tourney to finish. But that doesn't change the fact that RHP is half-assed CC; no real CC player of any caliber would play a 100 games at the same time.
[b]I think OTB is a more serious form of competition than correspondence, esp. the half-assed CC played at RHP.
"If you hate RHP soooooooooooooooo much, then why not just leave the site?" 🙄
My answer stands for the reasons already given.
Your answer assumes that only beginners are unaware of the EP rule; I've known a USCF 1700 ...[text shortened]... to figure it out on their own, great. They should do the same with rules like EP.[/b]
You're being stubborn and disingenuous; no one is saying that players should be constantly reminded about the existence of the en passant rule. The policy is a very limited one having to do with situations where people believe there is a checkmate when there isn't. Under those circumstances, what is the BFD? Your dogmatic insistence that this is somehow "cheating" is bizarre given that the people who make the rules don't consider it so. It reminds me of people who constantly claim that using books or databases is "cheating".
Really; there's other ways to win BESIDES checkmate? Thanks for informing me; I've never resigned or had an opponent resign in ANY of my games. Your great knowledge of the game is indeed impressive.
I wasted a lot of time on this site. Friendly advice: don't bother. How many times have you seen a Site Idea actually be implemented? You're wasting your time and on a truly trivial matter effecting maybe 1 out of what 10,000 games? This little crusade of yours is truly quixotic.
So maybe a little arrow should pop up pointing to the square where they can make the capture - would that make you happy? That would be analogous to the promotion box.
01 Apr 09
Originally posted by no1marauderNo one forces anyone to play 100 games at once. If RHP is half-assed CC, it's because the players choose to play it that way.
I am leaving the site. I have one tourney to finish. But that doesn't change the fact that RHP is half-assed CC; no real CC player of any caliber would play a 100 games at the same time.
You're being stubborn and disingenuous; no one is saying that players should be constantly reminded about the existence of the en passant rule. The polic ...[text shortened]... e capture - would that make you happy? That would be analogous to the promotion box.
Site ideas do get implemented here on occasion. Here are some examples: hidden text feature, conditional moves, game mods, etc.
OK, so now you say that we should help people in cases where they believe there is a checkmate when there isn't. But how far will you go? Will you abide by your own policy even in a case like this:
Both players think there is checkmate on the board. Will you help clear up that misconception? If yes, then please tell me how this situation is substantively different from telling them about EP in my other example [the one with Qd8/Qc3].
You say that this is a trivial matter affecting 1/10000 games. I think you fail to appreciate the bigger picture.
01 Apr 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitTell me what the "bigger picture" is. So far as I can see it's a case of novices not knowing the rules and getting stuck. So tell them the rules and "unstuck" them. What exactly is the BFD about that? They'll learn something about the game and the result of the game will be as it should be. How bloody awful.
No one forces anyone to play 100 games at once. If RHP is half-assed CC, it's because the players choose to play it that way.
Site ideas [b]do get implemented here on occasion. Here are some examples: hidden text feature, conditional moves, game mods, etc.
OK, so now you say that we should help people in cases where they believe there is a chec ...[text shortened]... s a trivial matter affecting 1/10000 games. I think you fail to appreciate the bigger picture.[/b]
Help an old lady across the street or do something useful for cripes' sake.
01 Apr 09
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat if the old lady is racing against another old lady?
Tell me what the "bigger picture" is. So far as I can see it's a case of novices not knowing the rules and getting stuck. So tell them the rules and "unstuck" them. What exactly is the BFD about that? They'll learn something about the game and the result of the game will be as it should be. How bloody awful.
Help an old lady across the street or do something useful for cripes' sake.
01 Apr 09
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, the result of the game is not as it 'should be'. If a player lacks the knowledge to win the game, then they don't deserve to win it. Yes, it's bloody awful when a 3rd party's advice changes the result of the game. Most of us didn't sign up to play consultation games.
Tell me what the "bigger picture" is. So far as I can see it's a case of novices not knowing the rules and getting stuck. So tell them the rules and "unstuck" them. What exactly is the BFD about that? They'll learn something about the game and the result of the game will be as it should be. How bloody awful.
Help an old lady across the street or do something useful for cripes' sake.
Let them learn the lesson of EP after the game. Maybe the loss will help it stick in their mind.
LOL at the old lady comment. How many old ladies got stranded on sidewalks while you argued the Ireland situation over in Debates??!