18 Oct 04
Im going to go right out and say it. That game was terrible. There was nothing good about it except for black's sacrifice to attack the kingside early in the game. But White has nothing to be proud of. First of all, black was about 400 point weaker than white and second of all he gave his queen for free, and finally White's counterplay was crappy! I wonder whether white understands what got him into trouble to begin with. That was a case where white should have resigned. But apparently that was his favorite game... Fine, you know what? I refuse to ever play you. In fact I am starting a list of players who are to be branded as unsportsmanlike and their handles will be posted on the forums. So if you agree with and find it crude to not resign when necessary then do not play any players on this list...
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by paultopiaDon't put words in my mouth.
What "kind of arguments" would that be?
And how do you know what judges do?
Or are you just talking out your anus as per usual?
For that matter, why do you feel like it's ok to waste a chessplayer's time, but not a judge's? Remember, we're talking about time-wasting here.
I never said it was okay to waste somebody's time. I said it was okay for a player to play on if he thinks he might make something out of it.
Do you think it's wrong for a player to play on if he think's he might make something out of it?
If you think that playing chess is a waste of your time, then there is only one person in the world who can take care of that for you.
18 Oct 04
2 edits
Originally posted by dpressnellI defy you to find someone rated above 1000 who genuinely believes that they can "make something out of" the sort of positions we're talking about.
Do you think it's wrong for a player to play on if he think's he might make something out of it?
And playing chess isn't a waste of my time. Playing boring, rote, totally unchallenging chess is a waste of my time. Your deliberate failure to recognize the difference is the source of your error.
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by GambitzoidI am still amazed. You are criticizing somebody for not resigning a game he ENDED UP WINNING, and you are going to put this person on some kind of blacklist!
Im going to go right out and say it. That game was terrible. There was nothing good about it except for black's sacrifice to attack the kingside early in the game. But White has nothing to be proud of. First of all, black was about 400 point weaker than white and second of all he gave his queen for free, and finally White's counterplay was crappy! I won ...[text shortened]... with and find it crude to not resign when necessary then do not play any players on this list...
I'll tell you this. If you take your misguided notions of "sportamanship" and start such a libelous list in these forums, I'll be the first to request that you be banned for your poor sportsmanship.
That's a promise.
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by paultopiaYou haven't answered the question, and I don't know why you are having such a hard time with it.
I defy you to find someone rated above 1000 who genuinely believes that they can "make something out of" the sort of positions we're talking about.
And playing chess isn't a waste of my time. Playing boring, rote, totally unchallenging chess is a waste of my time. Your deliberate failure to recognize the difference is the source of your error.
Who decides what "reasonable people" would agree on regarding whether your opponent should resign?
Would your opponent have any say in it?
18 Oct 04
Why would you steal, that's right steal, a win from black for such a nice attack. White stalled and stalled and waited for black to blunder... For all we know, black may have been interrupted in the middle of the game and his mouse slipped. He may have children or siblings who bothered him in the middle of the game. He may have been sick.... The point is, white played a stupid, stupid move allowing his kingside to be destroyed and then instead of admitting defeat waited until Black blundered... That is not the way to play chess!!!! Please, I don't care if white won, he won because he was being cheap, dirty, and unsportsmanlike. He stole that game and that's what people who stall do, they are the thieves and criminals of the chess world!
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by dpressnellWhat is this? Argument by nihilism? "We can't know what reasonable means, so anyone should do anything?" It's a complete non sequitur. Who decides whether anything is reasonable? Reasonable is based on the general common-sense consensus.
You haven't answered the question, and I don't know why you are having such a hard time with it.
Who decides what "reasonable people" would agree on regarding whether your opponent should resign?
Would your opponent have any say in it?
Your argument seems to be that playing on in a position that 99% of the chessplayers in the world agree is hopelessly lost becomes reasonable because one person insists on doing so. That is evidence, instead, of the fact that the one person is unreasonable.
Reasonableness is defined by the general understanding of the community at issue. That's why I answered it before, and I've answered it time and time again. There are certain positions where *everybody above the rank beginner level knows* one side has an effortless win. Including the person who stubbornly persists in playing it.
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by paultopiaSo your opponent should have no say in whether he should resign or not?
What is this? Argument by nihilism? "We can't know what reasonable means, so anyone should do anything?" It's a complete non sequitur. Who decides whether anything is reasonable? Reasonable is based on the general common-sense consensus.
Your argument seems to be that playing on in a position that 99% of the chessplayers in the world agree is ...[text shortened]... * one side has an effortless win. Including the person who stubbornly persists in playing it.
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by GambitzoidHow many games have you resigned because your opponent "might have been interruped," "may have children who bothered him," or "may have been sick"?
Why would you steal, that's right steal, a win from black for such a nice attack. White stalled and stalled and waited for black to blunder... For all we know, black may have been interrupted in the middle of the game and his mouse slipped. He may have children or siblings who bothered him in the middle of the game. He may have been sick.... The point is ...[text shortened]... ame and that's what people who stall do, they are the thieves and criminals of the chess world!
Your blacklist is uncalled for. You are attempting to smear somebody without any foundation at all. People can decide who to play and who not to play without your resorting to acting like a Nazi brown-shirt.
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by dpressnell(S)He should have a say to the extent that it is not blatantly unreasonable. We're back to the reasonableness thing again. No reductio ad absurdum for you. Despite your vigorous attempts to avoid doing so, you understand this. Reasonable people can disagree about whether someone who is a queen for a piece down in a complicated middlegame is lost. So it should be left up to each player's judgment. Reasonable people can not disagree about whether someone who is a queen down in a totally placid endgame position is lost. So it should be adjudicated rather than forcing the poor guy who won the game to sit around for another two hours.
So your opponent should have no say in whether he should resign or not?
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by dpressnellIn fact, I automatically resign when I am down at least a minor piece without compensation. And yes, many a time I have resigned or agreed to a draw or cancellation of the game upon my opponent telling me he could not play, both OTB and online.
How many games have you resigned because your opponent "might have been interruped," "may have children who bothered him," or "may have been sick"?
Your blacklist is uncalled for. You are attempting to smear somebody without any foundation at all. People can decide who to play and who not to play without your resorting to acting like a Nazi brown-shirt.
I am not smearing anybody, I am listing Ragnorak as unsportsmanlike so that if he challenges anyone his opponent can know whether it is worth all the nuisance and discomfort of playing someone with as little respect and knowledge of etiquette as Ragnonrak. And there is a foundation, the game he played is clear evidence of his complete disregard of honor, sportsmanship and respect.
And I am Jewish.
18 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by GambitzoidSo you take it on yourself to make this disgusting blacklist against somebody who WON, but in your opinion should have resigned.
In fact, I automatically resign when I am down at least a minor piece without compensation. And yes, many a time I have resigned or agreed to a draw or cancellation of the game upon my opponent telling me he could not play, both OTB and ...[text shortened]... disregard of honor, sportsmanship and respect.
And I am Jewish.
I can believe that you sincerely have this opinion, but I truly do not understand the hatred you display toward somebody who was playing a chess game. And I still don't understand you engaging in Nazi-like tactics.
You phrased your criticism in terms of "may have" and then follow by saying you've made accommodations "when told."
I'm asking the questing again because you have not answered it. Do you resign games when your opponent "may have" suddenly come under some handicap that you have no reason to believe has happened?
18 Oct 04
Originally posted by dpressnellOh brother...
You know what? People come here to play chess and have fun, and I don't think anybody needs to give a damn whether you think they are wasting their lives, because I sure don't see any site rules that require we do everything to please you so you won't hurl your immature insults around like you were some kind of god.
Most people play chess to win, o ...[text shortened]... about respecting other people's rights, and stop being so pushy, arrogant, rude, and snobbish.
Of course the website doesn't require anybody to please me. This is an open forum where we post our opinions and we are free to agree or disagree with each other so if I seem pushy, arrogant, rude, and snobbish to you or you don't care about my opinions, or my attitude just ignore me and we will move forward. Ah! Notice how I haven't insulted you during these proceedings yet you have done so.
I just made a comment on a game that I thought was horrible but I didn't insult the players as far as I remember... Did I? And another thing:
" You have a lot to learn about respecting other people's rights, and stop being so pushy, arrogant, rude, and snobbish. "
When did I disrespect the rights of anyone here? Just because I exercised my right to say that a game was horrible? Please!