| From | Message |
ihatethepackers
6/13/2008
15:21:36
[ report abuse ] |
 Subject: A Gentlemans Game?
Message:
In response to "Bad Sport" and many other posts over the months about resigning properly and pace of game I ask this question.
Is this A gentleman's game? What I mean by that is more like golf or basketball? In golf players respect the game and their opponents, in Basketball they get away with anythign they can
I always thought that Chess was an honorable game, played by honorable people. This is why games are not played out until mate, and players are supposed to show class. It seems that it is not like that here? Am I correct?
|
eqj2
6/13/2008
15:39:22
[ report abuse ] | Sometimes
Message:
I have seen many games in which both are presented. I have acted in both also. If I play against a higher player I will ask if I can finish it out other times I know that the game is lost and I will resign. Sadly there are players here that do not have a clue. I would say just avoid them. Cheers Eddie
|
wrecktangle
6/14/2008
08:13:06
[ report abuse ] | Chess is war...
Message:
If you intend to advance in league or tournament play, you must NOT resign when you think you're lost for any reason especially "honorable" ones.
Let me give you a concrete example. In a tournament this year, I resigned early in a game that was clearly lost. I could have strung the game out to mate but I decided I could use the time for other games. 1.5 months later, my opponent lost interest in his games and lost all his games to timeout. If I had stayed the course, I would have won that step of the tourney and advanced.
I took this lesson to heart. This is NOT OTB! If you play to win, you must use the rules to the fullest and manage your time: string out losers (to pick up those timeouts in lost positions), shorten winners (to advance faster).
This is NOT a point of honor, this is simply a tool in your kit bag of skills to advance in tourneys and ratings.
|
ihatethepackers
6/14/2008
09:13:20
[ report abuse ] | wrecktangle
Message:
May all of your opponents string out all their games against you until mate by all means possible. May they use all available postponement time, make all moves within the last few minutes of available time, Enjoy your wars, I prefer to show class.
|
wrecktangle
6/14/2008
10:05:14
[ report abuse ] | American sense of class...
Message:
Well, actually they do. I was playing with some sort of misplaced sense of honor while my opponents didn't...
...it just took me a while to understand that, and change with the times...
If you last, packers, maybe you will get it too.
PS, sorry to see Mr. Favre move on...
|
ganstaman
6/14/2008
11:25:24
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
It all completely matters on one thing, IMO: why do you play?
It seems that wrecktangle, for instance, plays to rack up as many wins as possible and achieve the highest rating that he can, among other things. And this is alright -- it's a reason that many play.
I play mainly for the intellectual challenge. This is why I wouldn't care if someone used a computer against me (I'd still experience the challenge of playing a game of chess).
There is a strong player here who's name I can't remember who says that he often opens blitz games with h4, Rh3, and a4, Ra3. This is weak, and some would find it insulting. But he wants to even out the games a bit and he enjoys working with bishops and those open lines. He doesn't play blitz to work on his openings or gain a win, so it's ok.
I'm not trying to say that any of the countless reasons for playing are better or worse than any of the others. They're all pretty much valid. But they do indicate different behaviors in certain situations, and we need to understand that. You don't need to agree with your opponent's reason for playing, but at least understand that his actions are ok given his valid reasoning.
|
ionadowman
6/14/2008
16:56:10
[ report abuse ] | What goes around comes around...
Message:
... Once wrecktangle's opponents suss that he's willing to play to mate every time, then they will too (chances are). There's nothing precisely unreasonable in this approach, unless one is merely being bloody-minded.
I can understand someone playing it way past a clearly lost position as a kind of discipline, or, whilst any possible resource remains to set problems for his opponent, to carry on. Now and then you'll win one, and not because of the opponent timing out through loss of interest, but making a slip through overconfidence or exasperation.
I quite often find myself on the good end of a winning game but then have to find the clearest or most efficient way to win. There are times that you have a clearly winning plus in material, but, the process of securing this advantage has led to the discoordination of your game. There will be a process involving several moves in which you will need to consolidate or regroup before carrying out some decisive plan.
This can be a frustrating moment: you want to storm on to victory, but before that, you have some administrative functions to carry out. This is when the inexperienced will start complaining about the opponent's dragging out the game.
And this is precisely where the opponent ought to continue playing. Really make the enemy work for the win...
It's a judgement call, really. If you respect your opponent, then you will know when the time is right to toss in the sponge, or to offer a draw, or to cut your opponent a bit of slack...
Cheers,
Ion
|
mikekelly666
6/16/2008
08:10:50
[ report abuse ] | It works both ways
Message:
I think there is one side of this discussion that is always missed. The fact that a player should respect a opponents decision to play on regardless of the position or time it takes.
There are three positions that actually signal the end of the game. Checkmate, stalemate and a draw. Any other position is open to interruption to who will win or if it will become a draw. Even mate in one positions are not a certainity. Especially if you cannot make that one move in the time period given for the game. Therefore all these people saying that games should be resign because they think their opponent is in a hopless position should be gentleman. Gentleman respect their opponents decision to play on regardless of whatever reasons the opponent uses to play on.
I think people complaining that their opponent does not move in a timely manner are impatient. Two people agree on a time period for a move when they start a game. Therefore if I want to wait until the last possible minute to make my move then I'm still playing in the timely manner agreed upon. Also when you decided to play chess here, you also agreed to the number of vacation days a person can take during a year. A person does not have to justify their reasons for taking them. What you may perceive as delaying a game may be something else all together for your opponent. Therefore quit complaining about moving in a timely manner. People who do not move in a timely manner, lose the game due to timeout.
In conculsion, if you want chess to be a honorable and gentleman's game then respect your opponent's decisions. Regardless if you think they are right or wrong. To think otherwise just shows how arrogant, direspectful and all around bad sport you are in playing chess.
|
heinzkat
6/16/2008
08:28:18
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Because some might do something in another way than you would do it, doesn't mean their way of doing is "wrong" and your way is "right"...!
|
tim_b
6/16/2008
12:03:52
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
I am inclined to agree with the recent responses to this thread. It's better, in my opinion, to assume good or innocuous things of your opponent in the absence of anything concrete to show otherwise.
|
nemesis1010
6/19/2008
06:15:59
[ report abuse ] |
Message:
Some good points made here, but one I like to draw upon is the difference between the rules and the spirit of the game.....
If I've gained a significant advantage in game, then of course I would not expect my opponent to immediately resign - that in itself is disrespectful. I agree with a lot of what ionadowman says - in gaining material edge you can often find yourself totally out of position and thus still have a lot of work to do for the win. Similarly when I'm in the losing position I still expect my opponent to work for the win - and you never know, every so often you may get an unexpected break. And whilst there is still a chance of getting at least a draw, then there is no disrespect at all in taking time to make your moves. Even if you're a queen down there's always a small chance of getting your opponents queen with a fork or skewer etc...
However there does come a point when things are hopelessly lost. By this I mean something like queen, rook, and a few pawns vs. 1 or 2 pawns. If I get to that stage in a losing position, I will more often than not just resign, OR if I do carry on it will be with very quick moves to the end. And this is where I am referring to the difference between the rules and the spirit of the game. Sure, the rules say I can move once every 2 days 23 hours and 59 minutes whilst my opponent still needs 8 or 10 moves to manouver to checkmate. However, it is really not in the spirit of the game. You know you're opponent has a guaranteed checkmate, so why drag out a meaningless game for weeks? Resign honourably and re-challenge for revenge?
Of course there are always one or two grey areas - the situation I hate being in is playing against an opponent who is obviously much higher rated than myself but has dropped to ~1000 due to a load of timeouts. This therefore means I'm playing someone who will more than likely beat me, but is currently 400-500 points lower! Hence my rating will be very severely impacted unfairly. When this happens, I WILL drag out a game as long as possible - basically to try and wait for my opponent to gain back some of their lost points and make the situation fairer. And if they complain, well it's their fault for timing out all their games previously.
|
ionadowman
6/19/2008
14:15:05
[ report abuse ] | There is one occasion...
Message:
... that I'll play a lost game to mate - and that is as a courtesy to my opponent. I have done once on GK. The mate involved quite a nice combination, and, though there was absolutely no defence I could make, i could still, as it were, commit the final moves to paper.
Here's an example of what I mean from grandmaster play.
White: T. Petrosian Black: P.Trifunovic
In this dead lost position, Trifunovic played:
45...Ne3 - forking White's rooks. There is no doubt Black saw White's attractive finish:
46.Rf6+ Kh5
47.Rg5+ Kxh4
48.Rh6#
A gentlemanly gesture by Mr Trifunovic.
Cheers,
Ion
|
ionadowman
6/19/2008
14:16:15
[ report abuse ] | Of course...
Message:
the h7-pawn in that last diagram ought to have a more sable hue...
|
mikekelly666
6/20/2008
06:19:44
[ report abuse ] | Ok lets decide who has class and who is a jerk
Message:
I like this discussion. Everyone has their own idea of when to resign a game. But this makes it hard to decide who has class and being a gentleman or is being a uncivilized and a jerk. Since GK has no hard and fast rules on this matter I suggest we form a ad-hoc committee to decide critera for judging people. Then as a committee we can submit our findings to GK to include in their rules. Anyone not being civilized or a gentleman gets booted.
Of course as not to tip off the lower classes, I suggest that use PM's only to have any future discussion on the matter. SO PLEASE DO NOT POST ANYTHING MORE ABOUT THIS MATTER ON THIS FORUM. Once we get the critera formalized we can pat ourselves on the back for getting rid of the barbarians on GK and speeding up the time it takes to play the games.
If you are interested on being on the committee, please PM gentlemandontmate
Also once we get GK to implement our critera, we will have to make another suggestion. Change the "Recent checkmates" feature to "Recent resignations". This will inspire people to be more honorable in their pursit of chess on GK
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|
