Originally posted by arrakisPerhaps you'd care to show me where it says that? I can only find that you shall not "consult any third party to assist you in any game." Commenting on your own game does not fall under this catagory.
That's not correct... the rules clearly state that you can not discuss a game in progress. Are you trying to modify the rules?
1 edit
Originally posted by ark13But discussing your own game could be considered to be "soliciting advice" don't you think?
Perhaps you'd care to show me where it says that? I can only find that you shall not "consult any third party to assist you in any game." Commenting on your own game does not fall under this catagory.
I'm sure I read a post by one of the mods saying it was not considered acceptable.
Originally posted by ark13In my eyes, it's about drawing clear lines where possible. A definate line is to say that you shouldn't talk about games that are in progress is easy to follow and enforce, if not immediately obvious why this should be the case.
Perhaps you'd care to show me where it says that? I can only find that you shall not "consult any third party to assist you in any game." Commenting on your own game does not fall under this catagory.
Why do we need such a clear cut rule? If we don't, where do you draw the line so that people can easily follow it? People don't always realise that even asking an apparently harmless "can I still win?" invites comments that, without actually saying how to play, will influence how the game is played. Even if the initial poster only says "look at my game, isn't it cool" this may unintentionally invite others to respond inappropriately (eg. "yeah, you've got his bishop trapped with 14.f5" or "yeah, you've got the game sown up"😉.
Although it might initially seem excessive I hope you undserstand why talking about games in progress is generally not appropriate?
Cheers
BF
We shouldn't talk about games in progress because the next guy could come along and start saying what one or the other player should do. Just because you are not asking for advice doesn't mean you are not going to get advice.
It is best not to talk about games in progress at all to avoid what may happen.
P-
Originally posted by belgianfreakI understand that, but I think I recall some other authority figure saying that posting in progess games is acceptable. Plus, you're not deleting posts or banning those who do post in progress games, so it must be within the rules currently.
In my eyes, it's about drawing clear lines where possible. A definate line is to say that you shouldn't talk about games that are in progress is easy to follow and enforce, if not immediately obvious why this should be the case.
Why do we need such a clear cut rule? If we don't, where do you draw the line so that people can easily follow it? People ...[text shortened]... d why talking about games in progress is generally not appropriate?
Cheers
BF
I'm against writing overly strict boundaries to prevent having to define one more accurately. If someone offers unsolicited help, that is their fault, and they should be punished. If the poster asks a question about the state of the game or what should be done next, then that is soliciting help.
However, I'm of the opinion that soliciting help should be within the rules, and it's the responders' jobs not to offer that help. If everyone knew the TOS, it wouldn't be a problem. However, I'm behaving idealistically; not everyone reads the TOS, and some will offer help not knowing that it is wrong. So I understand the rule against soliciting help, but I think you constrict rights too far to meet the cynical truth when you say, "No posting in-progress games."
Originally posted by ark13Soliciting help should be within the rules?
I understand that, but I think I recall some other authority figure saying that posting in progess games is acceptable. Plus, you're not deleting posts or banning those who do post in progress games, so it must be within the rules currently.
I'm against writing overly strict boundaries to prevent having to define one more accurately. If someone offers uns ...[text shortened]... rights too far to meet the cynical truth when you say, "No posting in-progress games."
But giving help should be outside the rules?
"No posting in-progress games" is a good rule.
Originally posted by belgianfreakIf we were to follow this ruling, the hundreds of threads in the chess and help forums posted by confused provisionals asking why their game isn't checkmate should be deleted. Of course this would never happen, despite people offering their advice on en passent, which is commenting on a game in progress, because otherwise the game would sit in that position until the opposition timed them out.
In my eyes, it's about drawing clear lines where possible. A definate line is to say that you shouldn't talk about games that are in progress is easy to follow and enforce, if not immediately obvious why this should be the case.
Why do we need such a clear cut rule? If we don't, where do you draw the line so that people can easily follow it? People ...[text shortened]... d why talking about games in progress is generally not appropriate?
Cheers
BF
And why arn't in progress games that are posted in the chess forum describing openings (see the 1.h4 and 1. g4 threads) deleted? Bit of a double standard here.
Originally posted by arrakisI understand the subject material entirely. You know full well that hundreds of in progress games are posted and never deleted. I'm pretty sure that you yourself have had imput into in progress games in the Fritz vs RHP games, Ironman vs RHP game, and no doubt various other games. Face it, there is no way that you can totally ban in progress games from being posted in the forums, because, like I say in the post above, how are "problems" like en passent preventing checkmate going to be solved.
It's typical of kids and immature adults to attack the messenger when they either don't understand the subject material or have nothing of value to contribute. I've got you pegged, freddie.
Originally posted by Freddie2006The way I see it is, asking for "help" regarding the rules is more acceptable but the reply should only be about the rules and not the about the game in question.
I understand the subject material entirely. You know full well that hundreds of in progress games are posted and never deleted. I'm pretty sure that you yourself have had imput into in progress games in the Fritz vs RHP games, Ironman vs RHP game, and no doubt various other games. Face it, there is no way that you can totally ban in progress games from b ...[text shortened]... n the post above, how are "problems" like en passent preventing checkmate going to be solved.
It would surely be only a rare occasion [I did see it once in the help forum] when en passant provided the only escape.
And what if the opponent then complained about it - where would it all lead?
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveYes, and, taking it to an absurd level, even talking about openings could be construed as talking about a game in progress because name any opening, and I daresay there are dozens of current games here with those exact opening moves.
The way I see it is, asking for "help" regarding the rules is more acceptable but the reply should only be about the rules and not the about the game in question.
It would surely be only a rare occasion [I did see it once in the help forum] when en passant provided the only escape.
And what if the opponent then complained about it - where would it all lead?
But my opinion is that, if even discussing (without asking for advice) a game in progress is against the unwritten rules, perhaps it should be clarified in the TOS, perhaps under Unacceptable Forum Behavior or something.
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightFirst of all, ark13 stated that discussion of in-progress games is not covered in the rules, only that soliciting help on in-progress games is mentioned, and so he clearly states that soliciting help is against the rules.
Soliciting help should be within the rules?
But giving help should be outside the rules?
"No posting in-progress games" is a good rule.
Now, if "no posting in-progress games" is such a good rule, perhaps it should be IN the rules.
Edit: AND enforced.
Originally posted by Freddie2006Freddie: This is a very good point. I've wondered this myself. And I agree with you, the people in the help forum shouldn't be giving advice on games where a player can't find a move. Most of the time when they are asking why it isn't checkmate, it is acutally stalemate and the game is over anyway.
If we were to follow this ruling, the hundreds of threads in the chess and help forums posted by confused provisionals asking why their game isn't checkmate should be deleted. Of course this would never happen, despite people offering their advice on en passent, which is commenting on a game in progress, because otherwise the game would sit in that posit ...[text shortened]... m describing openings (see the 1.h4 and 1. g4 threads) deleted? Bit of a double standard here.
In one case, a player's only legal move was an en passent capture. He was told to look up the en passent rule. I would have been happier if he/she had been told nothing. If they couldn't figure it out on their own then they should have been timed out.
But, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the rule isn't always strictly adhered to is no reason to throw the rule out with the bath water. You might as well say that because some people have gotten away with engine use that we all should be able to use engines.