25 May 08
A tournament Arbiter has been in touch regarding the original thread.
(players getting outside help etc etc)
He came back stating;
Both players agreed it was CHECKMATE therefore the games WAS over.
What happened after that does not matter at all.
So it was all a load of fuss over nothing.
THE END
(though I will be making merry with that thread in my column - cheers)
25 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by greenpawn34I don't think you understand how things work here. Very often, the original issue is not what's important. Rather, the creation of the thread is what's important (fun). If the original issue is resolved, well, that's just a side benefit. 😉
A tournament Arbiter has been in touch regarding the original thread.
(players getting outside help etc etc)
He came back stating;
Both players agreed it was CHECKMATE therefore the games WAS over.
What happened after that does not matter at all.
So it was all a load of fuss over nothing.
THE END
(though I will be making merry with that thread in my column - cheers)
Edit - BTW, I'll try to check out your column. When do you think you'll post the writeup in your column for this subject?
25 May 08
Originally posted by greenpawn34That is part of my reaction to the original thread. I could imagine that instead of having the program automatically award checkmate, the player (who makes that move) has a 'claim checkmate' function, similar to the 'claim draw'. Perhaps an expert in the 'laws of chess' could give his opinion here.
A tournament Arbiter has been in touch regarding the original thread.
(players getting outside help etc etc)
He came back stating;
Both players agreed it was CHECKMATE therefore the games WAS over.
What happened after that does not matter at all.
So it was all a load of fuss over nothing.
THE END
(though I will be making merry with that thread in my column - cheers)
25 May 08
Originally posted by greenpawn34Wait... what, where, who? Either a position is mate or not. Can you give us some background here?
A tournament Arbiter has been in touch regarding the original thread.
(players getting outside help etc etc)
He came back stating;
Both players agreed it was CHECKMATE therefore the games WAS over.
What happened after that does not matter at all.
So it was all a load of fuss over nothing.
THE END
(though I will be making merry with that thread in my column - cheers)
Where was this game played?
Do you have a PGN?
P-
25 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2Claim Checkmate? This is strange.
That is part of my reaction to the original thread. I could imagine that instead of having the program automatically award checkmate, the player (who makes that move) has a 'claim checkmate' function, similar to the 'claim draw'. Perhaps an expert in the 'laws of chess' could give his opinion here.
What am I missing?
P-
25 May 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Mephisto2Because the rules are different there.
But you don't have problems with the claim draw button? This is strange.
Make a move, you're still in mate. That is an illegal move.
Why not just get rid of RHP and play by email?
"You had me in mate, but you didn't notice when I moved my Rook I was still in mate! Ha!"
When you make a move in a draw position, the move is still legal. The other guy should claim if he knows the rules. Now we're getting into checking each move to see if it's legal, slowing the game, making complete games with illegal moves if you think about it.
Big Difference here. Hope you realize it rather than trying to 'debate' the subject.
P-
25 May 08
Originally posted by greenpawn34This neatly answers the question as to what would happen in an OTB tournament but I was wondering what relevance this has to online correspondence. There are inevitably going to be elements of OTB play that cannot be emulated in online correspondence chess. Forfeiting a game if you're mobile phone goes off is the first one that springs to my mind and I expect there will be more than a few if we get to thinking about it....something you clearly haven't done.
A tournament Arbiter has been in touch regarding the original thread.
(players getting outside help etc etc)
He came back stating;
Both players agreed it was CHECKMATE therefore the games WAS over.
What happened after that does not matter at all.
So it was all a load of fuss over nothing.
THE END
(though I will be making merry with that thread in my column - cheers)
(BTW...where can I read your column as I expect that reading it might enliven a dull moment?)
25 May 08
Originally posted by PhlabibitI do realize what you are saying, and I appreciate the difference. I am not trying to debate just for the sake of it, I hope you do realise the fact that in drawn positions, like 3-fold repetition or 50-moves positions, the draw has to be claimed (despite the fact that the position is drawn, period). You can claim that in contrast with checkmate positions there is still a legal move to be made, but that is not valid in problems (that factor is often the key of the problem), but also the clock is running, and that too is part of the game. One could lose a game by time out, not realising that your opponent is checkmated. So, I am not 100% sure and that's why I would love to read the opinion of 'laws of chess' expets.
Because the rules are different there.
Make a move, you're still in mate. That is an illegal move.
Why not just get rid of RHP and play by email?
"You had me in mate, but you didn't notice when I moved my Rook I was still in mate! Ha!"
When you make a move in a draw position, the move is still legal. The other guy should claim if he knows th ...[text shortened]... Difference here. Hope you realize it rather than trying to 'debate' the subject.
P-
25 May 08
Hello Again
Yes it is an interesting thread and good fun.
I'll tell the world about it on Chandler Cornered by the end of the week. Have just posted some stuff about chess cigarette cards.
Need to let that get digested before I do another.
http://chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandler.php
Of course I shall embelish a little (a lot) - it's what people
have come to expect over the years.
(and you cannot sue me - I'm insane)
I'll plug this site - it's very good. Only discovered it by chance
when I looking for some 5 minute games.
Oh-nearly forgot. If you have played a good bad game.
Blunders and terrible games only then send it to me.
(you will see the stuff I like at the site)
email address attached to site.
If you are Scottish and I like it I'll publish it in Scottish Chess
Magazine and you get £15.00
Somebody posted something about being 15 or more points down.
A few games appeared but they were hammerings.
Has anybody been -15 points against and won by a cheap trick?
These are the games we like - proper chess.
25 May 08
Originally posted by greenpawn34I now feel sorry that I got involved in this thread.
Hello Again
Yes it is an interesting thread and good fun.
I'll tell the world about it on Chandler Cornered by the end of the week. Have just posted some stuff about chess cigarette cards.
Need to let that get digested before I do another.
http://chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandler.php
Of course I shall embelish a little (a lot) - it's what peopl ...[text shortened]... -15 points against and won by a cheap trick?
These are the games we like - proper chess.