Originally posted by SwissGambitjeezz.. he forgot a huge part of that equation. 😞
Oh dudes, dudes! You're like sooooo NOT supposed to give advice on games in progress. 😞
Game 5784675
Originally posted by JakalYou've got to be kidding me. In order to have a p.1460 rating while winning all his game he basically has to play opponents rated 1060!!! How could you possibly win all those games against 1060 opponents and not know this???
I agree with sh76. A person with a 17-0-1 record should know the answer to this question. Something smells fishy.
That said, to the OP do this exercise.
1. You have the black pieces. Place a white king on a board, and then a black king so that the white king can move to the fewest spots possible. You will quickly learn that The black king is along an edge and has 2 spots available to move to. If he's standing on a white square, those are both dark squares and vice versa.
2. Place the bishop so that it gives mate. Clearly this cannot be done since giving check allows the king to walk to a square of opposite color which the bishop cannot attack and placing the bishop to deprive the king of those squares leaves the king unchecked and thus in stalemate.
I think we should all stop whining. Stop thinking everything is fishy and most of everything stop searching for games that match a general question.
I've got several endgames going on. Some of them are rook endings. If I would ask questions about rook endings in the forum, or if I would study rook-endings in general now, would that be helping my games? YES. Would it be getting assistense of a third party. Well.. in some way yes.
Would it be prohibited? No, offcourse not!
Even if the TOS could be read in such a way, I am sure it is not meant to prevent studying. If playing correspondence chess stops the ability to learn. Then we are really getting much to serious about this.
Originally posted by Dragon FireI disagree. Saying it is impossible to win with insufficient material is not against the TOS, you can get the same information in the FAQ!! If however he had asked whether K+B+p v's K was winnable, the answer would be yes. If someone gave a variation, that would be assistance. Giving moves is against the TOS, not a general question which has no position to comment on. If the site wants to discourage people asking ANY question then insufficient material should be automatically detected and a draw automatically assigned to the game. Seeing as that's not the case then i see no problem with this question...
Agreed, especially as this is not K & B vs K so by saying mate cannot be had advice that may affect the course of this game has been given.
The correct thing for white to do now having been given assistance would be to offer a draw or nobally resign.
Originally posted by CummingsThe point is that he didn't. Instead he asked a third party for advice.
The guy could have just looked this up in any 'learn to play chess' book anyway.
What next... people come on here asking what opening moves they should play for games in progress and we justify giving them advice by saying "they could have just looked it up anyway"....
Books are allowed. But "third party" assistance is not. That's the rules, not an opinion.
Originally posted by Cummingsresearching chess material is allowed, asking a third party to provide you the solution to a specific chess problem you are currently trying to solve in a game is not.
The guy could have just looked this up in any 'learn to play chess' book anyway. Calm down.
how hard can it be to understand?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Yes, that line underscores what is actually happening: That advice is being solicited for a game in progress. In the absence of the line it is a general question. That line, however - To save me chasing around the board all day - is a solicitation for help with a game in progress.
Originally posted by randolphmost beginners probably don't realize it's against the rules. I think a reminder of that and a locked thread should be enough.
This guy should be forum banned the next time he tries this kind of deception. We can't look through all of someone's active games to check if they're asking about a GIP.