1 edit
Originally posted by mcstankbootyDon't try to find an excuse for your unacceptable behaviour in the behaviour of random onlookers as a reaction to your incorrect behaviour. (edit: added the bold text)
Aren't you the guy that called me an imbecile and told me to shut up?
You have to ask yourself, are you really sure you are on the right side here? It's not always the others who are doing it wrong. Sometimes it's you yourself.
Consider it a learning point maybe? You might have learned something new about chess today - the perpetual check may be taken under every circumstance, so you'd better defend it in advance instead of allowing it and find yourself losing half a point.
No need for the attitudes. But those you get for free here in the forums.
:-)
Originally posted by schakuhrThank you for trying to have a conversation instead of treating me like I'm an idiot or an a-hole. I see what you're saying, and I still think it's cheap. No matter. I would still like to know the history of the rule, how it came up and what it was intended for. I suspect it's there more for situations where perpetual check is one of your only options--not a case like this where you have plenty of other options.
You don't quite seem to understand. It's not just that we don't agree with you. It's that the facts are against you.
The rule (threefold repetition = draw) exists because in this case for example, it is impossible for you to get out of perpetual check. He just keeps forcing you to move your king around. You can't do anything about it, and he does not ha ...[text shortened]... urnament, and some possibility of being banned for a year or so from tournament play.
As far as bullying goes, yeah, I see what you're saying. Except that it's impossible to be a bully when you're in the minority. Maybe snjortp just didn't want to deal with me anymore. Or maybe I said something that made sense to him. Either way, you guys are doing much more bullying right here than I did. I'm looking at YOU no1marauder.
Originally posted by heinzkatAgain, thank you for being fair. I'll take full responsibility for my own actions, but you have to agree it's hypocritical for the guy who spent the most time actually insulting me to turn me in for "vile behavior."
Don't try to find an excuse for your unacceptable behaviour in the behaviour of random onlookers.
You have to ask yourself, are you really sure you are on the right side here? It's not always the others who are doing it wrong. Sometimes it's you yourself.
Consider it a learning point maybe? You might have learned something new about ch ...[text shortened]... a point.
No need for the attitudes. But those you get for free here in the forums.
:-)
Originally posted by mcstankbootyThis is getting old...
Thank you for trying to have a conversation instead of treating me like I'm an idiot or an a-hole. I see what you're saying, and I still think it's cheap. No matter. I would still like to know the history of the rule, how it came up and what it was intended for. I suspect it's there more for situations where perpetual check is one of your only optio ...[text shortened]... ys are doing much more bullying right here than I did. I'm looking at YOU no1marauder.
perpetual check is a draw. the rule does not state that you can play a perpetual check only if this is your only legal move.
Sorry to sound patronizing, but what is so hard to understand about the fact that unless you're fine with a draw, you need to defend against the possibility of perpetual check (and stalemate, and 3 folds repetition, and 50-moves with no pawns movements and no captures)? If you don't defend against it, than you are not winning, you are drawing the game.
Let me repeat it for you: you did not win the game against snjortp on the board. On the board, you just managed to get a draw. And not out of poor sportsmanship from your opponent, but out of poor playing from you - you could not defend against the perpetual, or failed to foresee it.
The reason why a lot of people are not taking very nicely your comments in the forum is that you seem to be proud of having abused another player into resigning a game that you could not otherwise manage to win.
Take care,
J34
4 edits
Sorry mcStan but I'm on the good guys side here.
You were clearly in the wrong.
Black was well within his rights to go for a perp and it was his only option.
You talked him into resigning. (which I find quite funny) however it is
not the done thing. Expect the Gods to declare this game a draw
(or they might even score it as a 0-1)
Was it this game that you blew. Game 4730516 that has given
you the hatred of all draws.
All I can say is chess will sometimes break your heart.
Best to shrug your shoulders and play another game.
And as for the Black player in this fiasco - you are far to nice a
person to be playing chess.
Thank you to both of you. I keep thinking I've seen and heard
everything about this game.
Well here's another tale to tell the boys in Bells. Cheers.
Originally posted by mcstankbootymcstankbooty: Maybe snjortp just didn't want to deal with me anymore.
Thank you for trying to have a conversation instead of treating me like I'm an idiot or an a-hole. I see what you're saying, and I still think it's cheap. No matter. I would still like to know the history of the rule, how it came up and what it was intended for. I suspect it's there more for situations where perpetual check is one of your only optio ...[text shortened]... ys are doing much more bullying right here than I did. I'm looking at YOU no1marauder.
Your conduct was reprehensible and deserves sanctions. You, not snjortp, violated the rules of chess and the rules of RHP.
Originally posted by Joan34You know what, Joan: I get it. I get the rule. I get it.
This is getting old...
perpetual check is a draw. the rule does not state that you can play a perpetual check only if this is your only legal move.
Sorry to sound patronizing, but what is so hard to understand about the fact that unless you're fine with a draw, you need to defend against the possibility of perpetual check (and stalemate, and 3 folds re ...[text shortened]... player into resigning a game that you could not otherwise manage to win.
Take care,
J34
It is my OPINION that rushing to the perpetual check instead of taking any of the other options to try and win that he had at his disposal, was essentially giving up on a game that he had a fair chance of winning, and that is the VERY DEFINITION of bad sportsmanship. It is still my OPINION no matter how many people reiterate the rules to me. I understand why you don't agree with that but, really, pointing out the flaws in my playing (of which there are many) is not going to convince me that I am wrong.
You guys need to stop throwing the word "abuse" around. If no1marauder filed a complaint, let redhotpawn deal with me. I will defer to them. In the meantime, a heated argument is not by definition abusive. I will take the hit for calling him a coward, but beyond that everything I said was merely an argument, spurred by his initial comment.
I don't know where you see my being proud. I think that's just projecting and demonizing me, to be honest, and I think you guys rather enjoy getting all riled up about this kind of thing. But let's be fair, Joan, shall we?
Originally posted by greenpawn34Dude, that is hilarious. I have to give it to you for finding that!
Was it this game that you blew. Game 4730516 that has given
you the hatred of all draws.
You know, truthfully, I would simply have rather played the game out than had my time wasted. I'm sorry if the reasons I play chess differ from everyone elses. snjortp got me good in our other game, I think he could have had his heart more in this one.
Originally posted by mcstankbootyjust wondering... what is your opinion on timeouts???
You know what, Joan: I get it. I get the rule. I get it.
It is my OPINION that rushing to the perpetual check instead of taking any of the other options to try and win that he had at his disposal, was essentially giving up on a game that he had a fair chance of winning, and that is the VERY DEFINITION of bad sportsmanship. It is still my OPINION ...[text shortened]... r enjoy getting all riled up about this kind of thing. But let's be fair, Joan, shall we?
specially on a "lost" position?
Originally posted by hmgsPersonally, it depends on the game. I would much rather play out a good game even if I'm losing than take the time out win, unless the other player is very obviously not invested in the game.
just wondering... what is your opinion on timeouts???
specially on a "lost" position?