Originally posted by no1marauderNo1Marauder & McStan
Then don't read it. Problem solved.
I guess we should leave the issue now... 🙂 Things go wrong and we should learn a lesson or two from them and move on...
To ease up, let me ask a question: Why do Chinese people eat more rice than Japanese people?
Originally posted by mcstankbootyWell,since you so elgeantly ignore my post how about you show just 2 of those "tons of other options for the win"?Can't be too hard if there are tons,now can it?.
I'm sorry, did you just compare snjortp to Bobby Fisher? Because that's reaching a bit. Even if we weren't talking about our game in particular, let me use a sports analogy since those seem to go over well here: you're talking about, say, an intentional foul in a professional game where there's a great deal of money and who knows what else at stake t ...[text shortened]... r express that opinion. You all have been doing that throughout this whole forum.
Originally posted by mcstankbootyNo, the point is that taking a draw by perpetual check is an accepted way to avoid losing in chess. It has been for years and years. It is not considered unsportsmanlike, cowardly, or underhanded among the vast majority of serious players. The reasoning is obvious - everything is done above board and according to the rules.
I'm sorry, did you just compare snjortp to Bobby Fisher? Because that's reaching a bit. Even if we weren't talking about our game in particular, let me use a sports analogy since those seem to go over well here: you're talking about, say, an intentional foul in a professional game where there's a great deal of money and who knows what else at stake t ...[text shortened]... r express that opinion. You all have been doing that throughout this whole forum.
I see that you are continuing to call your opponent spineless without justification. You say that he still had chances to win - but fail to give any analysis to support that claim. That's because the position does not offer Black any winning chances. Any reasonably strong player can see that Black's ONLY chance in the final position is a perpetual check. White is up material and has an annoying mate threat on g7. If Black hesitates, White might fix the one thing that is wrong with his position - his exposed King - and win easily, or land a finishing blow of his own.
Sure, go ahead and have an opinion, but don't be surprised if you get little respect when that opinion shows ignorance, lack of logical support, and unfair condemnation of an opponent who did nothing at all unethical.
Originally posted by KatastroofDidn't mean to ignore it, I just felt like I'd addressed the first part a million times, and didn't feel qualified to answer the second.
Well,since you so elgeantly ignore my post how about you show just 2 of those "tons of other options for the win"?Can't be too hard if there are tons,now can it?.
As far as his options go, I believe he started to go for the forced draw at move 38. Instead of moving his queen, he might have moved his rook a8b8 or moved his king toward my pawn. Or instead of perpetual check, why not eradicate my pawns and try to get one of his across?
Originally posted by SwissGambitLook, you make a fair point, and I didn't mean to come back so hard against your Bobby Fisher post. Thing is, I know it's an accepted way to avoid losing. Knowing that, in this case, because it happened so early, I still think it was cheap. That's my opinion. I agree that the actual rules were adhered to, but as far as the spirit of that rule, I think it's meant to judge closer calls way later in the game. That's my opinion, I'm obviously in the minority, all those things have been established. The real mistake I made was talking to snjortp like he was a guy playing a casual game in my house amongst a bunch of people who are simply coming at this from a different point of view--which, you have to admit, some of you guys take way too seriously.
No, the point is that taking a draw by perpetual check is an accepted way to avoid losing in chess. It has been for years and years. It is not considered unsportsmanlike, cowardly, or underhanded among the vast majority of serious players. The reasoning is obvious - everything is done above board and according to the rules.
I see that you are continui ...[text shortened]... of logical support, and unfair condemnation of an opponent who did nothing at all unethical.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderUnder that definition, how is "You're an imbecile. And a poor sport. Shut up and play rather than bothering your opponent with your nonsensical ideas about how they should play." NOT harassment?
From Merriam-Webster:
Harass - 1 a: exhaust, fatigue b (1): to annoy persistently (2): [b]to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
You sent three in-game messages that were abusive. And you even concede your opponent resigned so he wouldn't have to deal with any more of your crap. Case closed.[/b]
Look, I think the truth is that for some reason I got under your skin and you flew off the handle way more than anybody else in this forum. You know what, dude? You're a blowhard. I don't think you care about this stuff at all, I think you're just looking for a fight. Or worse, picking a fight so that you can run and tell the teacher or whatever it is you say you're going to do. You need to calm down. Let's just say that you're a douche and I'm a douche and call it a night. Because I'm tired and bored. And I may stop by here tomorrow to watch you huff and puff a little more, but I won't be responding to you any more.
1 edit
Originally posted by mcstankbootyI dunno...when I hear you label your opponent "dishonorable", "spineless", "joker", "coward", etc. I can't help but wonder if you also take the game way too seriously.
Look, you make a fair point, and I didn't mean to come back so hard against your Bobby Fisher post. Thing is, I know it's an accepted way to avoid losing. Knowing that, in this case, because it happened so early, I still think it was cheap. That's my opinion. I agree that the actual rules were adhered to, but as far as the spirit of that rule, I thi ifferent point of view--which, you have to admit, some of you guys take way too seriously.
Perhaps you were just joking around or talking smack for fun, but if I had been in your opponent's place and I didn't already know you, it would sound very hostile to me.
7 edits
Originally posted by KatastroofSeconded. Getting win by harassing opponent, making him resign is one of the most dirtily kind of unsportsmanlike behavior. If I would be site admin I would ban such dirty players. Have send feedback about mcstankbooty and asking everyone to do the same.
A game of chess has 3 possible results: win,draw,lose.In this game you,mcstankbooty,were better in material but failed to prevent your opponent giving perpetual checks,therefore the result was a draw.By harassing your opponent with messages you obtained a win instead.And you call him a bad sport??
I had an opponent once that thought I was playing slow in a 21/21 game. He harassed me, trying in an abusive manner to make me move quicker. After a few in game dialogue lines I put him on my ignore list. End of problem.
We all know there is an ignore list, don't we? We don't need to be harassed for long.
1 edit
A draw has nothing to do with poor sportsmanship unless it was agreed ahead of time. Your opponent can play as safely or aggressively as he wishes and it is up to you to prevent him from foiling your ambitions. For example, if a forced draw bothers you, do not allow the opportunity.
Originally posted by mcstankbootySo let me see if I understand this correctly. If, in mcstankyboot's opinion, his opponent has the opportunity to play on and try for a win but instead forces a draw he's an unsportsmanlike coward. But, if his opponent has a chance to play on and try for a win and instead gives up and resigns he's admirable. I can only logically assume that you judge your opponent's sportmanship based on whether you win or not. I personally have more respect for an opponent that hangs on by tooth and nail in a losing situation and pulls out a draw than I do for someone who prematurely resigns.
In his defense, snortjp resigned as I was posting that, which I think is admirable.
2 edits
It is the responsibility of the player who believes he deserves to win (based on whatever criteria he uses to judge that), to protect themselves against a forced draw. If they cannot, then they do not, in fact, deserve to win.
It is, indeed, completely unacceptable, if not just plainly absurd, to demand of your opponent that they resign in a position where they are able to achieve a better result than the one you believe they "deserve".
If the situation feels wrong, then, if anything, don't blame the player, blame the game. 🙂
If this was truly deemed to be against the spirit of the game, the rules would surely be changed such that the player attempting to force the draw would not be able to do so.
Originally posted by ram1977Because, as of now at least, the Japanese economy is stronger than the Chinese economy (not for long, perhaps, but as of now). I know the Chinese economy has been experiencing double digit annual growth for a long time now, but it had so long to go that it hasn't caught the Japanese economy yet (though it might one day not too far into the future).
To ease up, let me ask a question: Why do Chinese people eat more rice than Japanese people?[/b]
Therefore, as rice costs less than other Asian food staples, such as fish, Chinese people would naturally eat more of it.