Originally posted by AudioRaptureFor clarity, the site is refusing to change the rules [one quoted thread is two years old!]. However, the statement you made, "If you can't manage to win in the time you have, it's your own fault", just affirms the bad policy that the site has in place.
I am not refusing a rule change.
The result is possible under present rules here; if you don't like it petition to the site operator(s) to have the rules changed.
Simple as that.
At the 2 blitz sites I have played at, there are numerous bad sports who try to make you lose on time when they are down to a bare king.
Ask the site operators there ...[text shortened]... laying those types in the future.
I know blitz != CC, it was just an illustrative example.
When a site has knowingly left such a policy in place for years, the players can no longer be blamed for taking advantage of it. After all, to compete fairly in a tournament or other event, I need the same opportunity to score points as my opponents have. If they are allowed to win with a bare King, then so must I.
Those who feel slighted by losing to a bare king, if they follow your advice, have only the recourse of skipping all tournaments with 'offending' players in them. Small consolation for those who paid $$ so they could enter the tourneys in the first place.
In general, across all forms of chess, players who feel cheated by poorly conceived rules and/or bad sports have another recourse besides the one you mentioned: They can switch to a site like ICC that has better rules in place.
- Joined
- 07 Jun 05
- Moves
- 5301
Originally posted by SwissGambit(emphasis added)
Are you sure? From the link you provided, the ICCF rules begin with:1 Play and Control, except as otherwise defined in these rules or other ICCF rules.
1. Games shall be played [b]in accordance with the FIDE Laws of Chess
This indicates that the FIDE standards for drawn positions apply.[/b]Hiya Swiss
I pointed out the thread, as it has been discussed before.
The relevant link is:
http://www.iccf.com/rules/rules_050101_all_webserver.shtml
Rule 6e. "A competitor who has exceeded the time allowed shall forfeit the game."
No mention of material,
Equally 3b
"Where a player has not played a move in more than 40 days, the game will be scored as lost to that player by the Tournament Director, unless he/she has been advised of any special circumstances, and has agreed to a further delay.."
Fairly clear, fairly blunt. Don't move on time, and you lose.
Material, chance of forcing checkmate, with or without assisting opponent, are all missing from these rules.
So as defined in these rules overrides rule 1.
Originally posted by gezzaThat's why I was looking for an example of someone actually winning on time with a bare King in ICCF play. I honestly do not believe that they would enforce their own rule 6e) in this case - I think they would go by the FIDE one. I'll eat my words if someone can provide a counterexample from an actual ICCF game.
Hiya Swiss
I pointed out the thread, as it has been discussed before.
The relevant link is:
http://www.iccf.com/rules/rules_050101_all_webserver.shtml
Rule 6e. "A competitor who has exceeded the time allowed shall forfeit the game."
No mention of material,
Equally 3b
"Where a player has not played a move in more than 40 days, the game will be s ...[text shortened]... ponent, are all missing from these rules.
So as defined in these rules overrides rule 1.
Originally posted by SwissGambitFunny thing is - the same rules *do* apply to you! Therefore, it is fair. You may not agree with the rules, and that is your right.
When a site has knowingly left such a policy in place for years, the players can no longer be blamed for taking advantage of it. After all, to compete fairly in a tournament or other event, I need the same opportunity to score points as my opponents have. If they are allowed to win with a bare King, then so must I.
Time controls are the most controversial topic in chess. Even with a "better set of rules", you still need to manage the time you have.
It always hurts to lose based on a technicality. Just ask Nigel Short losing due to his cell phone going off just recently (and it wasn't even an incoming call - it was a low battery warning).
Personally, either option is just fine with me. I might have have a stronger opinion if I considered this site anything else but "for fun" - I don't, though.
To extend this a bit - I was in a tourney against a player who got banned for engine use after our games were finished, but before the next round started. The next round started without either of us. I made the argument that I should take the banned player's place. Answer? It was "too hard" to make all the adjustments resulting from banning a player.
If this was a FIDE tourney with prize money involved I'd be relentless. Since it's RHP I just shrugged and moved on.
To say it in other words: Why so serious?
Originally posted by AudioRaptureFunny thing is - the same rules *do* apply to you! Therefore, it is fair. You may not agree with the rules, and that is your right.
Funny thing is - the same rules *do* apply to you! Therefore, it is fair. You may not agree with the rules, and that is your right.
Time controls are the most controversial topic in chess. Even with a "better set of rules", you still need to manage the time you have.
It always hurts to lose based on a technicality. Just ask Nigel Short losing due to ...[text shortened]... e it's RHP I just shrugged and moved on.
To say it in other words: Why so serious?
In one breath you claim they [the bare King flaggers] are all playing fairly; in another, you call them 'poor sports'. Which is it?
It always hurts to lose based on a technicality. Just ask Nigel Short losing due to his cell phone going off just recently (and it wasn't even an incoming call - it was a low battery warning).
Painful, but the result is justified, unlike winning with a bare King.
To say it in other words: Why so serious?
Why not? I've invested 17 years in playing chess. For me, it is not just a casual game.
1 edit
Originally posted by AudioRaptureOn the contrary, we were just getting to the good part of the discussion. We were contrasting timeout rules with other rules like cell phone bans, etc. This stuff had just been brought into the discussion.
Both.
And the horse is quite dead.
Look, if you don't want to continue the discussion, that's fine. But own up to it instead of wrongly accusing me for 'beating a dead horse' when there was still life in the debate.