Lack of Good Manners on RHP

Originally posted by wsossin
Here's an example and I wonder where it lies on the spectrum. Playing a game with timebank only; my opponent has a forced mate in three, but only a few hours left. I can choose strange moves so he cannot use the conditional or queued move; is this ethical? In the end I managed to get him to timeout, but felt bad and decided to offer a draw instead of taking the skull.

I'm not sure how to calculate the formula there. Perhaps a draw suits both players, but maybe you should have just resigned (ethically) since you were lost. Or do you get more ethic points for losing on time yourself?

Is it ethical to study opening theory and prepare for an opponent who doesn't read books? Which openings are ethical? Are unsound gambits ethical? Is it ethical to capture en passant against someone who doesn't know about it? Is it ethical to decline a draw in an even position? I never had so many moral decisions to make, playing any other game.

I think this thread is going bananas.

Just play chess to win and don't break the rules!!!


****EDIT wsossin, this is not directed at you. Please don't take offense. It was more of a statement about where this thread is going next.

you can draw the line at everything is acceptable as long as its within the rules, you can draw it at the other end of the spectrum and draw it where every player acts with the utmost integrity or you can draw it at any point inbetween. The only certain thing is not everyone will agree with where the line is drawn

Originally posted by st40
The only certain thing is not everyone will agree with where the line is drawn

I'm not sure about that.

😉

Originally posted by wsossin
Here's an example and I wonder where it lies on the spectrum. Playing a game with timebank only; my opponent has a forced mate in three, but only a few hours left. I can choose strange moves so he cannot use the conditional or queued move; is this ethical? In the end I managed to get him to timeout, but felt bad and decided to offer a draw instead of taking the skull.

Good example. Here's the skinny. Within RHP rules you did what you had to do to win. Now, if you were playing a professional match there would have not been any conditional or queued moves. Whether what you did was "ethical", well, it does not matter. You played within the rules of the particular chess match you were playing. Another example. I play a lot of personal OTB chess matches with the "touch move rule". If my opponent touches that piece he will move it, or lose.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Your last sentence says all that needs to be said about manners in chess.

Posted by the Duchess.

"In professional golf, players are expected to call penalties against themselves."

And Snooker. How many times have seen a player declare a fault against
himself through an unseen touch of the ball.
It's fairly common.

But that is not professional chess, nor is it any kind of chess.

I think we have to face and accept the fact that we are all social misfits.
Having established that I think we can now all get along with each other....
......or not as the case maybe.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Posted by the Duchess.
But that is not professional chess, nor is it any kind of chess.
.

But that does not mean it can't change.

Top professional tennis behaviour used to be exemplified by McEnroe, Connors and Nastase. It is now exemplified by Federer, Djokovic and Nadal.

The quality of play today is better, and the behaviour miles better.

The problem I have with some posts is that they assume, if it cannot be established in all circumstances what is good manners, then good manners as a concept has no relevance. This cannot be allowed to stand.

Is it good manners to give up your seat on a bus to a 90 year old man? Yes.

What about 80? 70? 60? 50? 40? 30? 20?

I can't tell you when it is no longer a matter of good manners to give up your seat. But I don't leap from this to arguing that therefore I never need to give up my seat.

So, no, just playing within the rules is not enough.

Originally posted by wsossin
Here's an example and I wonder where it lies on the spectrum. Playing a game with timebank only; my opponent has a forced mate in three, but only a few hours left. I can choose strange moves so he cannot use the conditional or queued move; is this ethical? In the end I managed to get him to timeout, but felt bad and decided to offer a draw instead of taking the skull.

You've answered your own question. You felt bad, which suggests in your own mind it was unethical. Now you've come clean in the forums too. You may well be the first reformed character in this thread... perhaps even in RHP history.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
But that does not mean it can't change.

Top professional tennis behaviour used to be exemplified by McEnroe, Connors and Nastase. It is now exemplified by Federer, Djokovic and Nadal.

The quality of play today is better, and the behaviour miles better.

The problem I have with some posts is that they assume, if it cannot be established in all ...[text shortened]... fore I never need to give up my seat.

So, no, just playing within the rules is not enough.

I think always playing within the rules is a good start toward good manners. For I believe you will find some good manners included within the rules. More good manner rules could be added, if seen to be desirable. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think always playing within the rules is a good start toward good manners. For I believe you will find some good manners included within the rules. More good manner rules could be added, if seen to be desirable. 😏

Well, as I have said on this thread before, if you enforce good manners through the rules, then to some degree they stop being part of good manners.

The next thing you will be suggesting is we should all follow a set of rules prescribed by an ancient text as a yardstick for what is moral behaviour.

And then where would we be?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Well, as I have said on this thread before, if you enforce good manners through the rules, then to some degree they stop being part of good manners.

The next thing you will be suggesting is we should all follow a set of rules prescribed by an ancient text as a yardstick for what is moral behaviour.

And then where would we be?

We would be in good shape then. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Well, she is winning, So who cares?

Last word on this, and I will then seek appropriate counselling.

My issue is only with the posters who claimed that all behaviour within the rules of a game is, by definition, acceptable.

We find ourselves in the final game of the first round of a competition on RHP where none of the next rounds can take place before this is completed.



Black offers a draw, as no win can be forced (I hope this is true), which means that White will be eliminated, and Black go through instead, and White refuses on the basis that Black should resign given the material advantage that White has managed to gain. Black naturally refuses.

So White decides to 'teach Black a lesson' and continues to play, circulating the K and B around the board carefully avoiding the 3 fold repetition and moving a pawn forward as necessary to avoid the 50 move rule.

Questions:

1) How many moves could White drag this out for within the rules of RHP (don't quote any FIDE rules unless these are specifically referrred to in the rules of RHP)?

2) How long would this take assuming a 3 day move timeout, with White playing as slowly as he/she can and Black as fast?

3) Are you still comfortable with the idea that everything within the rules is OK?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Last word on this, and I will then seek appropriate counselling.

My issue is only with the posters who claimed that all behaviour within the rules of a game is, by definition, acceptable.

We find ourselves in the final game of the first round of a competition on RHP where none of the next rounds can take place before this is completed.

[fen] s fast?

3) Are you still comfortable with the idea that everything within the rules is OK?

White could drag this out for roughly 51 moves [once he plays a6-a7, Black is quickly stalemated]. Edit: Oh, snap - white can sacrifice all the pawns on a7. Let's make that 15*51 = 765 moves.

This would take 2295 days - over 6 years - assuming black does not exercise the 'claim draw' option. [I have no idea if the claim would be successful. I don't know who grants it or what standards they use].

I'm thinking RHP better have a way to claim draws in such positions. 🙂