Originally posted by paultopiaYou appear to be a first class jerk who is constantly in search of something to complain ("whine"😉 about, and you are further offended that the world doesn't sympathize with you when you illegally discuss ongoing games, slurring your opponent who most likely doesn't know you are here doing such a vulgar and discourteous thing.
I'm sorry, were you under the impression that whether you "shut the hell up" or not has any effect whatsoever on whether I am "let" do anything? You seem to have a bit of an inflated opinion of the pearls of banality that drool out of your mouth.
While your shutting the hell up would certainly be good for society, it makes no difference to my well-being.
There, now you've got something else to post your hypocritical and self-righteous indignation over.
I do NOT want anyone to comment on Game 714145 (at least not beyond the obvious fact that I'm an idiot 😀 ) but it should be pretty obvious that my move 21...Qa7 was a real blunder. Sure I could have resigned immediately, but why not play a little longer? As it happened, Butch messed up too. I announced mate in 6 following my move 30...Qf2+ and I am definitely not asking for advice here. At this point, he has no move choices to make (he will have one in a couple of moves where he can shorten or lengthen the moves-to-mate by one, though I assumed the longer path in my announcement). He could resign if he chooses, or he could, quite legitimately, make me demonstrate my claim. If he has any doubt at all or even if he is merely curious about the technique, then IMHO he should make me demonstrate the mate.
Blunders are a part of the game at our level. Even mistakes that don't qualify as obvious "blunders" have to be expected. If your standard is GM-level play and you resign as soon as you make a less-than-GM-level move, you're not going to get very far. I'm not by any means so stubborn that I never resign. I just think that there have to be allowances for different individuals and different criteria. Resign when you think it's appropriate and let the other person make his/her own decision.
Best Regards,
Paul
Originally posted by dpressnellDo you really believe the garbage that you write? You've added sheer invention and abuse of reality to your already liberal abuses of the English language, common sense and reason.
You appear to be a first class jerk who is constantly in search of something to complain ("whine"😉 about, and you are further offended that the world doesn't sympathize with you when you illegally discuss ongoing games, slurring your opponent who most likely doesn't know you are here doing such a vulgar and discourteous thing.
There, now you've got something else to post your hypocritical and self-righteous indignation over.
Lets talk about the facts behind your last post, huh?
- I'm not constantly in search of anything except the facts behind your nonsense opinions.
- The idea that I was in violation of the terms of service to "illegally discuss ongoing games" by asking a rhetorical question is probably the stupidest of the many stupid things you have said. The terms of service prohibit consulting a third party to "assist." Now, either you didn't read that before you called my conduct "illegal" (can you read?), or you're too stupid to know the difference between asking for assistance and making a sarcastic comment.
- Please look the word "vulgar" up in a dictionary.
- "slurring" implies the statement of untrue facts. Please indicate an untrue fact I've said.
- Please post to a link to a game when I've "hypocritically" failed to resign with a plainly visible crushing material disadvantage of 10 pawn-equivalent or more, as in the game I've posted. You can't. Do you know why? Because your charge of hypocrisy was as false and stupid as all your other charges.
- Do you even know what "self-righteous" means?
The utter crap that you produce in support of your hysterical rantings about "snobbishness" (another word you need to look up) would be funny, if it weren't so pitiful.
Originally posted by prnI presume you're referring to instances where players resign after, say, dropping a pawn.
I do [b]NOT want anyone to comment on Game 714145 (at least not beyond the obvious fact that I'm an idiot 😀 ) but it should be pretty obvious that my move 21...Qa7 was a real blunder. Sure I could have resigned immediately, but why not play a little longer? As it happened, Butch messed up too. I announced mate in 6 following my move 30...Qf2+ and I a ...[text shortened]... k it's appropriate and let the other person make his/her own decision.
Best Regards,
Paul
[/b]
But, I guess that's not the point the thread started with. In this case, it's up to your opponent to resign if he sees no escape or give you the courtesy of a mate. But should a player deliberately force you to wait days, maybe even weeks, for what should be clear (even to a 1100-rated player) as a clear defeat. Maybe if it's a 1100 vs. 1100 game, it might be worthwhile to see if you're opponent will end up stalemating you. Beyond a certain level, however, where's the gamesmanship in letting the carnage continue?
Paul, I don't think dpressnell said anything about violating terms of service. I did. I know that wasn't the spirit of your post, but you're being kind of a jerk and it is a way for someone to be kind of a jerk back to you. It is technically in violation of TOS, even though you didn't intend it that way.
I just did look up vulgar on dictionary.com. One of the definitions is "deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement." I believe that applies to someone who slurs people on the forums for not resigning on demand.
Dictionary.com says that to slur is "to talk about disparagingly or insultingly." There is no mention of falsity.
Self righteous is "piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic" (dictionary.com again.) I think this applies to you. You seem moralistic about when people "should" resign, and you seem convinced of your own righteousness with regards to this.
And to see that I opened a similar thread around...
No matter how bad your opponent's position is, it is his/her prerrogative to resign or not
Sounds cute and so true...
Sure, I have been up a whole queen in a King + Queen vs. King with mate in one and my opponent had only one square to move his king in a over the board game in tournament play (that is, he only had one legal move!). My opponent still had 45 minutes and I had 5 minutes left and yet he made me wait for those 45 minutes before resigning. Should I be upset at him or take it personally? Perhaps no but who could blame me for harvoring negative feelings? Was it really called for?
Now, in correspondence chess... What is the point of scheduling a vacation just before you are going to be checkmated? What is the point of dragging a game on when down materially (I mean a rook and a pawn...)? Sure, it is not against the rules but it sure verges with poor sportsmanship... Am I a crybaby for having this opinion? Then wah! wah! wah!
*"Should I be upset at him or take it personally?"
I would say it makes sense you would take it a little personally, but realize that he can do that and whining about it will accomplish nothing.
I think this situation is funny in an obnoxious way.
I would pick up the novel I bring to every chess tournament and sit back and start to read.
You are committed to being there, so what else were you going to do with that time?
Yeah, that's annoying and irritating, but I think it's a good idea to realize people that do that are griefers and are TRYING to piss you off.
Should you respect him? Maybe, maybe not, but if you did it would be because you thought what he was doing was funny, not because you respect him as a chess player. I look at this more as a situation of "he can do that, so if I throw a tantrum I just look pathetic and helpless in the face of this guy who's trying to give me a hard time."
"Now, in correspondence chess... What is the point of scheduling a vacation just before you are going to be checkmated?"
Does vacation keep you from claiming the win if he times out? If so, then this is a serious problem with the chess program, and of course people are going to abuse it. If not, what do you care if his little tag says "vacation"?
"What is the point of dragging a game on when down materially (I mean a rook and a pawn...)?"
I would keep playing if I were a Rook and a Pawn down. My opponent is human too, and he might blunder. If you don't like this reasoning, then the next time your opponent drops a Rook to you, don't take it, because it's unsportsmanlike to take advantage of blunders.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung"[...] the next time your opponent drops a Rook to you, don't take it, because it's unsportsmanlike to take advantage of blunders."
*"Should I be upset at him or take it personally?"
I would say it makes sense you would take it a little personally, but realize that he can do that and whining about it will accomplish nothing.
I think this situation is funny in an obnoxious way.
I would pick up the novel I bring to every chess tournament and sit back and start to read.
...[text shortened]... rops a Rook to you, don't take it, because it's unsportsmanlike to take advantage of blunders.
Now, that's something... When did I say that it is unsportmanlike to take advantage of blunders? WHEN? It is your prerrogative to keep on playing so let us not even discuss that anymore...
"[...] realize that he can do that and whining about it will accomplish nothing."
Right... I wanted to close all arguments and I accepted that it is the prerrogative of my opponent to resign or not but expressed my feelings about attitudes that verge on unsportsmanship...
"I would pick up the novel I bring to every chess tournament and sit back and start to read."
I believe that's against the rules but an accomplished TD can correct me if I am wrong...
A person may schedule a vacation just at that pint where he is about to be checkmated... Maybe I should not read into it but I find it entertaining...
*"When did I say that it is unsportmanlike to take advantage of blunders?"
I was assuming that when you said this:
*"What is the point of dragging a game on when down materially (I mean a rook and a pawn...)?"
you meant such a person was being unsportsmanlike and should resign. If you didn't mean that, I apologize.
*"Right... I wanted to close all arguments and I accepted that it is the prerrogative of my opponent to resign or not but expressed my feelings about attitudes that verge on unsportsmanship..."
You asked me if you should take it personally. "Taking it personally" can mean many things, including verbalizing your anger and throwing a tantrum.
*" believe that's against the rules"
Is it? I've never sat down to read at the table, but I have walked around chatting with other players. I thought the only thing you couldn't do was get help on the game. If I couldn't read a novel, it could be potentially irritating. I might go watch other games or have a conversation in the hall and check back every minute or so.
The point is is that taking it personally is useless and starts stupid drama demonstrations that accomplish nothing because the person starting the drama is helpless to change anything if his opponent is insistent on not moving.
*"A person may schedule a vacation just at that pint where he is about to be checkmated... Maybe I should not read into it but I find it entertaining..."
Can't you force the win even if the other guy has the vacation icon if his timebank runs out?
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat I'm really saying is that I am perfectly satisfied to let everyone make their own decisions on when they should or should not resign. I agree that it would be unsportsmanlike to simply stall and begin to take the maximum time just to string out a lost game, but if the person wants to take as much thinking time as he is allowed, well, that's the rule and he/she is entitled to use it. There's no profit in getting all worked up and losing one's self-control over the other person's choice of how to use their time. And if they happen to want to see your technique when they are way behind, well, who am I to say they shouldn't be allowed to see what you can do.
I presume you're referring to instances where players resign after, say, dropping a pawn.
... it's up to your opponent to resign if he sees no escape ... But should a player deliberately force you to wait days, maybe even weeks, for what should be clear (even to a 1100-rated player) as a clear defeat.
Best Regards,
Paul
Originally posted by AThousandYoung" You asked me if you should take it personally. "Taking it personally" can mean many things, including verbalizing your anger and throwing a tantrum. "
*"When did I say that it is unsportmanlike to take advantage of blunders?"
I was assuming that when you said this:
*"What is the point of dragging a game on when down materially (I mean a rook and a pawn...)?"
you meant such a person was being unsportsmanlike and should resign. If you didn't mean that, I apologize.
*"Right... I want ...[text shortened]...
Can't you force the win even if the other guy has the vacation icon if his timebank runs out?
Taking something personally doesn't mean that one has to act on it so please don't extrapolate... I never, EVER, implied or said that here! But, since it came up: Normally I will remain quiet and deal with the matter. I just finish off my opponent and move on with life. Of course, after the game that person will just be another 'chess player' for me and I will not even entertain a post-mortem with him/her ("Sorry, I need to get something to eat before the next round... Maybe later..."😉 That's it! No demonstrations! Just a cordial treatment towards my opponent...
" *" believe that's against the rules" "
Reading printed materials during a rated chess game is illegal to the best of my knowledge. I was asking if there is anyone that directs tournaments here or that has an official rules book to substantiate this. I think you can't read anything during a rated game...
Originally posted by AlopintoIt would be ridiculous to say someone at RHP can't read printed materials during a rated game as that would mean we could NEVER read a chess book or article since pretty much everybody ALWAYS has some rated games going. Besides the TOS explicitly allows it: Chess books and databases can be consulted during play (TOS paragraph 3). So your conclusion is incorrect.
Reading printed materials during a rated chess game is illegal to the best of my knowledge. I was asking if there is anyone that directs tournaments here or that has an official rules book to substantiate this. I think you can't read anything during a rated game...
Originally posted by no1marauderI believe he's referring to reading a novel in the middle of a rated OTB game. 🙂
It would be ridiculous to say someone at RHP can't read printed materials during a rated game as that would mean we could NEVER read a chess book or article since pretty much everybody ALWAYS has some rated games going. Besides the TOS explicitly allows it: Chess books and databases can be consulted during play (TOS paragraph 3). So your conclusion is incorrect.
Originally posted by no1marauderI was talking about over the board games... If it was not clear from the thread or the original posting I apologize...
It would be ridiculous to say someone at RHP can't read printed materials during a rated game as that would mean we could NEVER read a chess book or article since pretty much everybody ALWAYS has some rated games going. Besides the TOS explicitly allows it: Chess books and databases can be consulted during play (TOS paragraph 3). So your conclusion is incorrect.