request for fair games

Originally posted by YUG0slav
1600....uh try 1200 and below maybe...

Come on - are you telling me you are so good that no one above 1200 can fall for a well thought out trap or pin?

Try reading "The 10 Most Common Chess Mistakes .. and how to avoid them" by Larry Evans.

There are 218 documented IM and GM games in the book that missed 1 or 2 move game winning opportunities (or at the least big material gains), including BIG mistakes by Kasparov, karpov etc....

Also recently didn't Kramnik miss a 1 move mate against the latest incarnation of Fritz?

Also, Kasparov would take on most players in the world (at his best) and take away a bishop or kight from his opening board setup and still win because, his quote "Its just one less piece for me to develop".

Almost every move a person makes after the opening is probably theoretically not the best you can make if enough time is spent analysing the position, especially from 1600 or below players.

Are you claiming that if you got a knight up against a 2000+ player on this site, they should quit?

Sometimes thought, i'll admit, is can be good to just quit in an attempt to try and get back on a winning run.

Your post is about as useful as another thread stating Kasparov has been arrested.

Originally posted by elady
😉

The whole idea of cc chess is you play at the pace you want to.
Accept it.

It can be irritating, but if you are convinced you have the win, whats the problem waiting for it?
Its cc chess.

It seems to be the non-subscribers complaining about slow play.
I think its more rude to play 100's of free games and complain about aspects of the site rather than subscribing and suddenly the problem goes away.

About fair play... look at this game I played
Game 3333639
It's a 1/0 game, he timed me out about 6 minutes after 1 day had passed, just one move from checkmate (I was a couple of pawns behind, but fought to this forced mate).
I know the site offers the possibility and sure, I shouldn't play 1/0 games if I might be too late to move one time, but in a situation like this... any thoughts on this 'fair play'?

Originally posted by davaniel
About fair play... look at this game I played
Game 3333639
It's a 1/0 game, he timed me out about 6 minutes after 1 day had passed, just one move from checkmate (I was a couple of pawns behind, but fought to this forced mate).
I know the site offers the possibility and sure, I shouldn't play 1/0 games if I might be too late to move one time, but in a situation like this... any thoughts on this 'fair play'?

Yes.
In tournament play when the clock reaches 0 you loose, that is the rule of the game.

CC has rules too, time rules, if you enter a game you don't have the time for, you should be timed out.

Additionally vacation settings have been recently improved to protect you if you have unexpected time away from the game.

Originally posted by ih8sens

The point is, a lost position is lost, sure there's always a chance of a comeback, but it's unlikely. I don't remember the last time a grandmaster played 'till mate. There's a reason for that.[/b]

Actually, World Champion Kramnik was mated by Deep Fritz recently. But that's not really a fair example because it was a once in a lifetime blunder, missing a mate in one in a perfectly sound position.

I think the reason grandmasters resign more readily is because they're playing opponents good enough always to finish off a won position (excepting once in a lifetime blunders, and who has the energy to defend every lost position just to save a game once in a lifetime?).

I don't feel we need to take our example from the grandmasters in this respect. Whether you should resign depends partly on your playing strength. When two players rated 1000 or so play each other then I suspect a comeback from a piece or more down isn't that unusual. There's nothing dishonourable about that - if the opponent can't finish you off from a piece up, he/she doesn't deserve the point. So it seems perfectly reasonable to me not to resign when a piece down. When the opponents are both rated 2000, it's a different story - at that level if you're a piece down without compensation, you probably ought to give in, because your chances are negligible.

Sometimes I resign a 95% lost position, because I can't be bothered to defend a game for a 5% chance of half a point. Personally, I think that's a character flaw, and maybe I should feel bad depriving my opponent of the good fight, but I never mind when someone resigns early against me, so I don't feel too bad about.

As for playing slowly when losing, I agree with those who say that you're entitled to use all the time on your clock, and to slow down when it's getting difficult if you're genuinely spending that extra time searching for a solution to your difficulties. But I'm sure some of my opponents (naming no names, because I'm never quite sure in specific cases) have played slowly when losing not because they're thinking any harder, but because they're dragging the game out just to defer the ratings hit. If so, I think that is very rude, and if it could be proved (which sadly I doubt it ever can) it ought to be against the rules.

Originally posted by d36366
Actually, World Champion Kramnik was mated by Deep Fritz recently. But that's not really a fair example because it was a once in a lifetime blunder, missing a mate in one in a perfectly sound position.

I think the reason grandmasters resign more readily is because they're playing opponents good enough always to finish off a won position (excepting once in ...[text shortened]... be proved (which sadly I doubt it ever can) it ought to be against the rules.

I agree with just about everything you say and thanks for a nice counter balanced opinion on the subject.

I have seen games when players are just waiting until the last possible moment to play to try and drag out the game indefinately and I agree that this is very rude but I don't know what you can do about it, so you have to accept it as part of cc chess.

I just think that someone positing that anyone who is rated at 1200 or below should resign when behind is very inappropriate.

I think you are right that GMs resign more readily becasue they are so evenly matched and make mistakes so infrequently that there is no point continuing.

But, the book I quoted shows many tournament games that GM players quit (or missed) when they had one move oppotunities available to them that would have changed the game in their favour.

Personally I have found over the years that if a player is within 300 points of my own (above me), I have about a 1 in 7 chance of getting back into the game (if I really make extra effort), which is something I often do not want to do.

And I do agree about the 2000 rated players being a piece down against an equal opponent without compensation should probably resign.

Thats why I mentioned 1600 in my original post.

Quote: Savielly Tartakower
- "The mistakes are all there, waiting to be made"

Also, it's quite a skill to learn to try and play for stalemate, even though I'm personally not good at it and don't try it often.

I admit that you have a lot of good points. But this IS correspondence chess. Even at lower levels, there aren't that many blunders. I understand if your 200 points above your opponent you might try to claw back into the game, but if your ratings are equal and your down a rook with no compensation, I find it unusual if not immature not to resign. Yah you might fluke your way into an extra 2 rating points with a draw, but it won't happen enough to be worth it in my mind.

Originally posted by ih8sens
I agree with you completely. It's correspondence chess people, you can't count on multiple stupid blunders to throw you back into a game. If your down a full piece with no compensation, I find it rude to not resign. Don't assume a blunder.

On the other hand, maybe we should just go member and this wouldn't be a problem.

If a player is absolutely lost and keeps on playing anyway then is perfectly allright and in accordance with the rules of the game. So my advice would be to mate him. then there is the grim possibility that he would resign just before you mate him.
Nobody is playing this game to loose and it is never pleasant to blunder badly and even though the guy keeps on truckin´:"Dont get irritated!!"just beat him 🙂
Dont let opponents influence you using the timelimits to the full. Just play Mate and you will be allright.
These were the advices of and old and faded Clubplayer.
Have a nice day mate.

It's annoying but what can you do?
I'm playing a tourni at the moment & a particular player keeps just going into his timebank then moving even though they regularly move in other games/have fewish G.I.P etc. Their sole purpose seems to be to drag out the 1st round of the tourni for as long as possible.
Not my cup of tea, but there ya go!
😕

Originally posted by hammster21
Game 3026177 If I would have resigned, I would have lost a ton of rating points that I didn't need to lose. Also, seeing this game makes me feel happier knowing i've never blundered such a winning position away. He must have been pissed.

Very interesting - your opponent could have played on here; first you'd have to nab that pawn but then you'd have to check mate with King, Knight and Bishop v's King.

It's the hardest checkmate to learn and takes about thirty moves with best play...so with perhaps just one slip up where his king gets out of your mating net and you'd get a draw by the 50 move rule. If he know this then surely he'd be double pissed.. 🙄.

Some people say not to bother learning it (King, Knight and Bishop v's King), as it's such a rare endgame - but it's good practice for co-ordinating knight bishop & king.

Originally posted by Schopenhauer
Hi, colleagues.

I don't know who will read this.
I observed that most players, when it is absolutely lost, play on nerves and play one move every three days, or every twelve hours if it is a fast game.
Let's go back to honour and against mediocracy. When you feel the wind ot unavoidable defeat, please accelerate the resign, and make another gair game. Many thanks.

I got annoyed the first time this happened to me but now I just use the opportunity to practice endgame technique...I've learned quite a lot just searching for the quickest route to checkmate.

Even at lower levels, there aren't that many blunders.

There is always the coming in after a few to many, feeling like a chess god and making the most beautiful moves only to wake up in the morning to discover you have a sore head and the moves were really quite ugly moves that you would not normally attempt to mate with.

Originally posted by Mahout
Very interesting - your opponent could have played on here; first you'd have to nab that pawn but then you'd have to check mate with King, Knight and Bishop v's King.

It's the hardest checkmate to learn and takes about thirty moves with best play...so with perhaps just one slip up where his king gets out of your mating net and you'd get a draw by the 50 ...[text shortened]... s such a rare endgame - but it's good practice for co-ordinating knight bishop & king.

I was looking forward to mating him with just knight and bishop, I was sad when he resigned because I started studying this mate in preparation for it, but he resigned.

Originally posted by hammster21
I was looking forward to mating him with just knight and bishop, I was sad when he resigned because I started studying this mate in preparation for it, but he resigned.

I'd be happy to take his end position in a set piece game - if you want to try it

Originally posted by Mahout
I'd be happy to take his end position in a set piece game - if you want to try it

no thanks. It'd take a long time being a non-sub, and I already played through it with chessmaster. thanks anyways.