Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 20 Feb '14 19:45 / 1 edit
    Views differ on the need for etiquette, and indeed what good etiquette is. Some people (bad, bad people) think that any behaviour within the rules is acceptable.

    Others compare us to other chess websites. But come on. Surely, at RHP, we stand for something nobler? Will we not rise above the base and vulgar?

    Others seem to revel in the bad manners of others.

    So I wondered whether it would be possible to establish an RHP etiquette which would set the standard for other sites to follow.

    To see if this is possible, please post statements which you think amount to good RHP chess etiquette. If you agree with the statement, post a thumbs up. If you disagree, post a thumbs down.
  2. 20 Feb '14 19:47
    You should send a message at the beginning of each game, just to say hello or some other friendly greeting.
  3. Standard member RBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    20 Feb '14 20:18
    How about resigning when you're 38+ points in pieces count behind.
  4. 20 Feb '14 20:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    How about resigning when you're 38+ points in pieces count behind.
    Let's rephrase this.

    You should not drag out a game that you know is lost simply to annoy your opponent or protect your rating.
  5. 20 Feb '14 20:43
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    Let's rephrase this.

    You should not drag out a game that you know is lost simply to annoy your opponent or protect your rating.
    I don't understand what's annoying about that. Losing is annoying. When I'm losing, I usually resign and move on to something less annoying.

    Winning, however slowly, is not annoying.
  6. 20 Feb '14 21:06 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by aquatabby
    I don't understand what's annoying about that. Losing is annoying. When I'm losing, I usually resign and move on to something less annoying.

    Winning, however slowly, is not annoying.
    Yes, but some people do find it annoying. So the question is whether dragging on a game for this sole purpose is bad etiquette.
  7. Standard member RBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    20 Feb '14 21:12
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    Let's rephrase this.

    You should not drag out a game that you know is lost simply to annoy your opponent or protect your rating.
    In bullet or blitz chess I can understand! But in correspondence chess when you have a bunch of other games going and you keep dragging on a lost game??
  8. 20 Feb '14 21:21
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    Yes, but some people do find it annoying. So the question is whether dragging on a game for this sole purpose is bad etiquette.
    I understand the question.

    The answer is quite simple : No.
  9. 20 Feb '14 21:22
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    In bullet or blitz chess I can understand! But in correspondence chess when you have a bunch of other games going and you keep dragging on a lost game??
    I think we should bear in mind greenpawn34's comment, which I have never forgotten, that some people may genuinely think it is correct to allow you to mate them. I can even imagine someone thinking 'I wish this bugger would hurry up and finish me off, I am getting bored!' It is, after all, the point of the game.

    The reason for having an established etiquette is to help avoid these type of misunderstandings.
  10. 20 Feb '14 21:26
    Originally posted by aquatabby
    I understand the question.

    The answer is quite simple : No.
    You don't think somebody doing something simply to annoy you is bad etiquette?

    I struggle with that one, I have to say.
  11. Standard member RBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    20 Feb '14 22:11
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    I think we should bear in mind greenpawn34's comment, which I have never forgotten, that some people may genuinely think it is correct to allow you to mate them. I can even imagine someone thinking 'I wish this bugger would hurry up and finish me off, I am getting bored!' It is, after all, the point of the game.

    The reason for having an established etiquette is to help avoid these type of misunderstandings.
    I would love to disagree with that one. The worst is resigning with one move left from mate what's the point? I could understand being mated by GM, like in a simul because you right out the game. I could see only doing mating if it's less than 30 moves.
  12. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    20 Feb '14 22:49
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    Views differ on the need for etiquette, and indeed what good etiquette is. Some people (bad, bad people) think that any behaviour within the rules is acceptable.

    Others compare us to other chess websites. But come on. Surely, at RHP, we stand for something nobler? Will we not rise above the base and vulgar?

    Others seem to revel in the bad man ...[text shortened]... uette. If you agree with the statement, post a thumbs up. If you disagree, post a thumbs down.
    OK ... so standardized etiquette.

    Trying to bring together all these viewpoints:

    1. You should not just time people out automatically, because they may have a good reason for not moving.
    2. You should time all people out automatically, because that keeps playing conditions fair, and heads off feuds over whether we should have taken a skull or not.
    3. You should resign when you think you are losing.
    4. You should not resign because you'll deprive the opponent of a chance to execute a spiffy checkmate.
    5. You should not move when you on vacation because that means you are unfairly protected from timeout, and your opponent is not.
    6. You should be allowed to move on vacation because the opponent wants the game to keep going if possible. No one likes waiting weeks for a move.
  13. Standard member atticus2
    Frustrate the Bad
    20 Feb '14 23:17
    All etiquette (ie politeness and civility between human equals) can be explained by Kant's Categorical Imperative. This states that you should behave towards others as if you would have that behaviour universalised.

    So, roughly speaking, you should behave towards others as you would have them behave towards you.

    For example: I'm currently finishing a game that has been dragging along since last June. I've been a piece up since August. My opponent has no timebank left (14 days); and moves once every seven days. The tournament has long since been completed apart from this game.

    I could be excused for feeling annoyed. But I'm not. My opponent has violated no rule; and I signed up willingly to a slow 7-14 tourney. My tough luck. Do I think he should resign? Of course - he is lost beyond redemption. But do I tell him to resign? Of course, I do not. Is my opponent guilty of poor etiquette? I guess he is in some way. But etiquette doesn't trump the rules.

    So we play on, slowly and quietly. It'll be all over in a month or so. And yes, I would wish patience to be universalised
  14. 20 Feb '14 23:19
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    OK ... so standardized etiquette.

    Trying to bring together all these viewpoints:

    1. You should not just time people out automatically, because they may have a good reason for not moving.
    2. You should time all people out automatically, because that keeps playing conditions fair, and heads off feuds over whether we should have taken a skull or not. ...[text shortened]... se the opponent wants the game to keep going if possible. No one likes waiting weeks for a move.
    I don't think I need to bring these viewpoints together. I am not claiming that every situation has a clear and simple answer.
  15. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    20 Feb '14 23:36
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    I don't think I need to bring these viewpoints together. I am not claiming that every situation has a clear and simple answer.
    Those were the 3 most contentious I could think of. Perhaps the goal is not to fix an issue of importance.