Originally posted by black beetleIt is non sequitur because I never said: A) The players should be banned; or B) USCF rules were binding on this site. In fact, I specifically said that I think the penalty should be tournament forfeiture. And I said this regarding B:
"Non sequitur" and nonsense!
What I just said, which you found it "non sequitur", is exactly what you meant when you quoted at the third page of this page the following opnion of yours:
"Those players should be ashamed of themselves. Such conduct is condemned in the USCF Code of Ethics at 5(c):
Deliberately failing to play at one's best in a g ...[text shortened]... rs should be forfeited from the tournament, and not get banned for good from this site?
No claim was made that USCF rules were binding here. A claim was made that making short draws for the sole purpose of making it easier for certain players to advance was wrong and that people who did it should be ashamed of themselves. Tournaments here are supposed to be about chess competition, not gamesmanship. In support of my stand, I cited the USCF rule which doesn't merely say that the practice condemned here is "against the rules" but that it is "Unethical and unsporting" AND "a violation of the moral principles of the game".
So your post was a non sequitur i.e. 2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non+sequitur
Originally posted by no1marauderEither you like it or not, making short draws over here, at RHP, in tournament and non-tournament games alike, has to do solely with the wish of both chessplayers that are enjoying a game. And, as long as it is not against the rules of the site, at least not for the time being, and as it was definately not against the rules by the time you posted your above mentioned quote, you have not the right to state that these players "should be ashamed". They should not be ashamed, for they did nothing against the rules.
It is non sequitur because I never said: A) The players should be banned; or B) USCF rules were binding on this site. In fact, I specifically said that I think the penalty should be tournament forfeiture. And I said this regarding B:
[b]No claim was made that USCF rules were binding here. A claim was made that making short draws for t ...[text shortened]...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non+sequitur[/b]
To cut a long story short, nothing gives you the right or the permission to walk inside somebody elses life with your dirty boots. And spare me the "non sequitur" ...seminar plus the rest big time BS regarding sportmanship, which BTW is quite OK for OTB in your country and probably elsewhere but quite out of order for the time being at the specific RHP CC tournament😵
Originally posted by black beetleYes, there's nothing quite as enjoyable in chess as a 4-6 move draw.
Either you like it or not, making short draws over here, at RHP, in tournament and non-tournament games alike, has to do solely with the wish of both chessplayers that are enjoying a game. And, as long as it is not against the rules of the site, at least not for the time being, and as it was definately not against the rules by the time you posted your a ...[text shortened]... ably elsewhere but quite out of order for the time being at the specific RHP CC tournament😵
I'll say what I please. Quite frankly, it never occurred to me that some people would be so bereft of the knowledge of chess etiquette as to think that what these players did was hunky dory. Live and learn; some people just are completely clueless as to what this game is all about.
1 edit
Originally posted by murrowWhy?
from Group 77:
Game 5840587
Game 5840547
Originally posted by black beetle
This is definately unethical😵
This gives User 94756 a better chance of qualifying as the 2 players ahead of him have each dropped 4 points whilst he has dropped none.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe draws were not prearranged. I am sure they played 4 moves then decided a draw was in their best interests. There is nothing unethical or unsporting in that when it is clearly not against the rules.
BTW, F.I.D.E has a similar rule:
10 (e) Where it is clear games have been pre-arranged, the CA shall impose penalties.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/organisation/fide/fide-tournament-rules_apr07.htm
If you want to change the rules to say
"Thy shall not agree to a draw before move 10 / 20 / 30 [delete inapplicable] on penalty of death / flogging / forfeiture [delete inapplicable]."
then by all means propose this amendment to the TOS.
2 edits
Originally posted by Dragon FireYeah, right. "Where it is clear games have been pre-arranged, the CA shall impose penalties."
The draws were not prearranged. I am sure they played 4 moves then decided a draw was in their best interests. There is nothing unethical or unsporting in that when it is clearly not against the rules.
If you want to change the rules to say
"Thy shall not agree to a draw before move 10 / 20 / 30 [delete inapplicable] on penalty of death / flogging / forfeiture [delete inapplicable]."
then by all means propose this amendment to the TOS.
It's clear to everybody including you.
BTW, is "sandbagging" A) Against the TOS
B) Unethical
Originally posted by Dragon FireThe party line. But earlier you said it was "good tournament strategy" for the two higher rated players and in your next post you say "it's in their best interest". Did you and Billy Voltaire agree to non-competitive draws in the second round of the Firmus to help out the third rated player in your section?🙄
Why?
This gives User 94756 a better chance of qualifying as the 2 players ahead of him have each dropped 4 points whilst he has dropped none.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo of course not, I agreed the draws because I had too many games on the go.
The party line. But earlier you said it was "good tournament strategy" for the two higher rated players and in your next post you say "it's in their best interest". Did you and Billy Voltaire agree to non-competitive draws in the second round of the Firmus to help out the third rated player in your section?🙄
In doing this we clearly were both under pressure not to drop any points against the 3rd highest player which gives him some advantage as we have to win both games at all costs.
This is a correspondence site and I go only play so many games before the standard of play deceases dramatically. To have too many games increases the risk of time outs and inferior play so when this situation arises it makes perfect strategic sense to draw a few if possible. The only players I am likely to be able to do this with are going to be players reasonably close to me in rating. There is nothing unsporting or unethical about this.
As you can only have 6 games on the go you can't perhaps appreciate how difficult it can be to have say 20 - 30 games in progress and suddenly be hit with 18 more. There is a need to reduce the load as quickly as possible.
3 edits
Originally posted by Dragon FireYour pathetic dishonesty is noted.
No of course not, I agreed the draws because [b]I had too many games on the go.
In doing this we clearly were both under pressure not to drop any points against the 3rd highest player which gives him some advantage as we have to win both games at all costs.
This is a correspondence site and I go only play so many games before the standard of pl ss and suddenly be hit with 18 more. There is a need to reduce the load as quickly as possible.[/b]
From page 6: DF: In my opinion good tournament strategy for the 2 strongest players.
Your last paragraph is another disingenuous, dishonest remark. You are perfectly aware that I've been a non-subscriber for all of about 3 weeks.
BTW, the Firmus "hit" you with 6 more games, not 18. And you seemed able to squeeze in the 4 against the lower rated players just fine.
Originally posted by Dragon FireDon't join tournaments if you're not prepared for the game load. They do have a warning about that on the page where you enter a tournament.
As you can only have 6 games on the go you can't perhaps appreciate how difficult it can be to have say 20 - 30 games in progress and suddenly be hit with 18 more. There is a need to reduce the load as quickly as possible.
Originally posted by zakkwylderThe trouble is you don't know when the 2nd and subsequent round games will hit you. It is these that cause the problem. I am still in tournaments that started 2 years ago and could suddenly be hit with extra games.
Don't join tournaments if you're not prepared for the game load. They do have a warning about that on the page where you enter a tournament.
When that happens you need to do something. Agreeing a few quick draws is one solution.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd immediately above your post I stated "To have too many games increases the risk of time outs and inferior play so when this situation arises it makes perfect strategic sense" but perhaps my statement "for the 2 strongest players" was slightly incorrect when I really mean 2 equally matched players (they just happened to be the strongest on this occasion).
Your pathetic dishonesty is noted.
From page 6: DF: In my opinion good tournament strategy for the 2 strongest players.
Your last paragraph is another disingenuous, dishonest remark. You are perfectly aware that I've been a non-subscriber for all of about 3 weeks.
BTW, the Firmus "hit" you with 6 more games, not 18. And you seemed able to squeeze in the 4 against the lower rated players just fine.
The whole point is the intention was purely to reduce the game load and whilst it is true the Firmus was only 6 games this happened in November 2006, 2 weeks prior to me going to Las Vegas to get married, when I knew I would be out of circulation for that period followed by Christmas then 2 weeks cruising the Carribbean on honeymoon. There was in fact no prearrangement here, I simply offered 2 draws.
It was much easier (time wise) to manage the games against weaker opponents which I thought would be faster and finish quicker so whereas I did not have time for some of the hard ones I did have time for the "easy" ones.
I also try and limit the number of games I have in progress against players over about 2000 for hopefully very logical reasons (but I will spell it out for you T - I - M - E).
I am sorry that you think trying to manage time is unsporting and unethical but I have so far managed successfully to avoid a single time out in 1000 + games and sometimes agreeing short draws is a prerequisite for this.
Originally posted by Dragon FireYou're about as believable as Carterson.
And immediately above your post I stated "To have too many games increases the risk of time outs and inferior play so when this situation arises it makes [b]perfect strategic sense" but perhaps my statement "for the 2 strongest players" was slightly incorrect when I really mean 2 equally matched players (they just happened to be the strongest on this ...[text shortened]... le time out in 1000 + games and sometimes agreeing short draws is a prerequisite for this.[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderWhether "this" is "quite enjoyable" or not is irrelevant.
Yes, there's nothing quite as enjoyable in chess as a 4-6 move draw.
I'll say what I please. Quite frankly, it never occurred to me that some people would be so bereft of the knowledge of chess etiquette as to think that what these players did was hunky dory. Live and learn; some people just are completely clueless as to what this game is all about.
You are free to say whatever you please -but expect not to say nonsence and to be regarded as Habermas and counting. The chess etiquette is applied whenever it has to be applied, and the rules you mentioned are applied from the organizations you mentioned for the players that they play under the auspices of those organizations.
Keep up preaching now about "what the game is all about" and enjoy your delusion that your attitude has to do solely with the "right" and the "wrong". Dualism is the ultimate dope afrerall😵