Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

A couple questions on chess etiquette


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #21

    TonyH

    how can you lose that? once your under 5 min you can stop notating unless its a delay clock when you should never lose. if you just run your rook around and block checks it should be fine as long as you have a minute left. if you had 10 seconds left it would depends on what you want to do. I also believe you can claim no winning chances in a sd game and demand a delay clock... depends on the federation rules.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #22

    browni3141

    Scottrf wrote:
    makarewicz wrote:

       Everyone has their story. Mine is, this guy had no chess ettiquete at tall.

    It was a standard 30minute game. Were down to RK vs his RK That was it. He kept checking and I just moved my rook around to block him. This went on for 30-40 moves. Then my clock ran out and he claimed the win. What a bastard.

    Nothing wrong with that IMO, good strategy, you should have tried to force move repetition.

    It's pretty idiotic IMO. Winning in a completely dead position just because your opponent can't move his pieces fast enough. I don't understand how people think this is okay. It would be unacceptable OTB right?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #23

    Scottrf

    browni3141 wrote:
    Scottrf wrote:
    makarewicz wrote:

       Everyone has their story. Mine is, this guy had no chess ettiquete at tall.

    It was a standard 30minute game. Were down to RK vs his RK That was it. He kept checking and I just moved my rook around to block him. This went on for 30-40 moves. Then my clock ran out and he claimed the win. What a bastard.

    Nothing wrong with that IMO, good strategy, you should have tried to force move repetition.

    It's pretty idiotic IMO. Winning in a completely dead position just because your opponent can't move his pieces fast enough. I don't understand how people think this is okay. It would be unacceptable OTB right?

    Well, that's why I don't like speed chess. But if you sign up to speed chess I'm not sure how you can complain.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #24

    browni3141

    I just realized if it's bullet there might not be much you can do. There might not even be enough time on the clock to offer a draw, but he said it was a 30 minute game, so there was probably plenty of time on the clock, but then if there was plenty of time on the clock, why did he lose?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #25

    TonyH

    well depends i would flag someone in the US open since 1st place is like 10k :D but if it was a casual game probably not. 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #26

    iused

    I don't think there is anything wrong with playing on, especially for such short games. As for the time shorting, your opponent was probably experiencing lag. 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #27

    DavidStyles

    makarewicz wrote:

       Everyone has their story. Mine is, this guy had no chess ettiquete at tall.

    It was a standard 30minute game. Were down to RK vs his RK That was it. He kept checking and I just moved my rook around to block him. This went on for 30-40 moves. Then my clock ran out and he claimed the win. What a bastard.

    I've done similar to that, the other way around (ie, I was in the position of the bastard of whom you speak - in fact, I went and checked my game archive just now to verify that I wasn't THE bastard).

    It was a 30|0 game, and by move 65 we were down to Kings and a Rook each. I, however, had about 20 minutes left on my clock whereas he had about ten.

    Since I had outplayed him thus far (come to an equal position but taken half the time to do it), why not play for the win?

    And while technically K+R vs K+R is a dead draw, chess itself probably is too. There was a decent chance of either of us slipping up and permitting a mate.


    I was playing for a win; he was playing for a draw. So my task was more difficult than his, since I had to keep moving quickly while avoiding repeated positions and simultaneously watching out for a mate threat (or even a pin or skewer, since either of those would result in an automatic draw by insufficient material).

    So he had three things to worry about: checkmate, the clock, and hanging his Rook.

    I had seven things to worry about: checkmate, the clock, repeated positions, pins, skewers, hanging my Rook, and the fifty move rule.

     Somehow the 50 move rule seems to have failed to apply, since since the game went on to 151 moves. By the time the game ended, I won on time, with 2 seconds left on my clock, and 0 on his.

    Although I'd started the final showdown with 20 minutes and he with 10, as I say, my task was more difficult than his, so the rate of play changed; previously I was quicker; now he was.

    I won, on time, by two seconds, after 59 minutes 58 seconds of rapid play; 30 minutes of this being nothing but King and Rook moves.

    He said "gg" and challenged me to a rematch.

    (I politely declined, sent him an "Exhausting Game" trophy, and explained I had to get my son up now)

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #28

    EdwardT2

    In all these cases of poor chess etiquette, may I suggest

    Points on chess.com do not generally earn you any real life advantage (no money, no food, no happiness*)

    If the position is so obviously a draw (or a win or a loss), then it should not be taking up much of your time or effort to continue to play - if it is requiring you to make an effort, your opponent is of course going to try and achieve his aim (draw or win!)

    Your actions were completely appropriate - play the game out. Don't play him again.

    * if your happiness is dependent on your points on chess.com - please stop reading this thread and immediately seek therapy

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #29

    helltank

    browni3141 wrote:
    Scottrf wrote:
    makarewicz wrote:

       Everyone has their story. Mine is, this guy had no chess ettiquete at tall.

    It was a standard 30minute game. Were down to RK vs his RK That was it. He kept checking and I just moved my rook around to block him. This went on for 30-40 moves. Then my clock ran out and he claimed the win. What a bastard.

    Nothing wrong with that IMO, good strategy, you should have tried to force move repetition.

    It's pretty idiotic IMO. Winning in a completely dead position just because your opponent can't move his pieces fast enough. I don't understand how people think this is okay. It would be unacceptable OTB right?

    Doesn't matter whether the other guy is idiotic, rude, or a bastard. The cold, hard fact is:he won. And that's all. 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #31

    browni3141

    helltank wrote:
    browni3141 wrote:
    Scottrf wrote:
    makarewicz wrote:

       Everyone has their story. Mine is, this guy had no chess ettiquete at tall.

    It was a standard 30minute game. Were down to RK vs his RK That was it. He kept checking and I just moved my rook around to block him. This went on for 30-40 moves. Then my clock ran out and he claimed the win. What a bastard.

    Nothing wrong with that IMO, good strategy, you should have tried to force move repetition.

    It's pretty idiotic IMO. Winning in a completely dead position just because your opponent can't move his pieces fast enough. I don't understand how people think this is okay. It would be unacceptable OTB right?

    Doesn't matter whether the other guy is idiotic, rude, or a bastard. The cold, hard fact is:he won. And that's all. 

    What value is there in such a win? The only thing it will do is alienate other players. I suppose it doesn't matter most of the time when there are always more and the only reason you play chess is to win by any means necessary.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #32

    AnthonyCG

    Some people value sportsmanship over winning a board game.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MIF5QOaRGE

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #33

    electricpawn

    This topic keeps resurfacing like a drowned witch. The only reason for this is that someone, usually the OP, has had what he thinks is a won game and can't believe their opponent is rude enough to continue to resist. Go clean that streaking mascara off your face, and finnish the game, Sally! 

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #34

    Kaw-Liga

    Resigning in a 3 to 5 minute game?! absolutely, no! time is such a major part of these games that very often the fastest player wins. And one should never care about the opponent: if one wishes to play on, for whatever reason, play on. Still, why play on when there's lots of time left and one would almost certainly wind up loosing? If, then because of "almost".

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #35

    Estragon

    ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:

    *yawn*

    Sorry, Oz - I told them to keep it down.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #36

    waffllemaster

    DavidStyles wrote:

    . . .


     Somehow the 50 move rule seems to have failed to apply, since since the game went on to 151 moves. By the time the game ended, I won on time, with 2 seconds left on my clock, and 0 on his.

    Although I'd started the final showdown with 20 minutes and he with 10, as I say, my task was more difficult than his, so the rate of play changed; previously I was quicker; now he was.

    I won, on time, by two seconds, after 59 minutes 58 seconds of rapid play; 30 minutes of this being nothing but King and Rook moves.

    He said "gg" and challenged me to a rematch.

    (I politely declined, sent him an "Exhausting Game" trophy, and explained I had to get my son up now)

    Not only did you guys sit around for 30 MINUTES shuffling your kings and rooks around, it took you 30 MINUTES to play out 100 or so of these moves?

    If I had 20 minutes and was trying to clock someone, the game would have reached move 1200 before I ran out of time.  Similarly as your opponent, I would have been able to claim a draw on the five-hundred move rule.

    It's hard for me to even imagine a scene as inane as you just described.  If I was some sort of imaginary internet arbiter, I would have declared a double-loss, awarding each of you 0 points... not only for being stupid enough to do this to each other, but for racing the clock at the speed of a snail... unbelievable.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #37

    rickdaniels52

    i was playing a game in which there were only kings left the position was locked by pawns and my opponent tried to win on time  the chess.com computer would not apply the 50 move rule  (yes I went back and counted)fortunately i got a 3 rep and a draw

     time is a part of speed chess  but the points you get are empty cause didnt really play better chess   but you have to end the game somehow

    its a game

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #38

    Andrei9360

    depending on how strong my opponent is i avoid to resign if i believe i can achieve a draw by stalemate.

    if i lose the queen i try to keep all my pieces and pin/fork.

    if i lose a rook it's not such a big deal but if the overall positioning also looks bad for me i force queens exchange then all figures and try to walk in pawn or rook ending.

    [as i said, depeding on opponent] most average players dont even think that the opponent is forcing a stalemate and walk right into it.

    otherwise, resigning is a good way to save some time and move on.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #39

    waffllemaster

    I had one once where it was totally locked like that, and after a few non-moves I offered a draw.  He declined and tried to win on time.  He had ~30 seconds to my 15.  I managed to pull it off with less than a second left on my clock Laughing served him right.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #40

    Greenmtnboy

    electricpawn wrote:

    "This topic keeps resurfacing like a drowned witch. The only reason for this is that someone, usually the OP, has had what he thinks is a won game and can't believe their opponent is rude enough to continue to resist. Go clean that streaking mascara off your face, and finnish the game, Sally!"

     

     

    Actually I have never been bothered when my opponent does not resign in speed games;  it was more my unwillingness to do so, when down crushing material, so I was wondering if it were rude of me not to resign.  Heck, I have even won games where all I had was a king and a few scattered pawns and he/she had mate in one, but lost on time anyway!

    Funny thing about the game calling a game a draw when you have no "mating material".  But you *could* conceivably win with sole bishop or knight if it were helpmate, no?

     


Back to Top

Post your reply: