A Question of Honor

Immanuel Kant had a profound sense of morals and ethics.

Re: Comment #242

Ah, schlecter. How wedded we humans are to the defense of our own points of view. So much so that sometimes we can deliberately misunderstand. So for clarity: at no time did I suggest that you suggested to your opponent that he resign while the game was in progress. My point is that you should keep your word before, during, and after the game. My point is that one should not at any time, in any forum, disparage opponents who avail themselves of the latitude that the rules of fair play afford all players because it doesn't suit one's convenience. These are the rules that make the game possible, and that we live by. If you don't like them, call for a rule change. But in that case, don't hate the player, hate the game.

Now, IMO, this discussion is pretty moot, because the rules that govern these matters are very unlikely to change. So if you still hold that it is proper to complain about players who don't resign when you think they should, well, you're entitled to your opinion. But I think that opinion is wrong, and I've said so, and I've said why, so I think I'm done here. (We'll let slide that stuff about "sometimes deliberatley misunderstanding" what is meant be "the stronger side".) Never been to Estonia, but i hear it's nice.

I usually resign if its a tourny match... whether its here on chess.com or OTB. But.. if its with a friend or a student ..no. With the friend its that most relish the fact they are beating me and enjoy playing and beating me till checkmate. If its a student... many need end game practice anyway.

For me.. I actually don't want my opponent to resign... even in totally lost positions... i enjoy taking the game to a final conclusion especially if its been a really hard match. Kinda like frosting on the cake.

Lets not fight, I have said my opinion, and you yours, and we are not going to change them.

You could always be the man who will fight for your honour:

i always hate it when people play on with a lone king against three queens. i think it is time to resign as a lone king cannot survive against a queen let alone three queens.

Chess is a mirror of life. Grace is not what we can face in every meeting, lol.

Of course, incomparable to the matter of this forum are the cases of unfairness.

Stopping to write down the moves when you are still obliged to do so, is relatively harmless, but not when you continue to do so for several moves.

Worse is making noise in order to scare or distract the opponent, like hammering the clock, moving the body a lot, sniffing and caughing repeatedly, when it is the opponents move. Unfortunately common misbehavior, although still sometimes not intentionally, when you are in time trouble, or you are nervous and caught a cold ...

Eating a sandwich, or worse, opening a  package of cookies in front of the thinking opponent, I never do.

These cases are still incomparable to loud talk next to the board, or even discussion about the game.

Or the worst, and apparently happening more often now, using of an engine during the OTB game.

Many of the people in my country do not appreciate it either.

But again, you started this whole imbroglio...by intimating that we of the USA somehow lack the moral fibre which you privileged European types have somehow inherited (from your long-standing traditions of same, presumably).

I was simply attempting to point out that this was perhaps a bit of a delusion on your part.  Anyway, next time you rear back to "defend" yourself, kindly remember who fired the first salvo.  Okay?

US americans are told every day by their parlamentary members, that their country is the best in the world. (It is some sort of ritual.)

In Europe, few politicians only say that about their own country.

---

If you recognize this difference you can laugh about the sensitivity of some of your countrymen when they face citicism (here: it is about something so little as chess ...).

Was laughing at the European chess clubs' morals and history the first salvo?

typical tactics of the one caught guilty: deflection from the subject.

bloody history of Europe is not related to chess.

Besides, american history is shorter, and therefore (and only therefore) less bloody.

Not everyone appreciates questions of honor.

Nope, claiming to have such a privileged moral history was the first salvo.

And assuming the mantle of imperious psychologist is yet another all-too-common tactic.

I'm getting the impression Schlecter55 does comment from a perspective of strong morals compared to certain individuals in this thread, of course that's just my opinion.  

AndyClifton aside from making a generalization about European virtues while insulting them as a whole, it almost seems like you're claiming some knowledge on the subject of virtues; is that the case?

I was talking ONLY about chess. And even in chess, I NEVER claimed a moral superiority .

Can you not admit that in one tiny thing US americans are behind ?

The shorter tradition lead to a lack of behavior of SOME players.

My claim is confirmed to the least by my own limited witness -

two years in the american province -

but by some funny posts written exclusively by your countrymen.

I know you didn't claim moral superiority.  

Thanks for clarifying .

Anytime Schlechter55, it's always a breath of fresh air to speak with a person who values morality.

My fault a little! However...

Do believe chess is a noble-contest undertaken between two individuals which should be conducted peacefully.

Has been around for a long time. Ages before cultural-differences had any meaning or relavence. No benefit to be had by modernising it with text-speak or bs. That's just dissing the game itself.

Honour amongst thieves always applies too of course! :)