Is this considered "unethical" in Chess?
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Ehh, it's a little lame, but it's perfectly within your rights to exploit any resource on the board. Its fine.
Actually, I think that under FIDE if you're not attempting to win the game by normal means, an aribter can award a draw. I might be mistaken about that, but I'm almost positive I read that in the rules someplace.
From my limited experience, I would say that it is unlikely that this would occur for two minutes.
More likely, this is going to occur when one player is under severe time pressure, say with 20 seconds left. Then I could see being able to exploit the situation and try to win on time by a series of perpetual checks.
Personally, I feel like this a "cheap" win, but a legit one none the less. If I am in that position to pull that shtuff to gain a win, easy choice.
Cheers.
It's hard to determine exactly what you mean without seeing a diagram of the position.
If you are truly in a lost position you won't be able to repeatedly check their king (they'll be able to flee the checks).
If on the other hand you are able to keep on checking the opponent's king indefinitely, and he has no way of escaping, that's perpetual check...and is considered a draw.
daw55124 wrote:
Actually, I think that under FIDE if you're not attempting to win the game by normal means, an aribter can award a draw. I might be mistaken about that, but I'm almost positive I read that in the rules someplace.
This is indeed a FIDE rule.
It was in fact one of the rules that was given to me when I accepted a position in my local team to play rapidplay chess.
Playing that way may result in it being the first and last time you get to play your opponent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxeiGipoFSE
I think it's all part of the game.
Your opponent used more time, he could have avoided it by playing faster. And if you have all these checks he should have protected his king better.
In general I would not call it a loosing position when you can check your opponents king repeatedly and the opponent can't find a way out within the time he has got left.
If your opponent would have used less time, and protected his king, then you might not have gotten into this "loosing" position.
And if it makes you feel uncomfortable you can offer a draw, that is what I sometimes do (although it's extremely rare that I have more time left than my opponent, so I haven't had situations like this often).
Usually when you use mechanical chess clocks with no time increment, the game would be considered a draw by the arbiter. Because a "win-on-time" for the inferior side is not resulting from the nature of situation (where a forced repetition presents) but merely due to trick to consume the time of opponent pressing the clock after each move).
Unethical? It is outright dastardly!
daw55124 wrote:
Actually, I think that under FIDE if you're not attempting to win the game by normal means, an aribter can award a draw. I might be mistaken about that, but I'm almost positive I read that in the rules someplace.
I didn't know this, but this indeed appears to be a FIDE rule:
Article 10: Quickplay Finish
|
10.1 |
A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time. |
|
|
10.2 |
If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b) |
|
|
a. |
If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim. |
|
|
b. |
If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means. |
|
|
c. |
If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes time. |
|
|
d. |
The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to (a), (b) and (c). |
|
[COMMENT DELETED]
It is not unethical whereas its a part of a game,that is, you got to do something to escape lost.
RetGuvvie98 wrote:
it isn't clear from the OP that he is asking about 'over the board' chess in a tournament, or a casual game, or here, on chess.com .
this site does not observe all FIDE rules.
running out the clock without repeating the position 3 times, is a legitimate (although regarded as lame) method of obtaining a win in online chess.
regards,
He's asking about in a game of chess, not in an on-line game. Unless otherwise stated, I always assume that when speaking about chess people are talking about real play and not on-line.
RetGuvvie98 wrote:
this site does not observe all FIDE rules.
I imagine because in this case it would be v difficult to implement.
Very interesting.
naljassar wrote:
... and such that it will not force a draw.
You mean by avoiding threefold repetition? Because the repeated positions in this rule need not occur in succession, so repeatedly checking the king would probably end up in a draw anyway.
Source: twitter :) (follow Dan Heisman btw!)
danheisman Dan Heisman
Many think 3-fold repetition of position involves making the same moves or making the repetition consecutively but neither is true #chess
danheisman Dan Heisman
If the same position (statically & dynamically) is reached 3 times with the same player to move at any point, a draw can be claimed. #chess
This sounds as though it's likely a case where the insufficient losing chances should be applicable (pertpetual check used to run down the clock for the win should still result in a draw by arbitration according to this rule), however unfortunately due to practical limitations chess.com doesn't have this rule implemented in any way shape or form.
Is it technically within chess.com's rules? Yes. Does that mean that it's ethical? Not necessarily.
Also: The sky is blue.
daw55124 wrote:
RetGuvvie98 wrote:
it isn't clear from the OP that he is asking about 'over the board' chess in a tournament, or a casual game, or here, on chess.com .
this site does not observe all FIDE rules.
running out the clock without repeating the position 3 times, is a legitimate (although regarded as lame) method of obtaining a win in online chess.
regards,
He's asking about in a game of chess, not in an on-line game. Unless otherwise stated, I always assume that when speaking about chess people are talking about real play and not on-line.
Doesn't it make more sense to assume that they're likely talking about play on this site? I've found that when people are talking about OTB they tend to declare it.