11049 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Irinasdaddy, you have a very unusual sense of "honor". There are so many who have criticized both your collusion and your decision to leave without resigning. You were wrong on both counts. Take the hint, admit your mistakes (your admission need not even be public!), and move on.
Irina'sdad, I would like to see that position which was completely even, both in material and position. Maybe your opponent saw something you did not see?
Your action could affect people playing their game at the time you made your demonstration. To see someone apparently break the rules and walk out of a game can be disconcerting to those who are still playing and trying to think.
Now do you see how your actions can affect the other players?
Come on, let's see the position where your opponent would not give you the draw?
Also, your post shows a confusion between collusion and "grandmaster draws", which is worrying. If the players say beforehand "Let's play a short draw", that's collusion. Even saying those words is illegal, regardless of what happens later in the game.
On the other hand a GM saying "I would be happy with a draw" to a journalist before the game is allowed. This means you intend to fight for at most a draw against best play by the opponent. "Let's play a short draw" means that you want to pre-arrange the outcome of the game.
In your case, saying "Let's agree to draw if a third party loses so that we share first place" is an offer the fix the outcome of the game and the tournament! This is most definitely collusion, and it matters not how drawish your position over the board turned out to be.
Ponz, this wasn't a 1-day tournament. This was a one round a week club tournament that took place in a public building with people coming and going. Yes, there was a separate room only for the tournament, but it's not like I threw the board across the room. If me leaving affected anybody, that's their issue, not mine. At the time I had no game going on to my right (that was the game being watched), and to my left was the end of the table.Also, you're asking me to find a chess move book from 2008. If I find it I'll happily post the position for all to see. r_k, I think you probably just need to quit this thread, because you're obviously not reading English properly. I already said that it was the equivalent of me giving this guy the finger, I also said that he deserved it. There's nothing warped at all about a sense of honor coming from "If you promise something, deliver on that promise".
Ahh, chess, never a dull moment! Between this and the near fistfight with the guy who cheated while the TD was watching that I posted about a while ago, I guess I get the lion's share of the drama.
Well, let's get this straight. If it is a match between two people, then I'm pretty sure they're allowed to agree to a draw before the game. But if any tournament, I'm pretty sure that is against the rules.
cutting a deal with him before the game is tantamount to cheating and maybe he honestly thought he had a winning chance. An even position to you could be an opprtunity to him
Irinasdaddy, it's you who still can't join the dots. You somehow believe your opponent is honor bound to uphold his agreement to cheat. And you punish his "dishonorable" behaviour by breaking the rules yet again. Your two wrongs don't make a right.
That's like saying "If you don't rob the bank with me as agreed, I'll kill your pet greyhound and leave his carcass in your bed." That you subscribe to this thieve's honor is a slight on your character, not my comprehension.
Just in case you missed the point again, your opponent is honor bound not to cheat. He ended up doing the right thing. You committed wrong after wrong and still believe you were the honorable one.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three do.
One of you here needs to re-evaluate your definition of 'honor' :) You shouldn't be talking about such, really, if you went against it in the first place.
LOL Sven, my last losses were in 1 minute games. People lose on time in 1 minute games, you know. Oh, and I feel obliged to point out to you that you were looking for the word 'loser' there, not looser. Brush up on that grammar and spelling of yours before you start questioning others, bud.
Once again, it's you who fails to comprehend simple English, your pride and twisted sense of justice without context or consequence blinding you. If either of us were down a piece, for example, the deal would have obviously been off. We had made that clear to each other. The deal was only for even games. Also, I may not be an expert-level player, but being able to run up to the top table in the final round of my group means I'm probably decent at evaluating positions from both sides of the board.
My english is for sure better than your german.
True, and if we were conversing in German, you'd have a legitimate complaint. However, we aren't conversing in German, now are we?
I also find some irony in a person with an online rating of 2000, but a tactics rating of only 1500 (where a computer can't help as much) accusing me of having faults.
If the top 2 players already won enough games, then I don't see how it changes anything. Irinasdaddy made some outside agreement, which has no bearing on the game itself. He still lost. There is no need to connect this person's behavior with the game itself.
I don't see how you can make an agreement where the position has to be equal. At which move are you going to assess equality? Was there an agreement that at move 30 both players would work towards a draw? Were both players just pushing pieces around in a "draw" dance?
"the only way anyone could catch us would be if one other player won and we drew"
So, it sounds like you want one person to win not draw. You wanted someone to catch "up"? I am assuming you mean you and your opponent had maybe 3 wins each and one other person may have had 2.5. If so, you walked out because you didn't get the win but your opponent did? While playing were you both informed that any other players who could "catch" (up?) did not win therefore making a draw more necessary to fulfill your agreement? If you weren't informed, then it's possible someone won. Would you have preferred having 3 people at the top? Why not talk to the opponent of the 3rd person?
It's interesting how someone comes onto a forum to talk about a game they played with prearranged agreements not in the rules of chess.
Another problem is the agreement on the prearrangement was vague.
To agree to a draw if a 3rd person lost and if the position was equal?
Maybe at the point you wanted a draw your opponent did not think the position was equal--then he would have every right even under your shady agreement to continue playing for a win.
Maybe he thought that he had just the slightest of edges and wanted to play for a win? And in fact, he did beat you.
Just because you declare the position was equal does not mean your opponent has to agree with you. Apparently he did not agree with you and , if so, he did not even violate your so called agreement with him.
Who do you think looked bad by walking out as you did? You or your opponent?
Assuming the position was really equal despite the final outcome, which I would not bet on coming from a U1750...
r_k_king's point, that you seem to misunderstand, is that although "honor" or whatever commands you to hold your word, it also commands you not to pre-agree to a draw (not talking about official rules here). You just cannot rely on "thieves honor" to hold the word to break a rule, and act like you were unfairly betrayed afterwards. The "deal" has not been respected, but it wasn't proper to make in the first place, so you could expect that someone who agrees to that deal could break it.
Personal uninteresting note : I am currently playing the last game in a group of a chess 960 tournament. I am first place in the group if I win or draw and second if I lose, so I am sure to qualify for the next round, whereas my opponent needs a draw at least to qualify. He offered me a draw at move 3 (without any explanation, but the meaning was clear). Even in a real tournament with money on the line I would consider that not in the spirit of chess.
12/5/2013 - Too Many Attackers, Too Little Defenders
by marmaladecat a few minutes ago
Anyone Played 1000 Games?
by ImNotaFish 4 minutes ago
Tactics Trainer encourages blitz, not growth
by ModularGroupGamma 5 minutes ago
Tactics training score/ live game elo?
by Scottrf 6 minutes ago
What makes c4 and c5 good??
by Or_theBashaKiller 9 minutes ago
Shogi, xiangqi, and other variants
by FromMuToYou 35 minutes ago
is this player better then Magnus
by dashkee94 44 minutes ago
a way to sign off for the night?
by AlCzervik 52 minutes ago
Winning coming from a pawn down Giri-Aronian
by LoekBergman 56 minutes ago
Anand: An Embarrassing Performance
by JTLindskogHageman 63 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!