Ethical Chess (Bughouse Topic)

While playing Bughouse on random, I'm matched with a player at about my own skill level (~1300), against a team who are ~1100 and 480. 

I know the exact 480 because it was my opponent's rating.

When I play with or against someone in the ~1100 range, ain't no big thing.

But playing against someone who has a 480 rating... it's just jacked for me to NOT say something.

And so I remind my opponent: "Those pieces to the side of your board, you can drag and drop them onto the board."

My opponent says: "I know, I forget."

About the same time, I drop a free queen... could have been taken. I was freaking out, because this could have screwed my team member had either of our opponents been much better or seen this glaring mistake.

I don't lose the queen, but, upon the next move, not taking mercy, but because it was the right thing to do, I say:

"After my next move, drop a piece to protect your King."

When you're in this kind of situation, such as in my ranting range against someone in the ~2000 range... it's no fun to just get crushed into oblivion.

On the other hand, I also understand the game. You can't ask someone to dumb themselves down. I didn't dumb myself down. I just took the time, and made a mistake, and then decided to help the other player (my opponent), rather than worry about the loss of a whole 16 points with having nothing (0) to gain.

While Chess IS a "sport," and Bughouse is even more a sport than standard chess since you play on a team... sometimes that "competitive" spirt doesn't matter. (Like putting-in 3rd-string players when you're up by enough points that you're going to win. You give your opponent the experience, and you allow your secondary or tertiary players who might not usually have the chance to play to gain experience and develop.)

While I'm a bit of a trash talker and take my beatings when I can't live-up-to my words... here it is for you big-shots who crush people and then laugh about it or start resigning games because you don't want to play. Here's your reason for playing and helping others outside of exercising your own ego muscles. If it's so easy for you, do what I do at my lowly rating and help those of lower rating come along instead of resign games because it's no fun.

<thumbs up/>

I find myself agreeing with a lot of your post. I have realised, from my own experiences of trying to help new bughouse players, that a lot of the players on this website are not really interested in improving.

I have been involved in so many games where one of the players involved gets checkmated very quickly due to completely ignoring the threats made against them and playing weak moves like h6 to chase knights away. Not to mention that there are also some cases where I find myself asking my partner if they know how to drop a piece on to the board.

I started my bughouse blog to help those who are new to bughouse but there was an assumption that I had made. I thought that people would want to be proactive and selfmotivated.

The truth is that those who do want to impove have already done so. These are players who have quickly learnt from their own games and have improved rapidly.

Then there are those who view playing bughouse in the same way that they would playstation and xbox games. People play these games for fun and don't take them too seriously.

This made me wonder why people play bughouse. Unlike chess with all its theory and seriousness, bughouse offers a chance just to play and have fun. Bughouse is also more likely to appeal to those who are younger.  I suspect that a lot of bughouse players are probably kids under the age of 18.

In a nutshell, people are just going to keep playing bughouse because its fun (regardless of whether they keep making the same mistakes and keep losing to stronger players very quickly) and won't be too bothered about anything else. Win or lose it doesn't matter... just click the rematch button and keep playing away. Not that there is anything wrong with that!

Good read, Big up's...........

"I have realised, from my own experiences of trying to help new bughouse players, that a lot of the players on this website are not really interested in improving."

Truer words have never been said...This happens across all areas of life, unfortunately.

cwfrank, while some might consider what you've done to be rude, I really see no problem with it. Free advice should always be welcome!

But you didn't finish the story! What happened after you told him the following?

"After my next move, drop a piece to protect your King."

He dropped a piece to protect.

Game was pretty much over anyway. We won (my team member and myself). I forgot who got the checkmate. But, I was also a bit concerned about time, given how much time I spent typing. It could have been a loss. But, the effort was worth it.

As for people who don't like this kind of attitude / perspective to be helpful to a disadvantaged opponent... all I can say is what's been said elsewhere: Some people think it a game to be played for fun, and other people take it too seriously. I'm the latter... not a good player... so I play for fun and don't take it too seriously. On the other hand, if I were a better player and worried about maintaining a high rating, I might be too serious. But, since I suck, and I enjoy the game, I play for fun and disregard people who try too hard for... what... is Chess.com going to send you a sheet of paper with your rating points to put in your casket when you die? I can see a GM etching "GM" on a headstone, I can't see someone etching their highest digital rating on a headstone. (Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe it's a wave in the future... to brag about digital life after-death given the rise of Social Media.)

You mean you're the former, LOL.

Yeah, I understand. But, you're at odds with some philosophical schools, here: "You give a goal meaning." If someone's goal is to be super high rated, it's just as good a goal as any, you know?

I don't think ratings are very important but I don't think that they should be considered as superfluous either. In most sports, people are now more focused on the processes involved as opposed to being result orientated. What this means for chess players is being more concerned about the thinking processes you go through and the moves you make (as opposed to being worried about winning and therefore by extension of this being worried about your rating).

I played someone in blitz yesterday (3 minute game) and he pre-moved every move in the opening as if he was playing a bullet game. The fact is that there are people who don't care how they win, as long as they win. By this I mean that they would not care if their positional understanding were flawed. In other words, someone could be very good at winning games and might have a rating of 1600 but if you look at what that person really knows maybe they are at best a 1200.

Then there are the chess players who do think that a rating of 2000 is something big. They do things like ratesitting (refusing to play rated games when they have reached their desired rating). These are the king of players in bughouse who would not give a second thought to the kind of abuse they would spew at their partner because of a few rating points that were lost. I don't think any game so important that people should go beyond the boundaries of what is considered as civilized behavior. In fact what irritates me sometimes is when people apologize because they made a mistake and we lost the game. No one should have to apologise for making a mistake in a game that is played for fun. Having said that, I also think it is important to always give 100% and try your best to win (that is after all why we are playing otherwise we might as well be indulging in another form of entertainment that does not have a winner or a loser). 

I can't say I agree with everything here (or maybe I'm missing the point)

Premoves in the opening does not necessary mean you are playing mindlessly, just saving time for later stages in the game.

There is nothing wrong to be a good practical player, but bad positional player. If you assume those players don't care about improving their positional chess, then you judge them, but even if they're just playing for fun I don't see the problem.

To me it sounds like you do not want to recognize the strength of some practical players. There's a lot more to chess than you can read in books and positional evaluations is not everything.

You are right, there is a lot more to chess than books and positional evaluations. A lot of folks play chess for the same reason they watch tv, just to have some fun. There is nothing wrong with playing chess just for fun. Some might even say that would be a very sensible approach as a lot of time can be wasted on playing chess.

My point was about a certain type of chess player that is so attached to his rating that (as mentioned before) he gives you the impression that it is going to be written on his tombstone.

First of all I would like to point out that I am aware of practical considerations. Chess is played with a clock, therefore time is a consideration. You can't play a blitz game and try to play 100% moves, sometimes you just have to play a quick move that is easy to find and still keeps the pressure on your opponent. Even in correspondence chess time is a practical consideration.

Now back to my game. In this particular game I was in fact aware of the practical considerations. I realized from the beginning of the game that my opponent was one of those mouse racers who don't put much thinking in to their moves and just hope that they win on time even when you have a superior position.  After I had succeeded in getting a good position I started playing faster knowing that it was just a matter of time before some tactical opportunity fell into my lap. That is exactly what happened. I won the game and by the end of the game I had more time left on my clock than the time left on my opponent's clock!

You might take a look at my blitz rating here and think that I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't play blitz here, I'm just here for the bughouse games. I am quite capable of playing moves quickly and premoving as well (which can be very useful in bughouse games too).  My highest bullet rating on fics was over 2150 and was achieved last year.

Now here is the crux of my argument. A chess player who has gotten better at chess will more likely than not experience an increase in rating. But someone who suddenly has a higher rating did not necessarily get better at chess. They did get better at something, that is true. Given that chess ability is only one factor in a rating. Maybe they got better at playing moves quickly.

I think that putting a high price on your rating can sometimes even be quite detrimental. I know there are people out there who WON'T LOG OFF THE CHESS SERVER UNTIL THEIR RATING IS BACK WHERE THEY THINK IT SHOULD BE. Their primary goal when they log on is to gain a certain amount of rating points for that day. Do you think that titled players (FM/IM/GM) take that same approach? Were they result orientated? The reason I don't mind what my rating is, is because I know that its not an exact indication of my chess ability. If only it were that easy to measure a chess player's ability. 

IM Daniel Rensch video title: Chess.com Blitz Session: Battle to 2500!

GM Simon Williams video title: GM Speed Chess! #113 Can I make 2600+!? on chess.com (again)

I agree with most things you say. Rating is not an exact measurement and you shouldn't be too attached to your rating. Looking at your rating tells you nothing about what you need to do to improve.

Having goals like reaching a specific rating is not silly to me though and having goals certainly might make you play better and try your best. Even if you think you are better than your rating, if you cannot produce the results you probably aren't underrated (not speaking about your 1500 blitz rating, just in general).

If someone truly only tries to win on time from move 1, I think it is a poor strategy, but I still think their rating is a fair instrument to measure their strength (which is their ability to win games).