I don't understand how one can even begin to think that any act(that is logically within the rules) stopping your opponent winning could be construde as cheap/unfair/unsportsmanlike.
Imagine what the rules of chess would look like if you added in a clause that said "playing for the draw is prohibited" which is pretty much what your asking us to say we agree with.
Exactly. Imagine a football team down by 3 points, in field goal range, with 2 seconds left in the game. Is it dishonorable for them to kick the field goal? Or should they just give up and "take the beating that is coming" like a man, as one of our friends here has (jokingly, I think) suggested?
You choose a poor example with football. In football the game continues until a winner is decided. There are no draws. Eliminating most of the conditions that are considered a draw and giving the win to one player or the other would simplify the game of chess immensely. In a real battle, if I bring 50,000 men to the field and you bring 50,000 men to the field and you make a tactical error resulting in the loss of 30,000 of your men, how do you figure you deserve a draw?
All football games do not end with a winner, although rare some have been ties As for the battle, if the 20,000 men i have left can hold off 50,000 then yes it should be a draw And lastly you state that eliminating most of the conditions that are considered a draw and awarding the game to one player would simplify the game.The game of chess is a battle and just because one player has the better position at the moment does not mean he or she should just be awarded the win if the opponent can find a way to save the game and draw then he should do so if you want a game that is simple then maybe you should give up chess and try something else.
Maybe in college football they allow draws, but every professional football game I have ever seen where regular time ran out with a tie score went into overtime for as long as necessary for someone to score.
I am also not talking about games where there is still a lot of material left on the board where someone can pull a surprise win out of their hat in spite of being down material. I am talking about endgames where someone has a king and minor piece against a bare king. The player with the material should win in spite of not being able to mate. They outplayed the other to the tune of a bishop or knight and should be rewarded for playing the superior game. Games where one player has a rook versus the other players minor piece are another example. Rook and king can give checkmate. Minor piece and king cannot and at some point in the game I would have had to win an exchange against you that you weren't able to equalize in order for me to have that rook. If you weren't able to equalize during the game, why should you be considered equal after the game? I am also referring to situations like stalemate where you might have your bare king versus my 2 rooks, knight, queen and king but now you can't move without stepping into check. You obviously played so poorly during the game that you allowed me to strip you bare with minimal losses to myself so why do you deserve anything?
I don't understand how one can even begin to think that any act(that is logically within the rules) stopping your opponent winning could be construde as cheap/unfair/unsportsmanlike.
Imagine what the rules of chess would look like if you added in a clause that said "playing for the draw is prohibited" which is pretty much what your asking us to say we agree with.
Exactly. Imagine a football team down by 3 points, in field goal range, with 2 seconds left in the game. Is it dishonorable for them to kick the field goal? Or should they just give up and "take the beating that is coming" like a man, as one of our friends here has (jokingly, I think) suggested?
You choose a poor example with football. In football the game continues until a winner is decided. There are no draws. Eliminating most of the conditions that are considered a draw and giving the win to one player or the other would simplify the game of chess immensely. In a real battle, if I bring 50,000 men to the field and you bring 50,000 men to the field and you make a tactical error resulting in the loss of 30,000 of your men, how do you figure you deserve a draw?
All football games do not end with a winner, although rare some have been ties As for the battle, if the 20,000 men i have left can hold off 50,000 then yes it should be a draw And lastly you state that eliminating most of the conditions that are considered a draw and awarding the game to one player would simplify the game.The game of chess is a battle and just because one player has the better position at the moment does not mean he or she should just be awarded the win if the opponent can find a way to save the game and draw then he should do so if you want a game that is simple then maybe you should give up chess and try something else.