I don't agree with number four, dissconecting and reconnecting just before time runs out does not make him a chess jerk-not paying attention makes you a chess idiot.
Official list of how to make yourself a Chess Jerk
Sort:
Oct 25, 2011
0
#23
eddiewsox wrote:
trysts wrote:
milestogo2 wrote:
Ignoring thoughtful analysis after asking for advice in the forums, not replying to posts which are meant to provoke a conversation. Not as annoying as the above, but tends to discourage participation by those that would like to.
Guts! So what if there is a person, or a group of people on the forums who disagree with you? Post it anyway! There are thousands of people on the forums! Many of those people may agree with you, and would like to support you. I don't like people discouraged from posting just because it may get criticized. Post what you think, be sincere, and try not being discouraged by dissent
I couldn't disagree more.
That's very discouraging.
Don't be discoouraged, don't worry, be happy 
!
pbrocoum wrote:
The attitude of "don't whine about it" would have prevented virtually every scientific advance in history.
Science and engineering is when you find a problem and solve it.
TheGrobe wrote:
6. Whine about any of the above
Whining is good.
Oct 25, 2011
0
#27
don't forget insulting opponents after the game. that's always a good'un.
Well it is easy tho think "yay I've spotted one of those internet jerks, now I can be as nasty as I like". No. Please save yourself the embarrassment and don't do it.
pbrocoum wrote:
I love the game of chess, I find it to be quite beautiful, but unfortunately it's often ruined by jerks (we humans have a tendency to ruin anything we get involved in). Here's my list of ways that people ruin the game, and feel free to add more of your own below.
Do not resign -- so you are down a rook, two pieces, and three pawns, so what?!? Valiantly struggle on for as long as possible, wasting everybody's time. Play as slowly as possible when not resigning -- going along with number 1 above, if you have a hopeless position and are not going to resign, make sure to only move once every 2 days 23 hours and 59 minutes. This way, you will lose only over months and years, instead of right away. Disconnect in live chess -- if you hang a piece in the first minute of a live game, it's better to disconnect and let your clock run down for 5, 10, or 15 minutes rather than just resign. This way, you get to laugh at your opponent for sitting at his computer like an idiot. Reconnect after 4 minutes and 59 seconds -- after you have disconnected in a losing position, and your opponent has gotten up to go to the bathroom or to get some coffee, reconnect and hope he doesn't come back, thus earning yourself a full point. Abort 75% of your games -- rather than using the "game settings" to set up the pool of people you want to play with to match your preferred rating level, it's better to abort game after game after game, annoying people to no end.Did I miss any?
1. If your rating is 2000, lose it to 1500 and act like a boss there..
pbrocoum wrote:
The attitude of "don't whine about it" would have prevented virtually every scientific advance in history.
Probably not. Virtually every scientific advance in history is rooted in man's desire to kill other men.
You mean man's desire to hold dominion over other men. The killing is incidental.
pbrocoum wrote:
Here's my list of ways that people ruin the game...
...1. Do not resign -- so you are down a rook, two pieces, and three pawns, so what?!? Valiantly struggle on for as long as possible, wasting everybody's time.
I disagree with this one. I don't mind if I am far ahead in a game, and my opponent continues to fight on and "waste my time". It takes a lot of nerve to keep going even when there seems to be no hope. Plus you can still learn a thing or two even if you're behind.
What really bothers me (and I am probably alone on this) is when my opponent battles on to the grim end, and then 40 moves later resigns one move before I am about to deliver mate. I feel that if you are going to play on for that long, you might as well give your opponent the courtesy of delivering checkmate out of respect.
However, for the most part I have to say I agree with TheGrobe. I am not bothered by slow movers, disconnects, repeated draw offers (I find it hilarious acutally)...
I think the more you allow yourself to be affected by people's negativity (either perceived or actual), the less focus you have on the actual game of chess - and it is just a game after all!! ( albiet a very serious one :D )
pbrocoum wrote:
I love the game of chess, I find it to be quite beautiful, but unfortunately it's often ruined by jerks (we humans have a tendency to ruin anything we get involved in). Here's my list of ways that people ruin the game, and feel free to add more of your own below.
Do not resign -- so you are down a rook, two pieces, and three pawns, so what?!? Valiantly struggle on for as long as possible, wasting everybody's time.
i'm not sure i agree with your point #1 as it is stated. wouldn't "the immortal game" be a good counterexample and make your point logically invalid?
even if i was to deduce your intended meaning from the rest of the points, i can still think of other reasons why the behaviour of your opponent as stated in #1 would not qualify as "being a jerk"
@bobbyDK-- this happens all the time in OTB tournaments. For example, in the last round, the top two players agree to a draw in order to split the prize. Not really sure what to do about this, or if it's so bad. Also, rating floors are meant to limit sandbagging.
@tonymtbird -- you've got to be kidding me. Sitting and staring at a blank monitor is as invigorating and intellectually stimulating as standing in line at the DMV. Are you saying that people standing in line at the DMV are "idiots" for being bored?
@mevdog1971-- in live chess there is a "game settings" link under the new game button where you can set the opponent ratings that you want to play. Everybody should use it :-) As far as aborting games, the solution seems simple: just don't allow games to be aborted. What honest reason is there to start a game and not want to play?
@oinquarki -- I welcome ideas about how to solve these problems.
@Elubas -- =)
@bigpoison -- ha ha, unfortunately.
@teocaf -- I don't see what The Immortal Game has to do with anything. Firstly, you and I, and these people on Chess.com, are not going to be playing immortal games, but secondly, Anderssen gave up both rooks and a bishop, then his queen, checkmating his opponent with his three remaining minor pieces. That's pretty amazing, and I never said that "one should resign whenever they are down material no matter what, even if there is an awesome mating attack." Obviously, awesome meeting attacks are the exception. Furthermore, Kieseritzky actually resigned on move 19, with the following amazing mating attack never actually being played. Anderssen then announced the mating moves to the spectators. So The Immortal Game actually PROVES my point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Game
One thing where I seem to disagree with most people is that I don't think sandbagging is as common or as big a problem as people think. One's rating is very important and I don't think people would purposefully lower it that much just to beat a few patzers.
@LetsReason -- okay, but that's easy enough to solve. Just make it so you can't abort a game once your opponent has moved. That prevents people from aborting as soon as they see they have black, and if someone refuses to move you still have the option to say "screw it" and abort and play a new game.
With sandbagging, I get what you're saying, but for a 2000 player to drop down to 1600 he would have to lose like 50 games in a row. That's quite a dedication to sandbagging. And if a 1650 player sandbags to under 1600, well, so what? It's only a few points. Plus, it's not as though chess players are raking in the dough from their $70 first-place prizes =P
However, players should absolutely not share accounts. There's no reason for that.
@LetsReason -- PS good point about the negativity =P
Oct 26, 2011
0
#39
pbrocoum wrote:
@bobbyDK-- this happens all the time in OTB tournaments. For example, in the last round, the top two players agree to a draw in order to split the prize. Not really sure what to do about this, or if it's so bad. Also, rating floors are meant to limit sandbagging.
it's actually very bad. just because everybody does it doesn't make it any better. Tournament should be won by the best and not on how many you know.
it destroys the joy of a tournament which should be a fight and brings tournaments in discredit. I might be the only one seeing this as bad but it is my view on agreed draws.
In Denmark there is no rating floor built into the system; you could actually be 2000 rated one day and 1300 rated the next day. some people go up and down like a yoyo 500 rating points.
a root cause for this is that you could join 3 tournaments at the same time with 1300 and not be expected to win more than 1 game. Each tournament may expect you to score 1 point. If you manage to score 5 points in each tournament you will actually get 1300 + 100+100 +100 = 1600
now if you enter a tournament you will enter 3 tournament with 1600 in rating at the same time you might drop 1600 -50-50-50
this is a flaw in the tournament system since by entering 3 tournament at the same time. you will get the rating increase from all tournament.
I think if you decide to entlist in 3 OTB tournaments at the same time with the same rating. you should only get (100+100+100 )300/3 =100 not 300.
I doubt the tournament was intended to rate more than 1 tournament at the same time.
pbrocoum wrote:
@oinquarki -- I welcome ideas about how to solve these problems.
So would I, but they're unsolvable because all of the actions are within the freedom of the player as defined by the rules, and can all have reasonable explanations. There is a member code of conduct on the site that penalizes people with poor sportsmanship, but that's not going to end it all.
I want to add this to the list:
people agreeing to a draw beforehand in tournaments.
spectators talking during the game.
people dropping rating in order to be lower rated for team match