Is it possible to win a game of strategy without deceit?
Opponent not familiar with the 50-move rule + pre-moves = a win!
Sort:
One of the reasons chess is such a great game is that the boundaries are so static and unchanging so that we as players can explore the game itself with abandon. The rules are the same where ever you play, and this lets us write volumes and volumes of theory and tactics and strategy. We never have to object to what is or isn't fair. In a sense, we are participating in a joint logic problem. There is no line to draw because all the lines are already there. The only thing that changes is the time--and that's something we as humans bring to the game, but even still, that is a well-known boundary before the first pawn is pushed.
Maybe the problem is you are proposing ethics are involved in the first place. The clock has been in play since before you and the master sat down. To run down the clock is always an option. Both you and the master knew that. What is and is not a satisfying win is dependent upon you and the master, but that's outside of the thoroughly defined game. In THIS case, BECAUSE it's an internet game, the rules have an added dimension. "At any point past 50 moves, click 'draw' and the game is a draw." This statement is still outside of any ethical consideration. You're not obligated to tell this to me at move 50 or move 350. You are not obligated to tell me how to castle. You're not obligated to tell me about en passant. These are all rules that new players don't necessarily know, but may run into as they play. I remember when I took my friends pawn via en passant in an OTB game, he was horrified and I had to convince him it was a rule. Was it my fault for exploiting that rule? Was it his fault for not knowing the rule? Or was he just ignorant of the rule and the game was the game? Ethics-free.
An ethical problem would occur if I tried to lie and tell him that en passant was NOT allowed, or if there was some crazy penalty if he moved a piece a certain way, because them I'm trying to do something outside of the confines of the game we agreed to play.
You might like to look up Calvinball on wikipedia :)
Perhaps that's the problem. You (and some others on this thread) are perceiving ethics within a well-defined game, where ethics are not really an issue. (This may be why you end each post with an insult toward me? 
) Any perceived ethical breach would have to be one's own, because the situation in question is simply not an ethical one.
sometimes premove stuffs up
bregnt wrote:
If you cannot find morals in the game of chess then you are a foo. Are there ethics in soccer? Of course. It is from how you play the game. He played in an unethical manner, winning in a way that would not be allowed to occur in a game of live chess with true rules and arbitors. Chess.com is doing it's best to replicate those conditions but is failing because of idiots like this.. I guess chess.com is to blame for allowing such stupidity to occur..
Except in a "real" game of chess with arbiters etc you have to claim the draw with the 3-fold or call the flag when your opponent's time runs out... same with 50 move rule. No spectator or arbiter can interfere. Now I know it happens sometimes in high level FIDE matches that an arbiter will stop a game... but usually you're on your own and have to make the claims yourself just like on this site.
And calling this win immoral is laughable, it was a throw away online blitz game, lol.
AnthonyCG wrote:
This is simply why blitz is inferior to all other versions of chess. Always has been - always will be;
Whenever we reach a point where we're not playing the actual game, something is very wrong.
This is very close to what I'm trying to say. In a tournament game, I have a very reasonable amount of time--it's only there to nudge me to move things along. Blitz is all about the clock. Yes, there's "chess" there, but the clock is a huge factor--they are two different games. In tournament and blitz chess, there are two win conditions--checkmate or the clock. In a nice park game, the only win condition is checkmate. Take your pick, but again, ethics are not part of it.
bregnt: I looked over your soccer example again when you met the other player at the field. That actually wasn't unethical at all. You both entered a contract to play the same game with the same rules. The ref made a decision, but no rule was broken. You aren't obligated to accomodate your opponent. In fact, you played commendably by using the rules and knowledge of your opponent to your advantage. Wouldn't you want an opponent who does the same?
Yes, the game would have been stopped in an OTB tournament, but on chess.com, no such luck. Consider the starting post on this thread an exhibition of chess.com and not chess if you like.
What morals do you perceive in a game of chess? I tried to say earlier that chess is perhaps unique in that sportsmanlike conduct always occurs off the board, because the game of chess is pure concept, represented by pieces and a board (you can play it in your head, blindfolded, or on a screen), it allows us to be ruthless on the board--in fact, those who we respect the most in chess are the most ruthless players, are they not? Is chess not a metaphor for war and competition in many circles?
Also, I think you took deceit to mean unethical--I didn't mean it that way--I meant in terms of hiding information or using feints and out-witting opponents. I would say this is probably the most important factor in defining a strategy game.
Jul 11, 2010
0
#67
In my opinion, the OP won by "gaming the system." As he complied with the rules, no problem. However, creating a thread bragging about winning because his opponent didn't know the rules, and the OP was quick with a mouse (that's what the thread's title implies) was a bit much.
orangehonda wrote:
bregnt wrote:
If you cannot find morals in the game of chess then you are a foo. Are there ethics in soccer? Of course. It is from how you play the game. He played in an unethical manner, winning in a way that would not be allowed to occur in a game of live chess with true rules and arbitors. Chess.com is doing it's best to replicate those conditions but is failing because of idiots like this.. I guess chess.com is to blame for allowing such stupidity to occur..
Except in a "real" game of chess with arbiters etc you have to claim the draw with the 3-fold or call the flag when your opponent's time runs out... same with 50 move rule. No spectator or arbiter can interfere. Now I know it happens sometimes in high level FIDE matches that an arbiter will stop a game... but usually you're on your own and have to make the claims yourself just like on this site.
And calling this win immoral is laughable, it was a throw away online blitz game, lol.
bregnt wrote:
You're right, since it is not a rated game, it doesn't mean anything at all about the person or the game.
You're right, since it is not a rated game, it doesn't mean anything at all about the person or the game.
What do you mean by saying "I'm right" that wasn't my point at all, try reading what I said again.
Next time I play an unrated OTB game and feel my ego needs a boost I'll cough in the guy's face to distract him.
Ego has nothing to do with it, I was talking about how you were wrong to say "in a real game of chess..." etc. because in a real game you do have to claim the draw.
I might get a win out of it and if I cough just to the side of his face it won't be breaking any rules! I might get a win out of it and it's not cheating at all so why not do it if it doesn't matter?
I agree that someone can follow all the rules and be a poor sportsman and even immoral at the same time, that wasn't my point. At the end of my post I called it laughable because things are not always either moral or immoral -- in my opinion at worst the OP was being rude.
What a stupid question you ask me orangehonda..
Umm, I had to re-read my post on this one actually. I don't see where I asked you a question at all 
AnthonyCG wrote:
Man I'm too lazy for multiple quotes. We really need a button for that. Highlighting stuff is so much easier but doesn't look half as nice.
It's a pain to do too -- I use two tabs to copy quotes and a lot of ctrl+z to "undo" when I backspace too much and erase the gray box.
If someone does something considered rude (like coughing in someone's face) it is usually considered srong or immoral"
--not always.
... I'm reciting definitions to simpletons rather than having any form of debate...
it's because there's not really a debate. Just namecalling? I would like you to define simpleton, and to ask you (perhaps in a different thread?) if you think you are fulfilling any chess-player stereotypes right now?
bregnt wrote:
When I said you were right I was referencing the statement you made and mocking the silliness of it directly afterwards.////// The subject of that sentence was not ego, replace "want to boost my ego with" "want to be an obnoxious idiot" /////If someone does something considered rude (like coughing in someone's face) it is usually considered wrong or immoral. //////I was refering to your last stupid statement aimed at me, not question, my apologies. I feel like I'm reciting definitions to simpletons rather than having any form of debate...
You feel like you're arguing with simpletons, I feel like you're working hard to be argumentative.
Jul 11, 2010
0
#72
This is absolutely crazy. It's correct that it's perfectly within the rules of the game (I'm pretty sure there isn't a gentlemanly conduct rule there), but that's got nothing to do with ethics. It's the same sort of logic that you get by resigning a known-lost game. It isn't about fighting to the end or giving up, it's about respecting the other player and the game that they've played. I can understand not resigning or drawing OTB in a tournament (personally, I find myself holding out a bit longer in OTB games), but playing an online blitz game for an online number, and caring enough about it to take a very sly win seems pretty childish.
As for the "it's a chess.com problem so it's fine to exploit it", how about people who use things like SQL injection to grab lists of peoples personal details and credit card details? Are they just exploiting someone else's problem? Should they be left alone?
The point of this website is fun and learning. You have single-handedly managed to take the fun out of a game by refusing to draw a game that was most certainly drawn, and forced an opponent who probably didn't know as much, to play until he ran out of time. You also haven't learnt much yet if you think that its a good thing to win every game. The thing is, you're probably exactly the type of person who would be first to shout out if someone did the same thing to you.
The point of this website is fun and learning. --
I agree completely!
You have single-handedly managed to take the fun out of a game by refusing to draw a game that was most certainly drawn--
Eh.. i've known quite a few who make me hunt them down becuase they know it's a lost game but it's some consolation to them to make me "work for it"
, and forced an opponent who probably didn't know as much,
--not check2008's problem.
to play until he ran out of time.
--an agreed upon condition.
You also haven't learnt much yet if you think that its a good thing to win every game
--not sure he said this, but I agree. I believe this is just two non-experts having a strange game, I think check2008's point was the novelty of it moreso than the win, but the win is funny. But that's a matter of taste.
The thing is, you're probably exactly the type of person who would be first to shout out if someone did the same thing to you
--not if he knows the rules. And wouldn't you?
It's the same sort of logic that you get by resigning a known-lost game. It isn't about fighting to the end or giving up, it's about respecting the other player and the game that they've played.
--is it logic or is it etiquette? that's the problem! we're talking etiquette VERSUS logic! they don't reconcile!
i think i'm allowed to declare troll here, and the conversation over.
--arbiter permitting ;)
maybe a vote if there isn't any arbiter available?
as long as it's within the confines of the site :D
shakje wrote:
This is absolutely crazy. It's correct that it's perfectly within the rules of the game (I'm pretty sure there isn't a gentlemanly conduct rule there), but that's got nothing to do with ethics. It's the same sort of logic that you get by resigning a known-lost game. It isn't about fighting to the end or giving up, it's about respecting the other player and the game that they've played. I can understand not resigning or drawing OTB in a tournament (personally, I find myself holding out a bit longer in OTB games), but playing an online blitz game for an online number, and caring enough about it to take a very sly win seems pretty childish.
As for the "it's a chess.com problem so it's fine to exploit it", how about people who use things like SQL injection to grab lists of peoples personal details and credit card details? Are they just exploiting someone else's problem? Should they be left alone?
The point of this website is fun and learning. You have single-handedly managed to take the fun out of a game by refusing to draw a game that was most certainly drawn, and forced an opponent who probably didn't know as much, to play until he ran out of time. You also haven't learnt much yet if you think that its a good thing to win every game. The thing is, you're probably exactly the type of person who would be first to shout out if someone did the same thing to you.
Skankinfool wrote:
It's the same sort of logic that you get by resigning a known-lost game. It isn't about fighting to the end or giving up, it's about respecting the other player and the game that they've played.
--is it logic or is it etiquette? that's the problem! we're talking etiquette VERSUS logic! they don't reconcile!
Well, there is a certain line everyone draws between ethics and logic. If you wanted to make money and there was a button and if you pressed it you would receive 1 dollar but activate a bomb killing 1000 people. Logically it would seem right to press the button because you make money but ethically to most people it would seem rather selfish and evil just for 1 dollar
Bear with me here... I like talking about impossible situations to make some kind of point
You take your theoretical model of fairness and "playing by the rules" to ridiculous extremes. I can win a soccer game by punching/tripping/pushing/nudging into a pole/whispering expletives in his ear/spitting on/showing my testicles to/farting beside the best player on the other team while the referee has his back turned. If the person falls over bloody/gets upset/leaves the game and the ref sees/ears/smells it and asks what happened I can lie and say he tripped over me and fell on his face/etc. I don't get in trouble and we win the game. Is a win just a win? Was it ok to win like this? If the soccer game was virtual online and I cheated/exploited the ref not watching/nudged a bit too hard (hey, soccer is physical, right) in this way would it be ok to win like this? What if there was no ref and we were expected to act civil ourselves? Should we act like retards when an arbitor is not around? Ponder those with your inferior logic and reasoning.
In any game, a win is a win. And yes, the way the game is won certainly counts for something--why else would we play? Personally, it's not satisfying for me to win by cheating. But that's not what happened here. You're describing cheating with the soccer analogy, but you're taking issue with the fact that the safety nets in place (referees) might not have prevented something you willingly did against the rules. Offsides really isn't cheating, it's just a condition that prevents a team from achieving a goal. Attempting to sneak offsides when the ref isn't looking (or doing those other things) is cheating, which I don't enjoy. However, if the defenders choose to stay as close to their own goal as possible, I'm not obligated to tell them they are allowed to come out and use the offsides rule to their advantage.
What is a game of chess but an exercise in exploiting weakness? I'm proposing the players entered a contract with one another to play within the confines of the site. The rules of the site, however well known, are there to be used and played within. One of the site's functions is to provide as close approximation of a chess game as possible while using a visual interface with buttons and timers. The players both played a perfectly legal game. Fun has nothing to do with logic or reason--it's a matter of taste/aesthetics, which may be why we aren't seeing eye-to-eye.
In virtual soccer, I would imagine it would be impossible to cheat--all of the rules and contigiencies are accounted for, glitches may occur, but when two players play a video/computer game, they are playing by the rules of the programs.
So, as I said--by virtue of using this site, we are all playing a video game. It does a fantastic job approximating a chess game, but in this case it doesn't always work. We use the site as an arbiter. That it didn't catch what it should have is unfortunate, but hardly cheating. I suspect that in both players' case, the etiquette was not entirely known, and since they both DID endure well over 300 moves, something had to be fun/satisfying or at the very least motivating. Maybe it was totally un-fun for the loser and a hard lesson to learn?
I would also suggest the "fun" probably had nothing to do with the play of chess, but the fact that this game went so long. Like seeing how many times you can catch a ball or something. Inane? sure, but not necessarily bad.