Unsportsmanlike and draw offers

No,- I'm just referring to positions where there's no play at all, and the draw is CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR. 

Example 1: would you play on here for two minutes when your opponent has one? In this case, I would get very frustrated playing with you, and won't like another game. 

Example 2, from a tournament game in Brussels Chess Club last week

When play exists in the position, I agree - it's the guy's fault if he runs out of time. 

In OTB, nobody is ever going to let you keep shuffling just to flag the guy. If nothing else, it's bad etiquette. It's also in bad taste. But to each their own.

 I doubt if Fischer needed to win this game but as his arch-nemesis Geller had a  +5 -2 =2 record vs our hero he apparently was not in a "sportsmanlike" mood to offer or accept a draw even at this late and dead-even stage of the game.  IF I recall correctly Geller offered a draw at one point, I can't remember on which move but I do recall Fischer was reported to  have smiled and replied "Too early."

I also posted this with more details and another bd with just the moves for anyone who wants to work it out themself, in the Endgames Forum

<NimzoRoy>

Fischer has every reason to keep playing here. There is no similarity between this position and my own example 1, as anyone will clearly see - you included. 

Some people has a way, of just moving fast in really dead positions, and carrying on and on and on and on just to tire you, but with no chess. 

I heartily recommend going through this amusing example, as the reader will find the included comments quite instructive.

In your examples, e.g. in #68 most of the time I'd probably play them on, unless I found it too boring or something. Like I said -- there are two things you have to manage as part of the game.

My problem with your reasoning is that you conclude that because one thing (position) has been managed, you no longer have to worry about the other thing (time).

Now, you could choose to hate me for this, or you could try to understand my point of view (and I understand yours), and understand I do not believe these things because I have some sort of desire to cause pain to my opponent, but because I think there are two components to a game of chess, and think being competitive is separate from personal feelings toward my opponent. People can have the same goal of respect, but disagree on what symbolizes respect and what doesn't.

As for your rook and two pawns example: If I was the one with less time, I would view my task as to make moves really quickly, but trying not to hang my rook, hopefully forcing a draw condition eventually. I'd have to take premoves into account -- do I premove to save time, but risk putting my rook on a square that white ends up attacking? If I'm moving at light speed I could forget things like that, maybe not even notice my opponent actually tried to push one of his pawns. I have to keep paying attention to these things and not lose on time; that is my task. I don't care how easy or hard it is; I don't choose my task; I just do it.

If I fail at saving this game, my blame would come to two things, both regarding myself: either I didn't do the task above well enough, or, I should have left myself with more time to not be in this situation in the first place. Probably a combination of the two.

IMHO there are distinct similarities - for world-class GMs the initial position I posted (ie at move 65) is just as dead drawn and inane to continue as your post #71. Of course Fischer's game also involved prize money - not to mention a slot in the Candidates Matches - whereas a lot of games guys like us play are just for rating pts and trophies - so what I posted is not totally convincing either.

No, <Elubas>, I'm not going to hate you for that. 

It's just that you're not going to be a favorite opponent for me online. This server is meant for fun and isn't official. If I'm not having fun then it's not worth it. 

If we meet OTB, I wouldn't appreciate this kind of behavior in any friendly context and will just refrain from playing you.

If it's any official context other than blitz, and you will try to flag me, I'll call the arbiter, who will come and watch what you're doing - and if you're only trying to flag, he will rule a draw, according to FIDE rules. 

And lastly, if we happen to play official blitz - well I hope I won't find myself in any of the situations from example #68, that's the best I can say right now. 

<NimzoRoy> If you can't see the differences between the two examples, as regards initial position and the way play proceeded from both, we have no common basis for discussion. Keep thinking what you want. 

Well, I generally find competitiveness to be the most fun part! As in post #73 -- look how many things there are for your mind to focus on -- premoves, making sure the opponent doesn't try to sneak a g4 advance without me noticing, rationing your time efficiently, etc -- for me the fact that I'm taking the rules to the extreme is actually what makes it more stimulating for my brain! I agree with you that fun is good, but I don't think fun and competitiveness are by any means mutually exclusive!

It's true -- in OTB there are rules regarding "insufficient losing chances." I don't agree with them myself, but hey, what are you going to do; it's a pretty rare occurrence anyway.

If I were playing against you (at least, OTB) I'd probably swallow my pride and just agree to a draw in these positions; my beliefs tell me otherwise, but I'm willing to make that concession (as indeed, getting wins from dead drawn positions are not life and death for me), if doing otherwise would cause you this much pain.

a) keep playing

b) keep playing*

c) keep playing

Play to win. 

* = if it's a game with increments, I'll accept the draw.

<Elubas> I liked your #78. 

With this understanding in place, we could play and enjoy many games. 

Peace!

Solskytz

It doesn't matter, in my view, the reason the clock was put in: it doesn't mean you can just pick and choose when a flag "actually counts."

Yes, I admit, in some cases that will make a game be lost contrary to what some people consider the "spirit" of chess (although again I personally view it holistically). But for me, the consistent application of the rules is more important -- I don't like the idea of a judge subjectively deciding what happens in a chess game; I want the game to decide itself, by rules that both players were completely aware of and were allowed to adapt to.

I've responded to the example with rook and two pawns vs rook and two pawns; weird or not, I think there are some interesting nuances going on if it's a severe time pressure situation. That's my subjectivity right there; other people (or judges) will view it differently.

I think the real solution is to make sure there is, in OTB, always increment or delay -- that way pure moving would not work as a winning strategy. That way the clock would actually work as it was "intended" to work ;)

He who tries to win the position in #68 (Example 1) by running the clock and relying on opponent's mouse slip should play Tetris not chess.

I think it's a little distasteful to pick out some part of the rules you don't like, and criticize others for not having the same views as you. In the case of blitz for example, I just find it strange to blame people who perhaps play blitz chess because they like the rules that are there; indeed they may like how the clock influences otherwise drawn positions; they may even enjoy making lots of fast, mindless moves, even if you don't -- one man's trash is another's treasure. Now if you play blitz and there are some parts of the rules you don't like, you do so at your peril, but I think it's ok for some people to like the rules that are there.

I'd probably accept the draw in all of your scenarios, unless I was in a bad mood.

No, actually, I like that rule. It's a sort of safe haven for the side with less time to try to get to. Perhaps unlike many people, I don't view king and knight vs king (a position where a side forcing checkmate truly is impossible), and positions like rook and two pawns vs rook and two pawns (as in #68) the same. In the latter case, the strategy is merely dull, but if somehow one player doesn't stick to it, they can still theoretically lose. The moves may be easy, but they require some sort of mental presence, whereas no matter how many delusions or hallucinations you have in K vs K + N, they are necessarily inconsequential.

Game I played yesterday against a player 200 above me - game was completely drawn - pawn chains - bishop and king each - he had about 2 mins - I had about 1.30 left - I offered a draw 4 times to him and he refused.

Completely ridiculous and completely unsportsmanlike and shameful - eventually I thought I'm better than this and made a silly move causing him to break through - but he was going to make me lose on time anyway so ...

I left him a nice calling card on his page for his efforts :D