Unsportsmanlike and draw offers

LOL it's laughable isn't it. You really want those points ahead of playing honourably ... Like that it really going to get you far in life ... ;)

Sportsmanship in online chess?  I guess there's some...

A draw is a goofy way to try and get out of a game where something bad happened to you.  I mean... I've had my dogs get out at midnight and bark like crazy.  I have to go get them so I lose the game (or a lot of time).  That's just how it goes.  I'd never offer (or accept) a draw.

In the totally dead positions, sure, I'll accept a draw.  I'd never shuffle my pieces for 2 minutes.  But as Elubas said what some people think of as dead draw may not be what I think of as dead draw.  Totally locked pawn chains with zero infiltration squares, sure, that's a draw.  But if there's still chance to screw up then play on.  That's part of the fun of speed chess.  (If at some point it degenerates into mindless shuffling where we each have at least a minute or so left then I offer and accept draws though).

By the way I'd probably be too bored to try to win shuffling around if we both had over a minute on the clock. But it's ok if my opponent disagreed and didn't want a draw -- I would respect that. If I have like 10 seconds and my opponent 5, then sure, I'll cash in.

I don't think so personally ... I only made the move because he (or she) was clearly not accepting a draw after 4 offers .. And was going to run the clock down on me.. So what choice do I have?? Move back and forwards like an idiot for another minute or so or endlessly if we accrue more time!?! I've got better things to do than that .. Namely playing chess with someone!!

Savage wrote:

snickersma wrote:

... eventually I thought I'm better than this and made a silly move causing him to break through  ...

Doesn't this justify his tactics?

And another question: What does the clock situation have to be in order for such tactics to be called "unsportsmanlike"? You said he had 2 mins to your 1.30. What if the "dead drawn" had been reached when he had 10 seconds to your 5?

"I've got better things to do than that .. Namely playing chess with someone!"

If a fresh new game of chess is more important than the points, the answer is pretty simple: resign and start a new game. Looks like your opponent thought the opposite -- well he views things differently -- he probably thinks that making moves quickly is part of the game too. You two simply have different needs.

"or endlessly if we accrue more time!?!"

If by this you mean increment, then there is a clear end in sight: the 50 move rule, a repetition, simplifying into a position with insufficient material to mate, etc.

In FIDE tournaments, there is some rule that a player can call an arbiter to declare the game drawn if the player is in time pressure and the arbiter thinks the game is "too drawish to lose."

"And the opponent has a right to choose whether to engage in a post-mortem or not, too, and such behavior, even if unsuccessful, will make many players less likely to do so."

Well, sure, a person has a right to be offended at anything they want

Would you be embarrassed to show the game if you could also show the clock times ? Imagine these example annotations - "He has a strong center and pawns, but has weakened his clock in the bargain."  "Sacrificing 5 minutes for 2 pawns in such a game is madness !" The clock is like a second king you have to protect. 

Some dude earlier sent a barrage of draw offers right after the first move and then tried to win on time. Kind of annoying. Definitely not sportsmanlike but it's not worth getting ticked off about I guess.

As I have said before, competitiveness and fun are not mutually exclusive. Utilizing pre moves to try to win drawn positions, in my view, makes the game richer (gives you an extra element to consider), and thus the mental workout is even better. Deciding when to premove, when to maybe push your pawn unexpectedly, it makes it more interesting sometimes.

I would imagine your argument is that you should just want to have fun. And I agree; I think using your strategies to the maximum is a part of that fun! Anything that gives me something to think about, whether it's how to exploit a positional advantage or, indeed, when to premove, is a source of friendly fun to me.

I will say once more: you probably think chess is about having good fun. And I think the mental processing that goes into utilizing premoves (as in my post #73) is a part of that fun! I like trying to achieve a goal, and to like that doesn't require me to have any bitter feelings towards my opponent whatsoever.

well said

If I was playing against someone who succeeded in flagging me, maybe from the rook and two pawns vs rook and two pawns position, indeed part of the post mortem would be about premoves. I might say something like "Yeah I was thinking about premoving here, but I was afraid I would hang my rook; I probably should have taken the chance though. Your premove here was pretty risky but even though it lost a pawn you gained a few seconds on the clock."

I would be happy to talk through that part of the game just as I would be for any other part.

<Elubas> re. post #88 - wrong there, my brother :-)

I think that K+N vs. K has GREAT VALUE in playing for AT LEAST 50 more moves (a shame that 50 move draw exists), as on the one hand, the player with less time and just a K still needs to concentrate in playing his move fast (of course if his connection is bad, that's just his problem, but we already know that), and on the other hand, the stronger player, who holds both knight AND time advantage, and who should be enjoying them to the full, both from the chess sense and from the time sense, which is a very important factor in the game of chess, also needs to concentrate and use his mental faculties so that he doesn't drop his knight by accident (although this shouldn't be a concern as he's still much better on time), or stalemate his opponent!!

<Savage> well, playing for time when you have 10 seconds to 5 is probably ok - if only for the reason, that even if you DO offer a draw, the following may happen:

a) he will play so fast, as to automatically reject it, without even having the time to consider it; 

b) just the act of offering it will cost you 1 or 2 extra seconds, so you're taking an undue risk. 

I believe that 20 seconds left for the person with more time, and 10 for the person with less time, is a reasonable threshold. 

I play 3 min chess. I don't play 1 min bullet - where it's simply too nerve-wrecking to mess with, so I'll voice no opinion on that. 

<Snickersma> re. #95 - you ask what choice you had?

If you aren't amused by this kind of playing - and who can blame you?

I would write my opponent in this case, 'listen buddy, I'm not amused. Why are you playing on?'

Then, if this continues for five more moves, I'll just block the guy, and either continue to try to flag him instead, or even resign and leave it, knowing that this is the last time I play him. 

<Elubas> re. #98 - if memory serves, it's not exactly if it's "too drawish to lose" - but rather if the side with more time isn't realistically trying to win. 

One can distinguish, when a player tries to set traps, tries to make someone go wrong, tries to pursue a plan - or just moves pieces quickly with a purpose of flagging his opponent. 

<Kapabl>

re. #100 I once had a win over a FIDE 1960 in a position where he lost on time one move before time control, and his position got a +1.70 Houdini eval in his favor when he lost on time. 

However this wasn't so clear to us. I thought that the game was with chances for both sides, and he thought that 'he could still make a draw with some effort' and was trying to figure out a way to do so at the time his flag fell. 

Sometimes the position on the board tells one story, and what goes on in players' minds tells quite another - and the above was a case in point.

Of course it's what's on the players mind that decides a game, NOT the situation on the board. 

If I'm up a rook and think I'm drawing because I don't know how to win this, I'll draw. 

If on the other hand the opponent is scared of being down a rook, he might accidentally trip into a position I DO know how to win - then I'll win. It's a mind-game, more than a board-game...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

In the above-mentioned game, my opponent was up a pawn, in a complex endgame with lots of dynamic chances. 

In the post mortem I showed him how he could have won a piece just a couple of moves earlier, when he went for a gain of a pawn instead. He was totally clueless about it. 

Imagine my own embarrassment when I later went home, and had Houdini show me, that in the same position for which I was criticizing my opponent, winning that piece was only his SECOND-BEST move. He had a mate in two in that position (but a bit tough to see as neither of us even suspected its existence). 

solskytz, I take #109 as a joke, but it really is plausible in some ways to make that kind of argument :) One could argue that if you're left with 1 minute, your opponent is left with say 20 seconds, you're the one who played better since you achieved the same thing as your opponent with more efficiency (and in this case efficiency isn't really subjective because time on the clock is a very clear way of measuring it). And since everyone is complaining about draws, look at that -- now we have a decisive result!

But even I don't take that view :) I view time as more of like a time limit: your clock time is how much time you have to complete the task (winning or drawing); you are allowed to use as much of it as you want but you do so at your own risk.

lol, solskytz, in a tournament a few months ago I played Rd1, and thought of it as my worst move of the tournament -- my opponent responded with ...Ba4, protected by a queen on a5, attacking my queen on b3 thus forming a skewer, and trying to pin the bishop with Ra1 didn't happen to work. And he gave a look as if I was a moron, and I was thinking "yeah, he's right..."

Well, turns out Rd1 was by far the best move, and ...Ba4 (the "punishing" move) was actually a big mistake by black! Houdini said I could move my queen and let black waste time taking the rook on d1 as I deliver a winning attack, coming out of seemingly nowhere. Of course I didn't see the continuation it gave and passively accepted a loss of the exchange (although my position was so good beforehand that I still had an extra pawn and the bishop pair in return, so I was only slightly worse, and went on to win ).

Anyway, funny irony, one that I would have been completely unaware of if it weren't for houdini. And I didn't analyze the game until much later, so my delusions about the position were long lasting! My opponent and I, us two 1900s, were just completely clueless in this case!

"If you aren't amused by this kind of playing - and who can blame you?"

So should I block my opponent if he makes the position really open -- a strategy within the rules, yet not a strategy I'm amused by? It's hard enough to play good chess (clock and position) -- now we have to make sure the kind of chess we play is amusing to our opponent?

Wait, I've got it: all I have to do is dislike the kind of chess my opponent plays, and believe it to be rude, and no one can beat me! Carlsen, you'll never beat me because you'll just grind me down in an endgame -- how cowardly! Wait, you know what, no, I dislike attacking chess too! And middlegames! And openings! Now no matter how Carlsen beats me, it won't actually count!