I assume that the children who forget to punch their clocks are part of a team which has a coach and I would expect the coach to have the responsibility of reminding children to punch their clocks and getting them to make clock punching after moving a habit.
winning on time....ethical. ..??
Sort:
It is just a chess came. Are there ANY questions of "ethics" provided that the game is played within the rules?
I do not see how ethical judgements even come into play during a chess game. This does not make sense.
Winning and ethics should never be found in the same sentence.
Once I was struck by a very "non-ethical" 
thing when I several years ago (now it's not that shocking, but then ... it was) read in an article that in some tournament some barely known master crushed a grandmaster. In the position where that grandmaster resigned, the "master" replied: "Of course ... there is mate in 8 here". That "master" did not wish to discuss the game after finishing it, but he had long hair ... and he also had a good friend who was sitting in the hall during the game and had not a bad idea of what the "Rybka" is .
schachfan1
It goes without saying that using an engine is cheating. I specifically said that if it is "within the rules", ethical questions are irrelevant. Using an engine is not within the rules, is cheating, and is unethical. I am not sure if you have a point, other than the obvious...using computers is cheating.
Yes, Jimmy, I do understand what is within the rules and what is not. I just wanted to say that winning on time compared with many other really unethical things (not only cheating, but for example, smoking opposite your opponent (in an OTB game) or speaking some insulting words, both in an OTB game and in correspondence games, etc.) looks rather insignificant.
Jul 31, 2014
0
#68
the ethical question I have related to time is if your opponent forget to punch the clock and you sit as if it was your turn.
The opponent may sit 5-15 minutes before he realize that he forgot to punch the clock he may even lose on time time because of that later in the game.
Of course the opponent may lose on time because of those 5-15 minutes. Formerly I took part in several tournaments in a chess club, and I saw sometimes some players forgot about punching the clock after making a move (they were not only children, but adults too), although my opponents never forgot about the clock :) But I never saw that any player, whose opponent forgot about punching the clock, did not remind him to punch it, it went just without saying, and would be really a shame to win in such a manner in an OTB game
If you opponents forget to stop their clock, it is proper etiquette to remind them. It is a question of etiquette, not of ethics. It is a chess game.
Of course every chess player who decides to play OTB games with a clock should have a habbit of punching the clock, otherwise why playing OTB games for them at all?
ill gotten gains.
Jimmykay wrote:
If you opponents forget to stop their clock, it is proper etiquette to remind them. It is a question of etiquette, not of ethics. It is a chess game.
Actually, if you remind your opponent to hit their clock more than once or twice, you are reinforcing their bad habit, which is not doing them a favor. If they lose a game because of poor clock awareness, this should be a valuable lesson, which they will not quickly forget. Most tournaments players will not remind you at all, so don't count on it.
It is not unethical to abstain from giving such reminders, and I think that "etiquette" (which is totally a matter of opinion) should recommend not more than 2 reminders during a game, otherwise these reminders will become a distraction to the players on the nearby boards.
I generally agree with that, Turbofish. If someone needs to be reminded more than twice, I have issue.
My point was more that this is an issue of etiquette, not of ethics. If players are acting withing the rules of the game, there is no such thing as "unethical" behavior in a chess game.
I just "won" a 30 min timed game by time and it doesn't feel good. There was no way my opponent could have won. I didn't understand why he didn't just resign.
Anyway one definition of ethical is "being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice". My opponent was not being ethical. If I resign, he gets the win. That would make no sense at all.
So, I say yes. It is ethical to win by time... at least in a timed game.
Jimmykay wrote:
I generally agree with that, Turbofish. If someone needs to be reminded more than twice, I have issue.
My point was more that this is an issue of etiquette, not of ethics. If players are acting withing the rules of the game, there is no such thing as "unethical" behavior in a chess game.
I usually give one or two reminders, especially if the opponent has been at least cordial with me, which is almost always the case. We're in complete agreement that the concept of "ethics" applies to chess only in the sense of whether or not players are following the official (or previously agreed upon) rules. This is why you'll often see me challenging the the injustified claims in this forum that it is "unethical" to:
- win on time
- not resign in an inferior position
- move as slowly as allowed by the time control
- consult opening books during a correspondence game
- use the analysis board during a correspondence game
- go on vacation in the middle of a game
- not let an opponent take back a move
- enforce the touch-move rule during an OTB tournament game
Sounds good to me Turbofish. As long as you play by the agreed upon rules, all is well. However - PLAY... I just sat for 25 mins in a 30 min game waiting for the time to run out. Luckily I had a good book to read.
I just want to say: this is the best forum of discussion on Chess.com!!!! It's so interesting to read all the diverse points of view and very intelligent remarks! This gives us a better understanding of the proper way to play and to behave ourselves. It is very helpful to me. Keep it up everyone! Now, chess is also a sport, correct? Do athletes playing sports behave in an ethical manner? Should they behave ethically or should they first and foremost try to win - within the rules, of course?
Jul 31, 2014
0
#79
Jimmykay skrev:
If you opponents forget to stop their clock, it is proper etiquette to remind them. It is a question of etiquette, not of ethics. It is a chess game.
I was actually told by many before my first tournament if an opponent forgets to punch. I should not say something.
I guess in your point of view I had bad teachers. Cause I never said anything during a chess game ever.
I have played around 25 tournaments and in most of the tournament one or two forgot at some point during the game to punch the clock. I was silent.
@TurboFish, just wanted to ask about the item in your list:
- go on vacation in the middle of a game
As far as I can notice, there are not so many people playing less than a dozen of correspondence games simultaneously (as a rule it's over 25-30 probably), and if following that issue about not going on vacation in the middle of a game - for rather many people it would last forever till they at last can go on vacation Or maybe you don't mean correspondence games
OK I have a question: children taking part in a tournament. Some players forget to press their clock after their move. Should their opponent remind them that they forgot, or simply use the opponent's elapsing time to think? Is it ethical to let your opponent's time elapse (keeping in mind that tourneys are competitive - just like any other sport).