Forums

Site changes, new policies

Sort:
Avatar of CarlMI
CarlMI
Jun 8, 2010
0
#21
underflow wrote:
CarlMI wrote:  Still waiting a definition of lost position. "

Here's a definition of Lost Position:  Any Chess game position from which a player must lose with accurate play.  Many complex lost positions may still offer winning or drawing chances with alert play.  (From http://www.chess-poster.com/english/glossary) 

In my opinion, the staff has acted very reasonably to adjucate certain games in very specific circumstances.  And as far as I can tell, there has not been a change in policy. 

And if players always played accurately the result would always be a draw and it wouldn't have arrived at a lost position in the first place.  The definition presumes the player with the advantage would not make a mistake.  Once I get a winning advantage and my opponent goes on vacation can I claim a win since I must be presumed to be incapable of further error in my play?

Avatar of CarlMI
CarlMI
Jun 8, 2010
0
#22
bsrasmus wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:

But, from what I heard from Erik earlier in the thread, the site also doesn't really enforce it, so isn't lack of enforcement equivalent to tacitly allowing it?

The site enforces it, but they are very conservative in their enforcement.  He said that they likely have adjudicated fewer than 20 games in the past few years, though reading between the lines I don't think they keep statistics on this one.  As I read it, they will take action when extreme cases occur but you don't have anything to worry about if you are trying to obey the rules.

So enforcement and game results are at the whims of the staff instead of the play (or nonplay) of the game?

Avatar of TheOldReb
NM TheOldReb
Jun 8, 2010
0
#23

I dont understand why some have such a problem with this ? Its obvious that it will only be used RARELY under certain circumstances and when it seems rather obvious that the player involved is abusing vacation to prolong a HOPELESS position. A " winning advantage " and a HOPELESS POSITION are worlds apart. I would expect any decent player to understand the difference between the two.

Avatar of chrispret
chrispret
Jun 8, 2010
0
#24

Oh Carl put a cork in it... I bit my tongue earlier and didn't post in this thread, but really. Come on, less than 20 out of millions of games with the express purpose of allowing the other players in the tournament to carry on having fun while you're on vacation (for legitimate or abusive reasons) in a losing position with very little hope of recovering is barely something to get upset about.

Let's be clear, your chance of getting killed in a car accident is bigger. Your chance of slipping on the stairs an hitting your head is bigger. Your chance of winning a second prize in most lotteries are bigger... If it happens to you once, the odds of it happening again is so miniscule, you have a better chance of travelling to the moon (ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit there).

This is a prime example of a paying member complaining about something silly.

Avatar of artfizz
artfizz
Jun 8, 2010
0
#25

We just need a definition of 'enforced' then everyone will be happy.

"What’s the difference between between a dead forum poster in the road and a dead snake in the road? The snake has skid marks in front of it!” 

Avatar of erik
erik
Jun 8, 2010
0
#26

unless you are the kind of person who intentionally goes on vacation in an absolutely completely obviously lost position, this will never affect you. 

an alternative to adjudicating the game would be that we just punish the person by removing all of their vacation time because they are abusing it. (NOTE: we always warn the person before adjudicating, and would warn here too.) then we are not deciding the outcome of the game, just removing the privilege of using vacation. 

Avatar of CarlMI
CarlMI
Jun 8, 2010
0
#27

Anytime some one throws the word "obviously" around it isn't.  But you're right I'll stick to serious chess and confine my playing to ICCF and ICC.

Avatar of TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Jun 8, 2010
0
#28

Well, if a sensible rule that's only enacted against the most egregious and troublesome violators is a deal breaker for you then maybe this isn't the site for you.

Avatar of PrawnEatsPrawn
PrawnEatsPrawn
Jun 8, 2010
0
#29
ilikeflags wrote:

i'm stuffed, but i have everything to say.

Typical (plastic) scouser!

Avatar of Cystem_Phailure
Cystem_Phailure
Jun 8, 2010
0
#30
CarlMI wrote:

Anytime some one throws the word "obviously" around it isn't.

Obviously, when someone throws the word "anytime" around it's once in a while.

Avatar of TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Jun 8, 2010
0
#31

Anytime someone makes that kind of generalization it's obvious.

Avatar of erik
erik
Jun 8, 2010
0
#32
CarlMI wrote:

Anytime some one throws the word "obviously" around it isn't.  But you're right I'll stick to serious chess and confine my playing to ICCF and ICC.

sorry if my word choice annoyed you. should i have instead used the words "clear and indisputable"?

from their own site:

"ICC administrators reserve the right to adjudicate any stored game at a time and with a result they feel is appropriate.

Games will usually only be adjudicated under one of three circumstances:

1. An absolutely clear and undisputable win/draw.

Such as:

Obvious forced mates.

A decisive material advantage, or impending advantage, without compensation. Decisive means an average club player could defeat a master without difficulty. Typically, this is at least a queen advantage, but can vary with position.

A dead, lifeless draw, where progress for either side is virtually impossible. Endings with locked pawns, bishops of opposite color, or no pawns and even material for example."

Avatar of artfizz
artfizz
Jun 8, 2010
0
#33

Can anyone explain why this thread wasn't put out of its misery about 50 posts ago?

Avatar of LeotheLion402
LeotheLion402
Jun 8, 2010
0
#34
erik wrote:
CarlMI wrote:

Anytime some one throws the word "obviously" around it isn't.  But you're right I'll stick to serious chess and confine my playing to ICCF and ICC.

sorry if my word choice annoyed you. should i have instead used the words "clear and indisputable"?

from their own site:

"ICC administrators reserve the right to adjudicate any stored game at a time and with a result they feel is appropriate.

Games will usually only be adjudicated under one of three circumstances:

1. An absolutely clear and undisputable win/draw.

Such as:

Obvious forced mates.

A decisive material advantage, or impending advantage, without compensation. Decisive means an average club player could defeat a master without difficulty. Typically, this is at least a queen advantage, but can vary with position.

A dead, lifeless draw, where progress for either side is virtually impossible. Endings with locked pawns, bishops of opposite color, or no pawns and even material for example."

Nice pwn. Laughing Somebody didn't do their research and somebody else did.

I never had any problem with this rule and honestly, I'm really glad it's in place. I understand if you need to go on vacation. As mentioned in previous posts, people have lives beyond chess (imagine that!). However, I am annoyed when I'm hugely ahead in material, perhaps five moves away from winning the game, and my opponent goes on vacation. Sure, it could just be coincidence. But it sure doesn't seem like it.

-Leo

Avatar of underflow
underflow
Jun 8, 2010
0
#35
CarlMI wrote:
underflow wrote:
CarlMI wrote:  Still waiting a definition of lost position. "

Here's a definition of Lost Position:  Any Chess game position from which a player must lose with accurate play.  Many complex lost positions may still offer winning or drawing chances with alert play.  (From http://www.chess-poster.com/english/glossary) 

In my opinion, the staff has acted very reasonably to adjucate certain games in very specific circumstances.  And as far as I can tell, there has not been a change in policy. 

And if players always played accurately the result would always be a draw and it wouldn't have arrived at a lost position in the first place.  The definition presumes the player with the advantage would not make a mistake.  Once I get a winning advantage and my opponent goes on vacation can I claim a win since I must be presumed to be incapable of further error in my play?

Carl:  Your 'questions' very interesting.  My favorite coming from the original post:   "can I make my opponent subject to my membership fees?"  I don't believe Erik has addressed that one... 

A real (non-rhetorical) question for Carl:  Have you had a game adjudicated on Chess.com, or was there a specific experience that precipitated your post?

Avatar of erik
erik
Jun 8, 2010
0
#36
LeotheLion402 wrote:
erik wrote:
CarlMI wrote:

Anytime some one throws the word "obviously" around it isn't.  But you're right I'll stick to serious chess and confine my playing to ICCF and ICC.

sorry if my word choice annoyed you. should i have instead used the words "clear and indisputable"?

from their own site:

"ICC administrators reserve the right to adjudicate any stored game at a time and with a result they feel is appropriate.

 

Games will usually only be adjudicated under one of three circumstances:

1. An absolutely clear and undisputable win/draw.

Such as:

Obvious forced mates.

A decisive material advantage, or impending advantage, without compensation. Decisive means an average club player could defeat a master without difficulty. Typically, this is at least a queen advantage, but can vary with position.

A dead, lifeless draw, where progress for either side is virtually impossible. Endings with locked pawns, bishops of opposite color, or no pawns and even material for example."

Nice pwn. Somebody didn't do their research and somebody else did.

not trying to "pwn" anyone, just trying to say that what we are doing isn't ridiculous or thoughtless. it's a fair practice that makes sense to most of us. 

Avatar of TheGrobe
TheGrobe
Jun 8, 2010
0
#37

Based on the fact that obviously, when someone throws the word "anytime" around it's once in a while, obviously, when they say obviously they mean obviously.

On the other hand, since anytime someone throws the word "obviously" around it isn't, obviously when Erik says obviously he doesn't.

Avatar of trysts
trysts
Jun 8, 2010
0
#38
TheGrobe wrote:

Based on the fact that obviously, when someone throws the word "anytime" around it's once in a while, obviously, when they say obviously they mean obviously.

On the other hand, since anytime someone throws the word "obviously" around it isn't, obviously when Erik says obviously he doesn't.

Sometimes you read a comment, so genius, that you start crying. TheGrobe...Thank YouLaughing

Avatar of Cystem_Phailure
Cystem_Phailure
Jun 8, 2010
0
#39

Wasn't it nice of CarlMI to start a thread where he thought he wasn't going to get any non-staff responses?  We've had 4 pages of fun!  Thanks, CarlMI! Say, did everyone notice he still has all his games on vacation while he "awaits clarification of chess.com policy"?  Apparently we haven't helped out enough yet and the poor guy's only got 2 months and 27 days of vacation left, so we'd better speed up our action here . . . 

Avatar of Eastendboy
Eastendboy
Jun 8, 2010
0
#40
CarlMI wrote:
underflow wrote:
CarlMI wrote:  Still waiting a definition of lost position. "

Here's a definition of Lost Position:  Any Chess game position from which a player must lose with accurate play.  Many complex lost positions may still offer winning or drawing chances with alert play.  (From http://www.chess-poster.com/english/glossary) 

In my opinion, the staff has acted very reasonably to adjucate certain games in very specific circumstances.  And as far as I can tell, there has not been a change in policy. 

And if players always played accurately the result would always be a draw and it wouldn't have arrived at a lost position in the first place.  The definition presumes the player with the advantage would not make a mistake.  Once I get a winning advantage and my opponent goes on vacation can I claim a win since I must be presumed to be incapable of further error in my play?

Don't be a sententious git.  Asked.  Answered.