It either ridiculous parsing on FIDE's part or an attempt to maintain the integrity of the game by reducing the effect of time-control as a factor all to itself.
is bullet chess "silly"
Sort:
Dec 17, 2010
0
#282
Dec 17, 2010
0
#284
Article 5 gives the rules of completion of the game. Nowhere in that article does it mention running out of time. Why is that? Simple - because time isn't a necessary element of chess. Starting in Article 6, FIDE discusses a particular type of chess - Competitive chess and gives rules that apply only to competitive chess (or in other games by mutual agreement). They are rules of chess, but not universal rules. They don't apply to unofficial games unless by mutual consent, and are mitigated to facilitate the situation for which they were designed-Competition.
Dec 17, 2010
0
#285
I'm not defending anything. As I said earlier in spite of several uncalled for snide remarks, you've missed my entire point. The point, for the third, and last, time, is that time is not an intrinsic element of chess by FIDE's definition. Much earlier several folks insisted that FIDE's rules showed time to be one of the elements of chess contrary what common sense would already indicate. The fact, not the claim, that time isn't an intrinsic element of chess leads to several ideas. But the idea that seems relevant to this thread is that, since time-control is NOT intrinsic to chess, making it (time), not just a factor in a game but a PRIME factor in a game -regardless of how desirable or reasonable that factor may be- is not in the spirit of chess (by spirit, in case the word is confusing, I mean how the game is intended to be regarded). Actually, I think it could be argued that it perverts the real intent of chess. Now, it can be argued that the spirit of chess is a debatable term, or idea, and I would agree, but it seems that FIDE itself feels the same way which is why they mitigated the Quickplay rules to avoid any win by time alone (i.e. along with time, there has to be an something of an attempt to win). Whether you think it would be evoked is totally irrelevant. One can also argue that bullet is not primarily about time. Shug. I think THAT is something very few people would agree with (other than those who feel a need to validate the game by making it more than what it is) unless someone could come up with supportable data.
The references to Article 9 in article 5.2 (draws) seems only to point out the similarities. The referred-to points, being those of competitive chess, are, of course, more detailed. I don't see what that has to do with anything.
Atos wrote:
The longest you play is 3 0 from what I see. But it's possible that bullet and blitz could make someone a better chess player but that doesn't make them chess. Just as fitness training could make someone a better tennis player but still it doesn't make it tennis.
Oh, and messing with the clock on 1 0 doesn't take a computer genious at all.
The longest time control I play with strangers on chess.com is indeed 3 minutes. Preference is given however to 1 minute. On other sites I play longer games, including 15+5.
Why would someone try to mess with the communication between his computer and the chess server? First he should do it consistently (for instance, even when not playing games). Secondly, it's much more easy to use autochess. Honestly, I think that this type of cheating is mostly in your mind :)
The casual play of chess without clocks is known as skittles. When the first International Tournament was organized in 1851, the organizers recognized a need for some kind of time control, because of the sitzfleisch approach to chess. Sitzfeisch consisted of siting for long periods of time moving deliberately slowly (sometimes no more than one move a day). The player would make solid, but uninspired moves, waiting for the opponent to blunder from boredom.
bondocel wrote:
Why would someone try to mess with the communication between his computer and the chess server? First he should do it consistently (for instance, even when not playing games). Secondly, it's much more easy to use autochess. Honestly, I think that this type of cheating is mostly in your mind :)
It is not difficult to cause significant lag on the connection, and it is not necessary to make it permanent. Why not just use autochess, well someone using autochess is going to be terribly obvious and will probably be caught soon. I wouldn't want to pursue this topic further as it belongs in the Cheating Forum. :)
If most people agree that skittles are chess, then it would seem that, as Batgirl suggests, the element of measuring time is not an intrinsic or essential component of chess. Of course, a chess game by default occurs in time, but measuring time, along with winning on time, is a later addition and not strictly necessary to the game.
I had a game of rapid chess here ( G/20) in a competition in which my opponent was trying to wi n a drawn position on time at the end of the game. It was bishops of opposite color and 2 pawns each and the pawns were all blocked BUT he had a couple of minutes more than me on the clock and was trying to "flag" me. I offered a draw and he refused at which point I called the arbiter to claim the draw. The arbiter came and made us continue and saw that my opponent indeed was making no progress and simply trying to win by running me out of time and gave me the draw....... my opponent was higher rated and he was NOT happy about the arbiter's decision but that's the rules. Sadly, on the net you cannot claim a draw in such games and I often am run out of time by speedier players and sometimes even in winning positions.
Atos wrote:
It is not difficult to cause significant lag on the connection, and it is not necessary to make it permanent.
1. It is difficult
2. It must be permanent. Otherwise it would be very strange to lag only when playing games.
3. On popular servers lag compensation works only for one second. Meaning that, if you lag more than one second, you actually lose time.
AnthonyCG wrote:
19 pages is crazy.
It's very simple.
For the first 30 seconds or so you are playing chess. You are trying to make good moves. But when you're low on time or you're down a piece you make stupid moves as fast as you can. You're not trying to play real chess anymore. You're just trying to move fast.
That's why bullet is silly. You're not really playing the game the way you know you should. There's nothing wrong with blitz and bullet but they are really just shallow forms of traditional chess.
If you're "just trying to move fast" after 30 seconds, you're not a very good bullet player. It's more like 50-55 seconds.
I think that this whole thread is silly, now listen I am going to tell it as it is...
The last post was a joke, of course. Now, as I see it... a bullet game will be decided on the board if one of the sides blunders early on, or there is a large gap between the players in chess ability. Between players of similar chess ability who are not blundering early on, both sides will probably approach the end of the time control, and fast play will usually be decisive then.
No, he disagrees on principle. Otherwise this thread would soon be decided in your favour. We don't want that, do we?
That video only shows that armageddon is a silly way of deciding tiebreaks
[COMMENT DELETED]
From the Book Blitz Theory by Jonathan Maxwell, the notorious pseudo check
‘When we have an obvious check with a rook or queen, we don’t play the check, but instead say “check” while merely cutting the king by placing the piece on the line adjacent to the check. In the below
diagram, our opponent will expect the move to be the Rg8 check. Instead, we say “check” while playing the wily Rg7 blitz tactic! Now there is every chance that upon seeing the typical rook thrust he will move out of the anticipated check, and walk right in to our true check. We can then claim his illegal move as our victory.
Saying check is kind of lame
I am curious about this part of the rules:
Article 10: Quickplay Finish
10.1
A ‘quickplay finish’ is the phase of a game when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time.
10.2
If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b)
a.
If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
b.
If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue, if possible in the presence of an arbiter. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or as soon as possible after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.
c.
If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes time.
d.
The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to (a), (b) and (c).
Technicalities of enforcement aside, it would seem that the rules at least theoretically provide that, if someone is trying to win solely by means of the clock, the other side is entitled to claim a draw.