Aurjdbxjkvokej kdjdjfbehsjsnssjjek
Should I accept my opponents draw offer
Sort:
?
?
Kindness Yes
UwU
sdafd
WHAT
i could kill that cat in seconds!
And hopefully it won't be to bloody
Not exactly the same in content, but similar in spirit, Genna Sosonko wrote about this incident between Zurab Azmaiparashvili and Vladimir Malakhov:
"Malakhov recalled: 'Seeing that the rooks were still on the board, he said something like, 'Oh, first the exchange, of course', put his bishop back, took my rook, and the game continued. I don't know what should have been done differently in this situation — in Azmaiparashvili's place, some might have resigned immediately, and in my place, some would have demanded that he make a move with his bishop — but I didn't want to ruin the logical development of the duel, so I didn't object when Zurab made a different move: the mistake was obviously nothing to do with chess! When we signed the score sheets, Azmaiparashvili suggested to me that we consider the game a draw. But... by then I had already resigned and it was too late to call it a draw. After the game I was left with an unpleasant after-taste, but that was due mainly to my own play.'
This incident had a big impact. Some people said that in Azmaiparashvili's place they would have resigned the game immediately, as Kortchnoi did in a similar situation playing Bagirov at the Soviet Championship of 1960. In a complicated position, which many people considered advantageous to Kortchnoi, an exchange took place and the future national champion had to make an obvious bishop move, eliminating the enemy rook on e1. Lost in thought, Kortchnoi impulsively picked up his other bishop and immediately resigned the game. Many people argued that Malakhov's decision, allowing his opponent to basically take back his move, had nothing in common with fair play, and that Malakhov should not be praised but condemned for breaking the rules of the game. They sensibly pointed out that it wasn't only his own final result that depended on the outcome of the game, but also the standings of the other participants in the event. As far as I can see, this type of incident is almost never repaid with interest. Moreover, it does considerable psychological damage to the party who shows mercy, weakness or indecisiveness. It leads to discomfort, an unpleasant aftertaste and a burning wound in a disturbed soul, as it contradicts the principles of the game itself.
Mistakes made at the board should be punished, but so should any other 'unchesslike attitudes', as Malakhov characterised them. And who knows, perhaps the results of the Moscow grandmaster after this incident have become less impressive because Caissa doesn't like it when some other goddess than she is worshipped. Caissa doesn't like that. She likes those who enter her kingdom unconditionally and live by her laws. Only after the game can you return to the normal world, getting to know it in the same way that a fish gets to know about water only after it has found itself on dry land."