play chess against computer

Play Chess Against Computer

Participate and you will find!
Quirky name, real matters
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
spurtus 111 ( +1 | -1 )
Nastiest way to win/lose I lost a won game at the weekend to devious tactics by a 11 year old. Is wasnt internet based it was at a rapidplay tournament.

Heres what happened...

My next move is mate, my opponent has a choice to put his checked King into 1 of 3 forced mate positions.

I have 2 mins on my clock, my opponent has 10 mins.

My opponent to play, regardless of what he plays, he loses.

YET I LOST THE GAME!

HOW?....

I had not pressed my clock, my opponent who knew he was beat, as he is a very good player!, PRETENDED to be thinking about his move, humming and hawing (acting!) about his turmoil of how to be mated... I was quite happy knowing I had won, until he sticks his hand out and says your flag has fallen.... WHAT!... he had deliberately let my clock tick down!... despite the fact that during the game I would remind him on my move that he had not pressed his clock!

Grrr, blood was boiling!... he may have won the game, but lost my respect to his dubious gamesmanship.

Blood temperature is still simmering though!... One thins is sure... I will not make that mistake ever again.

There couldn't surely be a nastier thing to do at chess?

Spurtus.









paolo 18 ( +1 | -1 )
C'mon, Don't mind, **it happens!
Consider you've lost a game but you also have learnt a lesson. And lessons lasts more then a rapid game.

Best regards,
Paolo.
chessnovice 52 ( +1 | -1 )
... That's very typical play for OTB games. My opponent did that to me a few times in my first tournament, when I wasn't used to using a clock. However, I won that game on timeout, anyway. hehe

But when I had the chance to do the same tactic in one of the next rounds, I didn't, and kept telling the guy to punch his clock. I was obviously distracted by it, since I lost the game to a simple mate.

Everyone goes through that silly thing with the time-out - it's just the game's way of teaching you of the clock's presense.
adrianallen 28 ( +1 | -1 )
I rarely speak to my opponents in OTB, at least not until the game has finished.

Im always thinking regardless of whether it is mine of there move.

I have won because a player didnt punch his clock. I only make a move when my clock is ticking, I don't fake or pretend, just wait.
youngglor 17 ( +1 | -1 )
The boy's an a****le...i mean anyone here would have told you to press your clock...what an evil mind...He knows he won unfairly...put that in your mind
caldazar 138 ( +1 | -1 )
This always comes up, and I still don't understand the resentment of being "tricked" in this manner. The clock is just as much a part of the game as the board and pieces, and winning on time is just as valid a win as a win by mate. Isn't that the whole point to the strategy of making a mess of the position if you're losing positionally but your opponent is in time trouble, to use your clock advantage as a weapon? If you made a horrible blunder and left your queen in take, would you expect your opponent to chime in and tell you that you really should take that move back and play something better? Then why would you expect your opponent to inform you of a clock blunder? The acting job was a bit over-the-top, perhaps, but there's nothing devious about your opponent not pointing out your mistakes.

I play like adrianallen; I'm always thinking so I rarely point out a clock blunder by my opponent. I get to see his move and I can use his clock time to think of a reply, so why would I want to toss away that advantage? About the only time I'll tell my opponent that he didn't press his clock is if I'm holding a trivially won position. There, I'd rather just win quickly than sit there and wait for time to expire.

And hey, now that you've made this mistake, you'll likely never make it again, so in the long run, and isn't that what chess improvement is all about?
finduriel 82 ( +1 | -1 )
nasty My nastiest win came here on GK against somebody who let a game time out although it was a mate in one move for me. Two things made this particularly nasty: my opponent had previously moved very quickly, as soon as he realized he had lost, he slowed down tremendously, and he was rated just about 400 points higher than me, which led me to think that he wanted to wait till the gap was less than 400 points. Finally, I saw him online many times during all those days I waited for a move.

Fortunately I kept my cool and managed to abstain from sending him any personal messages or writing comments. It was very hard at times.


The behaviour of your opponent, spurtus, is of course much worse! I still think of chess as a game of gentlemen who know how to behave, but that's probably just an illusion.
youngglor 38 ( +1 | -1 )
I do understand...was just caught in the moment..
But you have to agree that it seems pretty cheap. Using the clock as an advantage is...well awkward.
Pretending that your doing a move while your evily enjoying your scheme as an 11 year old...reminds me of someone called Artemis Fowl ;)

Cheers,
Spurtus : next time just destroy him!
victord 43 ( +1 | -1 )
This type of play comes under the catagory of ethics ... personal ethics.
He/She won, but at what price? A total loss of respect for one. Your opponet wins a point or two (big deal), plays "within the rules", but must tomarrow morning look in the mirror and recognize a fraud looking back.
For you Spurtus the "lesson" is clear ... hope for the best in gamesmanship, but EXPECT the worst.

Winning at all costs (the losers mantra)
philaretus 7 ( +1 | -1 )
The nastiest way to lose? This must surely be after you've rejected the offer of a draw.
caldazar 148 ( +1 | -1 )
youngglor Well, I suppose we simply look at chess differently, but I still don't see why using a clock advantage is cheap. The clock is simply a part of the game. In other timed games and sports, no one cries foul if a player or team possesses winning chances but ultimately loses because of a lack of remaining time/innings/sets/whatever. Why should a chess competition be any different? A clock advantage is no different in my mind than a pawn advantage, a two bishop advantage, a psychological advantage, or any other chessic advantage; it's a tool to be used to help win games.

There have been many games I have won OTB simply because I understood that my opponent was under time pressure. In those situations, given the choice between equally promising (or equally inferior) continuations, I would usually choose the more complex continuation that would require my opponent to burn precious minutes on his clock. Hardly a revolutionary strategy; many players do this. Some of Tal's sacrifices, for instance, were later demonstrated to be unsound with best play, but because the refutations could not be reasonably worked out OTB due to time considerations, they were perfectly adequate and Tal scored many nice wins that way. Tal had his critics to be sure, but I don't think too many people (if any) seriously called him "cheap".

A clock blunder is like any other chess blunder, something to be understood as a playing weakness and eliminated from one's play.
happinessisawarmgun 8 ( +1 | -1 )
sorry....but fair play to the boy !! I think you are more annoyed at losing to an eleven year old
lordnguyenvo 43 ( +1 | -1 )
i dont think the boy did anything wrong.i mean its your responsibility to watch for your clock,not your opponent.his way of winning maybe a little cheap to you but u got to admit its your fault in the first place.just because he appeared to be thinking and awwing doesnt mean its his move,thats just what u assume.
bottom line-valuable lesson:never assume anything,watch your own stuff.

anaxagoras 34 ( +1 | -1 )
Any talk of "ethics" in Chess is a category mistake. Chess always has been and always will be an ego battle. What matters is whether or not you're honest about it; admit that you don't measure up to the greatest, or hide behind moral reproach of the ones who do and act "unethically."

The boy is evil, unethical, mendacious and cunning; and few ever acheive so much in Chess!
riga 92 ( +1 | -1 )
Agreed Chess is 2 parts skill, 1 part talent, and a whole sh** load of phycology (at least OTB). You "Grown-ups are always talking about ethics and sportsmanship. Chess is a gentlesmens game when played by gentlemen, not 11 year olds who couldn't care less wheather or not they are going to be "sportmanlike". I actually did the same thing when i was 9 against some guy who was 20-25. When his clock fell, i actually laughed in his face. The game wasn't lost but i was loosing. The situation doesn't matter, only that he left his clock ticking.

Chess is about defeating your enemy at all costs! Even if you have to kick your opponent under the table, while he is thinking, at the climax of the game. The 11 year old is going places. Are you spurtus?
Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven- Paradise Lost/ (words to live by)
myway316 20 ( +1 | -1 )
Sorry,Spurtus... ...but I've got little sympathy for you in this. Your clock,and your time, is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY,not your opponent's. What he did was not unfair,unethical,or poor sportsmanship-you made a mistake,and he took advantage of it.
youngglor 41 ( +1 | -1 )
Caldazar I do agree that the time in a chess game can be an ''advantage'' ... But this example does not fit in the category. Spurtus had the advantage and he should have won, only to fall in a misunderstanding of his time left. It was a question of decency from his opponent...him falling into the category ''winning at all costs''

My conclusion - to Spurtus a mistake that shouldn't have been commited just don't do it again but he shouldn't blame himself
caldazar 65 ( +1 | -1 )
youngglor There is no "should have won" in chess; either you win or you do not. You can have the best position in the world, and one blunder can ruin the whole thing. It seems to me that this is exactly what happened; spurtus had a won position, and then he blundered and lost. No, he didn't hang a piece, he forgot to press his clock, but a blunder is a blunder. It sounds like you feel that the position that appears on the board should be more important than issues of clock management, but in OTB (and in most chess with time controls in general), this simply isn't the case. The clock (and clock and time management) is very much an integral part of the game.
wizard_of_odd 58 ( +1 | -1 )
Question: In a tournament, when your opponent plays a blunder, do you do the "gentlemanly" thing and offer a takeback so he can re-think his move? No! You follow the touch-move rule, play the winning move and punish his lack of foresight. It's *his* responsibility to find good places for his pieces.

In a similar manner, the clock is part of the game. You blundered, he took advantage of your mistake. Live and learn, but don't blame the boy for something *you* did (or, in this case, didn't). Do you honestly expect a man to cut his own throat when there's possible reprieve to be had? Gimme a break. You're the one who let the clock tick down. I say: fair play.

*Wiz*
finduriel 55 ( +1 | -1 )
well doesn't this lead to a win-at-all-costs attitude? I remember the Polgar-Kasparov (or vice versa) game where Kasparov made a move, saw that it was bad, and took it back, or something like that. Is this still alright? After all, Kasparov did what he could to win, and he got away with it.

I can by now understand the point of those who support the eleven-year old, though. If you see a chance to win then you should take it. But what if it's not according to the rules but you can still get away with it (like in the Kasparov game)? Does winning validate such a behaviour?
baseline 75 ( +1 | -1 )
spurtus Get over it! and welcome to tournament chess.
caldazar your right on the money as usual.
finduriel did it ever occur to you that one of the reasons you achieved a winning position against "Mr. who started to play slowly" is because this person didn't use their time wisely at the beginning and middle part of the game and was playing too quickly?
riga! lucky for you I'm not a tournament director in New York :o) kick them under the table. really?
victord get a grip, we are talking about an 11 year old surely you remember the little creatures? Chances are very good that the only reason he knew of this trick is because it had been played on him. Chess is a game of rules and as unfortunate as it is, it was spurtus who didn't abide by the rules and punch his clock.




peppe_l 249 ( +1 | -1 )
In my last tournament My opponent forgot to press the clock. I pointed that out to him and after I lost the game we had a friendly chat & post mortem, and he gave me a big thank you for being so fair. Next day we had another friendly discussion. The point? I made a new "chess friend" - to me that is much more important than "winning at all costs"...Maybe I had an opportunity to win the game by acting, who knows? But it was me who felt lazy in the opening stage of the game, so the loss was deserved anyway. I simply cannot feel joy of winning a game in such way (forgetting to press the clock is NOT the same thing as zeitnot or leaving queen en prise!). I do not "promise" to always remind my opponents in similar situations, but at least this time I felt it was something I was happy to do :-)

If _I_ forget to press the clock I do not expect my opponent to point it out - it is not his obligation to do so. It is not unfair, I can only blame myself. If my opponent deliberately relies to acting, well, I simply feel sorry for someone who is willing to go so far to win a game in amateur tournament where people supposedly play for fun. If someone really plays for ratings or few dozens of euros...well, to each of his own I guess.

Perhaps one explanation is that our culture is different, at least in US it seems sports & games are all about winning. Here playing itself is its own reward :-)

Young players seem to be more willing to rely on "non chess-related tactics" like acting etc. Perhaps grown-up players have learned to realize why they really play chess - for fun. For young players winning a game is bigger thing than it is for grown-ups, plus I suppose "being gentleman" is less important.

Riga,

Hopefully after 10 more years you will see things in different way. The things "grown-ups" say may not make sense now, but I guarantee they WILL make sense after you become "grown-up" yourself and learn to put winning a game of chess to context.

"Chess is about defeating your enemy at all costs! Even if you have to kick your opponent under the table, while he is thinking, at the climax of the game."

There are rules (kicking opponents under the table is FORBIDDEN) and you are expected to obey them. If you win by breaking the rules, you have not deserved your win. It is no different from Ben Johnson using doping or Tonya Harding hiring someone to stab her competitor. It is called cheating, my friend.

"The 11 year old is going places. Are you spurtus?"

Perhaps in time you will learn the place where you go after winning a chess game in such way is not so important place afterall :-)


baseline 18 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe_l This all took place in the UK not the US
Why is it you make "Playing to win" sound like something bad?? We have many activities that do not involve winning and if you give me a few minutes I'll think of some! :0)
finduriel 59 ( +1 | -1 )
I agree with peppe surprise, surprise.

baseline, it's nice that you have a sentence for everyone. Sure, Mr X might have played too quick at the beginning, but why let a loss in one move time out? He should've resigned much earlier but it seemed that he stretched the game to see if I get another win in the meantime so that he'd only lose eight points instead of sixteen. No big deal, but it annoyed me.

"Playing to win" is a good thing, sure. If you play to lose, you probably will lose. Still, the way how people play to win remains important. I hold it with our team motto: It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice. :)
peppe_l 68 ( +1 | -1 )
Baseline I assume all chess players try to win (except me, I like draws! :-)

That is as long as you obey the rules of course.

That is why I mentioned US, based on examples given by Riga (and to be honest, many others in the past...)

It wasnt my intention to make "playing to win" sound bad (that is why I wrote "ALL about winning"). To clarify my comment, IMO US sports & games culture tends to overlook playing itself (participating, learning, having fun...) in the expense of winning. Actually I recall you pointing this out (the importance of winning) in one of our earlier discussions here! Anyway, each country has different culture and what seems strange from my perspective looks normal from the perspective of others...

anaxagoras 24 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe_l,

I notice the difference you speak of in individuals here in the US. It seems to be a matter of temperament as much as national culture. You are right, however, that there's a lack of interest here in things that are fun but don't make money or win something.
victord 255 ( +1 | -1 )
In response ... I suspose I should have prefaced my post with .. IMO .. because that's all it was. If this were my 11yr. old son I would have seen it as an oppertunity to teach him something about ... yes ... personal ethics.
Yes he won the game and yes he played "within the rules", but is this something to feel proud of?
I don't think so. I also think it is a major problem within our culture, this business of "winning above all else."
anaxagoras .. your reply seemed ambigious to me and I would like better to understand what you had to say. I see you are a student of Philosophy and therefore assume you've studied ethics in depth. Are you saying that one should leave their ethics aside when playing chess?
riga .. I don't have an answer to your post other than to hope it was "tounge in cheek" ... if not, then you reveal yourself.
baseline ... I've got a grip, and a solid one too, and I'm very familar with 11 yr. olds, I don't have to "remember the little creatures" because they are all around me every day. BTW, I don't see them as "little creatures" myself, but as future adults being molded by the input we give them. Your point about the 11 yr. old learning his ethics from others illustrates this. I don't see "playing to win" as a bad thing (it's ONE OF the main goals in games); "playing to win ANYWAY POSSIBLE" is a bad thing IMO. Perhaps we just have different personal ethic standards here. I'm not surprised or shocked, afterall we see this everyday.

I've never played OTB Tournament chess, only social games with friends so I can't comment from experence on the ethics of most players. I assume they run the entire spectrum of human possiblity ... excellent to terrible. The point I wanted to make was that this 11yr olds mentor, guide, teacher or PARENT had a golden oppertunity here to introduce the concept of ... yes there it is again ... personal ethics.
I've made a living for the past 20yrs or so from playing games (in my case ... poker) and believe it or not the most honest, ethical people I've met in my life are gamblers. Get caught cheating just once and you're thru in Poker. You become persona non grata and can't find a game where you're welcome.
Assume this 11 yr. old is your son for a moment and answer these questions ... Are you proud of him? Have you taught him well? Will this experence serve him well in life?

victord
victord 33 ( +1 | -1 )
BTW IMO the example given is not the worst way to lose a game of chess.
I had a game here on GK once where I had a mate in 3 situation made a "mouse error" and blundered into a loss. I thought I was on the "analyze the board" feature and was checking out candidate moves .... WRONG!
The reason this was so bad is that I had no one else to blame but myself. NASTY
caldazar 299 ( +1 | -1 )
Does the eleven-year-old have anything to be proud of? Probably not. Maybe his overall quality of play way good but he got outplayed (and maybe it was simply awful), but certainly the win was nothing to boast about. Yet at the same time, it is not necessarily something to be ashamed of either. He played by the rules and he won. Maybe the acting job was immature, but it was not a clear case of a violation of good sportsmanship (most governing bodies for chess do in fact outline a code of conduct and a code of ethics, albeit a very general one).

I'm 25 years old and I play tournament chess to win, at all (legal) costs. I have my own interpretations of what constitutes proper conduct during a serious game, but I certainly don't expect or require anyone else to have the same code of ethics. All I ask is that they obey the rules. I can respect other players' viewpoints that a game of tournament chess should be a "gentlemanly" competition, but I don't share them. People play chess for all kinds of reasons and if being friendly and nice is fun for you, then by all means play that way. Playing a strong game and winning are two aspects that make competitive chess fun for me, so that's how I play. This is very different from my attitude towards the games I play down at my local club. There, we're all friends and the environment is more social, so being nice and congenial is an important factor that contributes to my enjoyment in that setting.

I experienced something similar to all this at a recent tournament. I was holding a clearly inferior position but my opponent was in serious time trouble and was scrambling to make the first time control (upon reaching move 40, both of us would have gained an extra hour on our clocks). At around move 35 (or so, I forget now), my opponent saw a way to repeat the position and did so. Both of us knew exactly what was going on, he would repeat the position twice to get to move 40 and then have a long think about how to press home his advantage. However, my opponent failed to realize that he had an inaccurate scoresheet and that third repetition of the position would occur before move 40, not after. So we reached the third repetition, I stopped the clocks, called over the tournament director, and claimed my draw.

Was I proud of my draw? Certainly not; I was outplayed. But while I was sympathetic to my opponent's frustration and anger, I hardly felt ashamed; I had played by the rules and escaped with a draw.

What I respected about my opponent (other than the fact that he was clearly the more skillful player) was that while he was understandably upset (he stormed out of the tournament hall), he didn't stand there and accuse me of being an unethical cheat. He took personal responsibility for his mistake. When I met up with him again at another tournament, he was perfectly pleasant to me, and we chatted briefly. And I think that's very important in chess (and life in general), to accept that the mistakes you make are your responsibility. Because only by accepting that we are the root cause of our own errors can we ever hope to correct them.
riga 111 ( +1 | -1 )
I pissed off a lot of people or at least it looks like they don't agree with me. Anyone who takes a 15 year old too seriously is probably stupider than one anyway. As for victord, i'm suprised you play poker and have such a harsh outlook. Although for legal reasons, i'm lieing right now, but i've made more money from poker than chess, and I can't say i've meet anyone who has a completely ethical approach to the game. In fact, it's probably one of the most unethical games you could play, although you should have no remourse for doing so.

To peppe_1: I have never actually kicked someone under the table, but i know of grandmasters who have resorted to similiar tactics and have witnessed one such incident myself. And I really doubt that i'll be much different in my view of the world in 10 years. There are rules (kicking opponents under the table is FORBIDDEN) and you are expected to obey them. "If you win by breaking the rules, you have not deserved your win." If i win, i deserve to win.

Caldazar: get a grip. leave the 11 year alone. Jesus, can't a kid do anything nasty without some weird stranger taking him to the side and "teaching him a lesson?"
anaxagoras 306 ( +1 | -1 )
"your reply seemed ambigious to me and I would like better to understand what you had to say. I see you are a student of Philosophy and therefore assume you've studied ethics in depth. Are you saying that one should leave their ethics aside when playing chess?"

Yes, it was ambiguous, and purposefully so: my point was to convey my pleasure at a child getting away with the kind of dirty, foul play that is most usually reserved for the world of "mature" adults. In a word, that eleven year old is precocious.

So far as I am concerned with values, my concern in Chess is aesthetic, not ethical. To play with the most force while making the fewest possible moves, that is my ideal. It is what I find beautiful in the game.

As for ethics, yes, I've studied it, though I consider myself more a student in the field of moral psychology, which investigates the psychological structures underlying moral emotions like guilt and shame. I say that ethics in chess is a category mistake because I see the two chess opponents in an adversarial relationship. You may play chess for fun, honor or for fame, or for whatever reason you like, but the object of the game remains, and that's checkmate. Ethical concerns about personal conduct are therefore peripheral and, if I am right, hold no weight over whether the game was played well.

For the sake of argument, suppose that I am wrong. Suppose that our ethical judgements about personal conduct also pass judgement on a person's quality of chess play. The eleven year old deceived his opponent, no doubt, and did it masterfully without uttering a word. First, it is not obvious that it is always wrong to use psychological tactics against a chess opponent. Lasker did it all of the time, with great success, and no one personally faulted him for it. Second, ask yourself the question, "does my opponent *deserve* to be told that he's forgot to hit his clock? Does he deserve to be told the truth?" Deciding "no" is not a convincing example of poor personal ethics (unless you're a Kantian, I suppose), and that decision is consistent with other adversarial relationships of all kinds.

If a player *does* notify his opponent that he has forgot to hit his clock, then it was an honorable thing to do provided that it was done out of strength and confidence in his own abilities, and not out of a petty concern to appear moral to his fellows. An over concern with personal integrity is a mark of mediocrity, and the best chess players display little; remember when Kasparov wouldn't shake the boy's hand? And he can get away with that because he is the best. The vast majority of us are patzers, and shouldn't hold any pretensions that it was our unethical opponents who are responsible for our sorry state and not our dear old selves.

I admit that I am a bit cynical about "gentlemanly" conduct and adult maturity. A recent initiate to the adult world myself, I must confess that I find little improvement in the maturity of people in their adult years, though there are exceptions. So I say that in chess you can be as ethical as you want, but don't think for a minute that your ethical conduct holds a candle to actually winning the game.
riga 37 ( +1 | -1 )
OMG, couldn't say it better myself phychology beats morality.

If 2 gentlemen play the game, then the game is played with gentlemanly conduct.

IF 2 scoundrals play the game, it is one of wits and stamina. Pulling all the tricks while avoiding all your opponents.

And if a gentleman plays a scoundral, all the honor in the world ain't going to save him from a guy who can move his hand so fast that his queen on d4 is suddenly on c4.
anaxagoras 100 ( +1 | -1 )
victord,

Let me respond to you now...

"Yes he won the game and yes he played "within the rules", but is this something to feel proud of?
I don't think so. I also think it is a major problem within our culture, this business of "winning above all else.""

I am sympathetic to what you say here. People do some terrible things to others in order to "get ahead" in life and acheive success; our corporate scandles are a pardigm of this problem.

"Assume this 11 yr. old is your son for a moment and answer these questions ... Are you proud of him? Have you taught him well? Will this experence serve him well in life?"

Where I think we disagree is in whether or not this eleven year old's action should be taken seroiusly, or as something to laugh at and enjoy. That is why I say that to do something unethical in chess would really be a noteworthy acheivement: ultimately, chess is unimportant. Compare the kid's deception to a really great bluff in a game of poker. Let him be proud of it once, but don't hesitate to show him that he'll get burned if he relies on it instead of learning the fundamentals.
baseline 162 ( +1 | -1 )
Victord You have a firm grip on many things, but not chess.
The more appropriate action in this case would be to take spurtus aside and explain the fact of life to him. ie. If your flag falls you lose, it doesn't matter what position is on the board, and it is your responsibility alone to punch your clock and complete your move. The fact is spurtus knew this but allowed himself to become distracted, not by the kids antics since these did not come into play at the time he should have punched the clock. He was distracted by the possibility of checkmating the 11 year old kid to the point that he forgot all about his clock. I would suggest to him more practice games under tournament conditions so that using the clock becomes second nature.

As far as the 11yr old is concerned, I would really have to observe is actions to know if his acting went over the top. Every tournament player you run into can tell you numerous stories about games decided by time trouble.

Tournament Chess is not a mere game. It's more like a sport. spurtus is actually fortunate that this has happen to him now in a relativly unimportant game because now it will not happen to him in a future more important game where there is much more at stake.

Having said all of that, I agree that it is important to teach children ethics and a value system which will allow them to grow into productive and happy adults. We don't know nearlhy enough about this 11 yr old to even begin to speculate on what should be done about him.
peppe_l 13 ( +1 | -1 )
Riga If you steal a wallet from one of your competitors BUT manage to do it without being caught, have you deserved all the money in the wallet?
victord 318 ( +1 | -1 )
Thanks for reaction .. .. to my 'ethics' post.
I've learned a little about OTB chess and the way it's played by those that posted.
Thanks to caldazar riga anaxagoras baseline and peppe_1... I learn from you all. As I said above, I've never played OTB Tournaments, as baseline says "I don't have a firm grip on chess". This is true and is exactly WHY I don't play "serious" chess. I've never played with a clock and can only imagine the pressure. Don't like blitzchess at all ... doesn't interest me in the least. I DO love chess with a player of equal or better skill than myself while sitting over a nice bottle of wine. Or "GK" chess .. it's become my favorite diversion from "real life".
I'm beginning to think some of us argue two different points.
1. personal ethics
2. OTB chess ethics (gamesmanship)
I look at this 11 yr. old and think .. Where did this idea come from (I can win if I just act-out a little and stall until his clock runs out and THIS IS A GOOD THING) I believe from your posts most of you see it this way also.
caldazar .. Your reply made a lot of sense to me and helped me understand how the game of OTB Tour. Chess is played. It also drove home to me that I would never enjoy it. Allow me to quote you ... " Playing a strong game and winning are two aspects that make competitive chess fun for me, so that's how I play."
Me too!
Does playing poorly and winning by acting until your opponets clock runs out come in second? Apparently in OTB Tour. Chess this is ethical and this where I went wrong. My concern was the "big picture" of an 11yr. old and how this ethical standard might carry over into the rest of his life.
riga ... You didn't piss me off (disappointed ...yes, but 80% of 15yr. old do) I see you as this 11yr. old 4 yrs. later. You see my approach as "harsh".
Where?
Please let me know where you play Poker ... I'll be there. As I said earlier ... You REVEAL yourself and that makes $$$$ for me in ANY Poker game. You have more "tells" than a dictionary.
anaxagoras Your reply was the most interesting of those recieved. You did clarify your points for me and for that I thank you. You write and explain yourself very well and although I don't agree with everthing you say I like the way you say it. Thank you.
baseline You are right; my grip on chess is weak. Yours is much stronger. What you say (about chess) makes a lot of sense. That's all.

Thanks to all for the lesson on OTB Tour. Chess ethics.

victord














victord 318 ( +1 | -1 )
Thanks for reaction .. .. to my 'ethics' post.
I've learned a little about OTB chess and the way it's played by those that posted.
Thanks to caldazar riga anaxagoras baseline and peppe_1... I learn from you all. As I said above, I've never played OTB Tournaments, as baseline says "I don't have a firm grip on chess". This is true and is exactly WHY I don't play "serious" chess. I've never played with a clock and can only imagine the pressure. Don't like blitzchess at all ... doesn't interest me in the least. I DO love chess with a player of equal or better skill than myself while sitting over a nice bottle of wine. Or "GK" chess .. it's become my favorite diversion from "real life".
I'm beginning to think some of us argue two different points.
1. personal ethics
2. OTB chess ethics (gamesmanship)
I look at this 11 yr. old and think .. Where did this idea come from (I can win if I just act-out a little and stall until his clock runs out and THIS IS A GOOD THING) I believe from your posts most of you see it this way also.
caldazar .. Your reply made a lot of sense to me and helped me understand how the game of OTB Tour. Chess is played. It also drove home to me that I would never enjoy it. Allow me to quote you ... " Playing a strong game and winning are two aspects that make competitive chess fun for me, so that's how I play."
Me too!
Does playing poorly and winning by acting until your opponets clock runs out come in second? Apparently in OTB Tour. Chess this is ethical and this where I went wrong. My concern was the "big picture" of an 11yr. old and how this ethical standard might carry over into the rest of his life.
riga ... You didn't piss me off (disappointed ...yes, but 80% of 15yr. old do) I see you as this 11yr. old 4 yrs. later. You see my approach as "harsh".
Where?
Please let me know where you play Poker ... I'll be there. As I said earlier ... You REVEAL yourself and that makes $$$$ for me in ANY Poker game. You have more "tells" than a dictionary.
anaxagoras Your reply was the most interesting of those recieved. You did clarify your points for me and for that I thank you. You write and explain yourself very well and although I don't agree with everthing you say I like the way you say it. Thank you.
baseline You are right; my grip on chess is weak. Yours is much stronger. What you say (about chess) makes a lot of sense. That's all.

Thanks to all for the lesson on OTB Tour. Chess ethics.

victord














victord 3 ( +1 | -1 )
oops **************** !!! sorry for double post.
v_glorioso12 115 ( +1 | -1 )
i think... there is nothing in 'the book' that says you must remind your opponent to press his clock. Where i play, you cant say 'check', so why say "your clock"? sometimes i remind people in scholastic tournys, but other than that, if you forget to press your clock, its all on you. if you are baking a chicken in the oven, and its almost time to pull it out, or if its done by then, the chicken isnt (and cant) jump out, tell you that its time to take him out, and go back in the oven to come save him (chicken). and to riga... your commnet "Anyone who takes a 15 year old too seriously is probably stupider than one anyway"... have you ever heard of Hikaru Nakamura? he is only 15, and a grandmaster...in fact, the 15th best player in the America. he is 2631 USCF. other than that, if its not ILLEGAL, then leave it alone. time is one factor in a game, and if u cant handle it, dont take it out on someone because they didnt remind you to do something that you just forgot. oh...one more simile. if you are skydiving, and u think you are about to hit the ground with a good landing, and you forgot to pull the string, the parachute isnt going to remind you to pull it.
riga 56 ( +1 | -1 )
Hi Again "If you steal a wallet from one of your competitors BUT manage to do it without being caught, have you deserved all the money in the wallet? "

Peppe: i wouldn't go that far but if the guy doesn't cancel his credit cards 5 min after he realizes that his wallet is gone, then yes.

Victord: go ahead and fly 3000 miles for a low stakes poker game, if interested i'll give you a meeting place. As for my tells, i'm a compulsive liar so go ahead and read me. I'll even tell you when i get bullets. As for the harsh comment, i probably used the wrong word. don't even remember what i was reffering to.
superblunder 71 ( +1 | -1 )
usually... the weaker the chess-player, the more likely to resort to 'tricks' in chess. A lot of players have a hard time with the clock...If you happen to be one of them, well you have to learn your lesson the hard way.

As for me, I would have resigned in a lost position if my opponent had forced mate and two mintues on the clock....good game! But some will 'win at all costs,' which is fine. I agree with victord, he seems like a nice gentleman. I am a good chess-player but I am also a gentleman...I would have resigned to you in such a situation spurtus.
riga 22 ( +1 | -1 )
Spurtus Has it accured to anyone that the genius who started this thread has never posted a reply and thus probably never even checked for replies? He did manage to start quite a little debate though.
superblunder 19 ( +1 | -1 )
By the way... I am glad I whipped riga in our chess game here on gameknot without having to "kick him under the table"...
baseline 47 ( +1 | -1 )
Vctord I was wrong, Your grip on chess is just fine. Someone once said that chess is a river where a gnat may drink and an elephant may bathe! Every week I look foward to thursday night and a visit to the chess club. playing a few off hand games and visiting with friends of many years. And it is this that has made chess so special to me. I think you enjoy chess much the same way. Everyone should be so fortunate.
anaxagoras 88 ( +1 | -1 )
Most seem to agree that breaking the rules disqualifies a player (and hence he can't win no matter how well he duped his opponent). Most also seem to agree that a psychological bluff, *as a move in the game,* is ok too: if you can psyche out your opponent with an intimidating move and cause him to lose a won position, all the better for you.

I think we disagree over whether clock management is a part of the game, or if it is more of an external constraint. If you take the first position, that clock management is a part of the game, then psychological tactics aimed at derailing your opponent's clock management would be ok. If you take the latter view, then those psychological tactics are more like manipulating factors external to the game in order to make your opponent screw up, and thus not ok.

To be honest, I don't see a decisive argument either way, but my inclination is to see the clock as part of the game.
baseline 15 ( +1 | -1 )
anaxagoras whatever you believe, if your flag falls, your opponet may claim the win. That makes the clock an intertgal part of tournament chess.
peppe_l 36 ( +1 | -1 )
Riga My question : "If you steal a wallet from one of your competitors BUT manage to do it without being caught, have you deserved all the money in the wallet?"

Reply from Riga : "Peppe: i wouldn't go that far but if the guy doesn't cancel his credit cards 5 min after he realizes that his wallet is gone, then yes."

Thanks for a honest response. Now it is perfectly clear why we disagree...
baseline 6 ( +1 | -1 )
peppe I like the part where he says he is a compulsive liar.
spurtus 150 ( +1 | -1 )
riga, I'm still listening, caused quite a stir that game!

Thanks everybody for putting this up for discussion... just remember to not fall out about it!.. enough damage has been done.


and my final 2p...

My feeling is that the 11 year old won, was entitled to win within the rules. However, it is a clear situation of where winning is more important than ethics to this person, again he is entitled to make this choice.

But the problem I have is I really dislike people like this, people who have this general personality makeup, whatever it is... tunnel visioned, selfish, arrogant or aggressive. While they think they are being clever, or if they are after status in the world of chess then I feel they are deceiving themselves they are not impressing anybody, or very few. I wouldnt employ this 'tactic' myself EVEN though it has been played against me, even if it was for a prize ( incidentally I lost 2nd place in the tourney because of this game )... I want to be able to sleep at night knowing that even if I lose I played my best, I would have a real problem getting to sleep if I beat somebody through such means.

Being 11 yrs old makes it slightly more acceptable though, I'm gentleman enough after all that to give him the benefit of the doubt! Since this child is still learning about how to become an adult.

But he aint making no friends this way.

Regards,
Spurtus.
caldazar 273 ( +1 | -1 )
Ethics, ethics, ethics... All this talk of ethics.

From reading your posts, spurtus, I get the feeling you believe that you were somehow entitled to win (because of your winning position), so by not allowing the "fair and correct" result, your opponent was acting unethically. You are never entitled to a win, ever. You earn your points.

I've lost count of the number of won positions I've drawn or lost because of blunders, and your situation is no different. You had the winning position, you made a serious blunder, and you wound up losing.

I object to framing the decision as a case of "winning" versus "ethics" because that is not the decision the 11 year old was presented with. He was presented with the decision of whether to choose to win or lose. There was no ethical issue involved at all. He wasn't cheating, he obeyed all the rules, he was not obligated to allow you to win. Do you seriously expect him to lose on purpose? In the same situation, I'd make the same call; I'd sit there quietly and wait for my opponent either to press his clock (in which case I'd simply resign) or run out of time (when I'd claim a win on time). So this somehow makes me selfish, aggressive, and unethical too, then, because I'd rather win than lose? Because I didn't deserve to win? No one deserves to win; winning happens as a consequence of playing the game (sometimes through good play, sometimes through dumb luck).

And while I can understand why you feel the result might be unjust, really, chess is a somewhat unjust game. You can dominate your opponent for 60 moves, blunder for one, and lose the game. If you want to speak about fairness, I think you can only frame the issue in terms of code of conduct, not in terms of results.

That leaves the issue of the 11 year old's acting job. Is it fair to try to deceive your opponent psychologically? Depends on the game you want to play, I suppose, but in tournament chess, I feel it is not only fair, it is essential. Tactical draw offers designed to confuse your opponent, scary looking sacrifices, looking confident when you're worried (and looking worried when you're confident), walking away from the board so your opponent can't get a read on you in critical situations, all these things are a part of tournament chess. It is the game that it is, and you can choose to play it or not (depending on whether or not you enjoy it), but I think it's unrealistic to try to mold tournament chess to your liking by trying to outline a standard of conduct you want others to follow. If you don't want to play tournament chess the way others play it, that's fine, but I think it's highly unfair for you to judge others harshly just because they don't conform to your standards. They are playing a different game than you are, a game that is not governed by your self-imposed rules, a game that is in no way inferior to the game you are playing.
honololou 4 ( +1 | -1 )
interesting discussion... I have enjoyed reading all of the posts.