Main Forum
| Post Reply
|
Sportsmanship
|
|
Play chess tournaments online
|
| It's now: Nov 18, 11:38am EST |
Sportsmanship
Posted by
16 Jul 2004 9:03am
Hello everyone. As you might know, I am ranked #4 (as of right now) on the Chess Ladder. I am disappointed at the amount (or the lack) of games that the top 10 plays. I have only been playing a few days and I already have more ladder games than some members of the top 10. I played more games in a 2 hour span than #1 has played all week. I understand that some people have limited time to play but I believe if you have time to get to the top ten, then you have the time to play 5-10 games a day. I just had to get that out of my system. Now on to my real issue here...
A couple hours ago, I accepted a challenge from the #20 ranked player. I even accepted his terms (7/0 timer) when I am mainly a speed chess player (1/0, 2/0, 3/0) and the game went to about 82 moves or so. At the end, we both had a rook, I had a pawn. Then he played well and took away my pawn. He then offered me a draw but I was up by two MINUTES on the clock, he had about 38 seconds left. I refused the draw and went on to win on time; he lamented about how 'anywhere else this would be a draw', etc. Was I right to take the win or was I wrong? Should I have taken the draw? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks for taking the time to read my long post 
Zero
Would also like to have answers/views
Posted by
Kaupanger
(VIP) 16 Jul 2004 12:57pm
Hello _zerO_
I have no experience of the ladder, so can't comment on that. I'm not a 'serious' player and may not even average one game a week.
I believe that in some forms of chess (perhaps all) a player cannot win if he/she has insufficient material to win. Thus if, in your game, it had been knight against knight, the result would have been a draw. Is that fair? It could be argued that both parties are aware of the time limit and that the one who makes 'best' use of his/her time should be able to take the full benefit of that. At the same time, both parties are also aware of the 'insufficient material' rule - consequently, the draw must be automatic. I'm only writing this because I don't know if GC is programmed to recognise 'insufficient material'. Your case does not fall into this category. If the position was not, under the laws of chess, a draw, would a draw still have been the 'equitable' result? If one looks at the board position, the answer is, in my opinion, obviously yes. However, in the context of the game as a whole? That brings us onto ground where there are no 'right' answers. Depending on what had happened in the game, I might not have accepted the draw. I may have regretted this later. In the long term, whatever my hypothetical action, my view would be 'it's hardly important in the grand scheme of things.' If the game was not, under the laws of chess, a draw, I would not have been miffed by your win on time.
One clear thing is that I need to brush up on the laws of chess! That's why I'm hoping this question brings in some authoritative responses.
Yo
Posted by
16 Jul 2004 3:21pm
When a time limit is set, it is agreed upon that you both have that amount of time to win. He used up more time than you, and the material is even, then zero wins, because zero got to the same position as his opponent using less time and quicker thinking. Zero should not have to suffer a draw if he thought faster than his slower opponent. Besides the opponenet picked 7/0, if he can not handle that timer then he should have increased the timer before the start. However, if zero was really down on material, then the honorable thing would have been to resign.
Don't worry about it
Posted by
Nimzovich
17 Jul 2004 2:42am
Time has been an important element in chess for a long time now; if you were able to reach the same position in less time than your opponent you probably played a better game and deserved to win. Don't worry about it.
You won....
Posted by
cowbucs
19 Jul 2004 4:10pm
fair and square. I beat a guy the same way and he came back saying something nasty because I wouldn't play him again. So of these guys need to learn to take defeat like an adult. It's just a game guys.
sportsmanship
Posted by
punk-chess
22 Jul 2004 7:11pm
I'm not a bullet player and I often lose on time. I never crow about it because it's part of the game - the only time it's unsporting is when the opponent deliberately runs down your clock by repeatedly pressing the abort game button. Otherwise, getting your opponent in time trouble is a sound chess tactic.
Not Unsporting
Posted by
jimmyferg
22 Aug 2004 4:40am
I have been away a little while or I would have responded sooner. If you cant win on time, then why would it be there? You did the right thing, I would estimate that 70 or 80 % of games here are won on time, if you dont want time to be an issue, then play for an hour or so.(even then of course it can become an issue at the end) I have read a few of your comments ZERO, and you seem anything but a bad sport. Best of luck on the ladder
BUT WHAT ARE THE RULES
Posted by
Kaupanger
(VIP) 22 Aug 2004 10:21am
I don't disagree with the principles behind anything that's been said here. However, does anybody know what the rules are? For example, I believe that, even if I'm 2 minutes ahead in a five minute game and come to the situation where I have king and two knights against a king, then the game is automatically a draw. That is just as much a part of the game as winning on time, i.e. the person who's ahead on time has no reason to complain about 'unfairness'. I have no idea what rules apply in a bare rook against rook situation. If standard rules are that it is a draw, a person who lost on time in this situation may be justified in feeling aggrieved if GC's 'special conditions' weren't obvious from the outset.
I honestly don't know the rules and, feeling rather lazy, hope someone might provide the authoritative answer.
insuffucient material
Posted by
stefanlia
22 Aug 2004 3:21pm
I have had experiences with this, I won fairly on time (his time ran out) but I didnt have enough material to cause a checkmate, so the game was forced into an automatic draw. The 'insufficient rule' exists here
Thanks stefanalia
Posted by
Kaupanger
(VIP) 22 Aug 2004 6:39pm
Thanks stefanalia, the information is appreciated. This sort of 'rule' isn't difficult to program, but I think it's good, and typical of GC, that it hasn't been forgotten. Do you/anyone know what rules, if any, apply to, for example, bare rook on rook situations?
Lets take this to the Supreme Court!
Posted by
28 Aug 2004 6:52pm
Zero I believe you won fair and square.
rules
Posted by
Nimzovich
(VIP) 29 Aug 2004 8:16am
There isn't a specific rule dealing with any position that is hypothetically a draw, such as rook versus rook, where one side could make a mistake and the other side would have enough material to mate. But there is a 50 move rule stating that if neither side makes any progress for 50 moves the game is a draw i.e. no pawn moves and no captures for 50 moves; and if neither player made a horrific blunder neither side would be able to make any progress and it would be a draw unless one side was to run out of time before 50 moves.
Thanks
Posted by
Kaupanger
(VIP) 29 Aug 2004 4:33pm
Thanks Nimzovich. It's many years since I played chess 'seriously'. I don't think the 'insufficient material rule' applied when I played, i.e. it was subsumed in the 50 move rule. However, in those days, rapid play was nowhere near as recognised or organised as now. Until I joined GC, I didn't even know what Fischer time was!
Reply to this topic
|
Play chess tournaments online
At GameColony.com you can play games of skill only -- play for free or play for $prizes!.
According to the statutes of most states in the United States, gambling is defined as: "risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance". (Also see No Gambling!). The skill (as opposed to chance) is predominant in games of skill. Playing games of skill for $prizes, therefore, has nothing to do with gambling as it is not a contest of chance -- the more skillful player will win far more often. The chance element of a 'gamble' is either insignificant or missing. When players compete in tournaments or games of skill for $prizes -- it is "competitive entertainment" rather then "gambling". The more skilled winner will always win more matches, tournaments and $prizes.
|
|
