shall I wait till my opponent resigns?

For discussion pertaining to Chess, Net-Chess, or general interests.
Post Reply
gmchess
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:42 am

shall I wait till my opponent resigns?

Post by gmchess » Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:33 pm

In g1104675196 I have mate in one move (he must play Kf8 - only move -and then Rf6++) but my opponent (Marv) does not play for days, and still has 66 days. Please gmiller do something!.
In other games some players continue with a rook dissadventage, or in totally lost position. Do they are expecting that someone dies as an older people?
In my club when a player continues a game totally lost we consider a real lack of respect. And here?

rdarmi
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:39 pm

Post by rdarmi » Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:22 am

:shock:
some people always hope in a bundler.....
:wink:
:shock:

slowblunder
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:23 pm

disrespectul

Post by slowblunder » Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:23 am

From outside it is hard to tell what happened why and in which sequence.

In your comment on this game you call your opponent an idiot. If one of my opponents did so, I wouldn´t show any respect as well and rather let my time run out instead of resigning.
It looks like you think it is okay to call rude names to other players, and he thinks it is okay to use all of his time to cause anger. I don´t agree with either of you, in my eyes your game called "respect" ended with a clear draw.

gmchess
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:42 am

IF YOU ARE DEAD, YOU MUST RESIGN

Post by gmchess » Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:52 am

I don´t speak English very well but I will try to explain my position. If in a normal game (1 o 2 hours for all game) you have losen a Kinight, a Bishop, 2 pawns, you have no counterattack and your King is asking himself if he will be checkmate in 1, 2 o 3 moves, you resign without hesitation.
More if you have 2278 ELO and your oponent 2678 ELO. But here I have this advantage (more than 8 pawns value), I have the iniciative and with a series of easy checks my little son (4 years old) is capable to see can checkmate, and 51 days to think! I am a FIDE Master (2335 ELO) and I no need 51 days. only 51/100 seconds to calculate such an easiest variation. But Marv continued playing (or waiting) for many moves although by his chess force he knows very well he is completelly dead in this game.
Some immoral players do that things in order to tire their rivals till they decide to stop playing in net chess. In this tournament match, I have won all the games, and played very fast, could make chessfriends, except this guy.
Other speculate with the ELO and when are losing, transfer a lot of points to other nick, of theirselves.
They do not realize that in many countries like mine Internet is very expensive, and no have easy access to it.
In Russia when a player do not know to lose properly (and we have to decide when we have no chances in the game, shake hands and resign) we consider as an idiot.

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:16 pm

I've reduced the amount of time your opponent has.

kasimzhanov
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 9:51 am

Gmchess is right.

Post by kasimzhanov » Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:38 am

Gmchess is right. Marv should have resign early.

pe
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 5:08 pm

Post by pe » Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:36 am

Greg, I can't believe this !

I always assumed the rules where clear : everybody who starts a game here knows the clock he's playing, and knows the rules of chess. but now i'm not sure anymore : are you going to intervene everytime somebody starts whining here ? i might have saved up some time in some games, and might want to use that time for vacation or whatever, and when i return, i might find out i've timed out because you reduced my time. i think it 'ld be best if everybody stuck to the rules and kept it that way. is this about chess or is it a kindergarten ?

i have no time outs here yet, and i don't plan to have any. i also try to play with respect, and resign when i think it is the proper thing to do. but if somebody starts calling me an idiot, i might consider letting my clock run or a while as well.

so, gmchess : we all know now how good a chessplayer you are. congrats on your win. please don't play me : i'm not interested in you.

pe.

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:24 pm

I only reduce the amount of time remaining when a player is obviously avoiding moving in a lost position with considerable time left. I also force draw offers in clearly drawn positions.

Marv (gmchess's opponent) has over a 100 games going where he is making moves, so he's clearly not on vacation and I consider his behaviour unsportsmanlike conduct. And the USCF rules are pretty clear that the TD can impose pentalties for such behaviour. Normally the penalty is to forfiet the game, my penalty was significantly less punitive and allows both players to continue the game.

If a player upsets you do to rude comments (e.g. calling you an idiot) which is also unsportsmanlike conduct, it's not up to you to impose the penalty by introducing even more unsportsmanlike conduct. Your only recourse is to ask me to impose a penalty, and I have forfieted games due to rude comments before.

Just in case you're wondering, I really am a certified USCF TD.

marv
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001 9:58 pm

Post by marv » Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:54 pm

gmchess!!

This "IDIOT" will not continue to in any game with you or anyone who calls me a idiot.

rdarmi
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:39 pm

Post by rdarmi » Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:13 am

:shock:
sorry folks i am a bit confused here...
i dont like abusive language so i was surprise to find the word "i*" in this colums.
as in fact i founded it 4 the 1st time espressed by sloblunder but is not clear if he was referring to comments between players or else as in the first post by gmchess it was mentioned a "lack of respect" and nothing else.
:oops:

slowblunder
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:23 pm

rdarmi

Post by slowblunder » Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:27 am

Please have a look at the (public) game the initial post referred to.

I am not sure whether the comment disappears in 14 hours when the (meanwhile reduced) time runs out or if it stays until eternity.

pe
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 5:08 pm

Post by pe » Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:22 am

gmiller wrote:I only reduce the amount of time remaining when a player is obviously avoiding moving in a lost position with considerable time left. I also force draw offers in clearly drawn positions.

Marv (gmchess's opponent) has over a 100 games going where he is making moves, so he's clearly not on vacation and I consider his behaviour unsportsmanlike conduct. And the USCF rules are pretty clear that the TD can impose pentalties for such behaviour. Normally the penalty is to forfiet the game, my penalty was significantly less punitive and allows both players to continue the game.

If a player upsets you do to rude comments (e.g. calling you an idiot) which is also unsportsmanlike conduct, it's not up to you to impose the penalty by introducing even more unsportsmanlike conduct. Your only recourse is to ask me to impose a penalty, and I have forfieted games due to rude comments before.

Just in case you're wondering, I really am a certified USCF TD.
Greg,

let me see if I understood this (after all i'm not a certified USCF TD) :

the game between gmchess and marv is going along. gmchess gets irritaded and starts calling his opponent 'an idiot'. marv decides then that he will use up his time. because gmchess starts complaining to you, and marv does not, you penalise marv.

this is what you want ? maybe we should think about another name for the site then.

peter

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:50 am

That's exactly correct, gmchess wasn't penalized because marv didn't complain. The game is between the two players, and a TD is only allowed to intervene when a claim is made. I only automatically intervene when the players' behaviour begins to disturb players in other games, which is almost never the case in correspondence chess. Or, in other words, I'm not getting involved in a mess between two people unless I have to.

Had marv complained, the only "penalty" I would have imposed on gmchess would have been a warning. The penalty I imposed against marv may appear more severe, but it isn't, because it doesn't alter the outcome of the game. If the game were anywhere near even, I wouldn't have imposed any penalty against marv, not even a warning.

slowblunder
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:23 pm

Post by slowblunder » Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:12 am

Thanks for the clarification.
Looks fair enough for me!

pe
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 5:08 pm

Post by pe » Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:31 pm

gmiller wrote:I only automatically intervene when the players' behaviour begins to disturb players in other games, which is almost never the case in correspondence chess. Or, in other words, I'm not getting involved in a mess between two people unless I have to.
sorry, Greg,

this was a case of 2 players in a mess, with no one else disturbed. if you followed your arguments here mentioned, you should have left it alone, which is not what you did. so, your actions are not coinciding with your arguments.

peter

gmiller
Site Admin
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 1999 11:13 am
Location: Jeffersonville, IN
Contact:

Post by gmiller » Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:42 pm

Are you denying that gmchess made a claim? Or did you not see this sentence in my post: "...is only allowed to intervene when a claim is made"

pe
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 5:08 pm

Post by pe » Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:35 pm

you say you 'only intervene when people disturb others'.

as i understand this : if somebody is complaining, that does not necessarily mean you HAVE to do anything : sometimes doing nothing is the right thing to do. and i would hate to think that everybody who's complaining in this forum is making 'an official claim'.

the result is that people who complain a lot, get rewarded here. and i regret that.

we clearly are not on the same side here, and i don't think this thread is going to change that. therefor i would like to close this mather now, if you don't mind, Greg. after all, it's only chess. there are more important things in life. have a good one.

energy
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 1999 7:05 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Post by energy » Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:14 pm

Tsk, tsk!
pe wrote:you say you 'only intervene when people disturb others'.
gmiller wrote: I only automatically intervene when the players' behaviour begins to disturb players in other games,
automatically being the point.
Nils

--
Consider donating some computer time to science!
Read more here: http://folding.stanford.edu

davidswhite
Uranium
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 1999 1:31 pm

Post by davidswhite » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:13 pm

Pe said
we clearly are not on the same side here, and i don't think this thread is going to change that. therefor i would like to close this mather now, if you don't mind, Greg. after all, it's only chess. there are more important things in life. have a good one.

If I read this correctly,then Peter(Pe) is telling Greg to have a good life,
as in... goodbye to this site.

Of course,I may be misreading this and hope that ,if I have,Peter will
clarify the purpose of his remark.

Regards,
David

keithstuart
Uranium
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 1999 3:52 am
Location: NW England
Contact:

Post by keithstuart » Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:25 pm

looking at the game position i'd of probably done the same as greg as it was a clear mate in one for gmchess over marv

how IECG would of handled it (where i am a tournament secretary, TS) is dependant on what either player said to their TS.

If Marv had complained about abusive language (yes idiot is very mild abuse but never the less it is still abusive language) going from the circumstances there gmchess would probably of gotten a warning.

If gmchess had said to his TS that Marv was not making any moves anymore probably due to mate in one the IECG rules state that each player must take no more than 40 days per 10 moves which is culmalative (ie 40 days for 10 moves, 80 days in total for 20 moves etc) thinknig time in days is doubled from day 10 onwards too.

another rule is if a player fails to make a single move in 30 days he is declared silent and losses the game or even all the games in that match by forfeit.

sensibly if i was TS'ing a match and that occured i'd of checked the PGN first and if it was mate in 1 i'd of declared it a win for gmchess, not actually sure it is in the rules that i can do this but then by rights Marv can not do anything about the loss.

This is one for debate really but perhaps it might be an idea to set up a group of the more experienced or long term players here, perhaps the forum moderators, and judge each occurance of players avoiding moves on a case by case basis to avoid greg getting blamed for doing things like this in the future.

And just to finish i have checked quite a lot of the games were greg has fixed results or removed time to force people to move and agree with his decisions

pe
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 5:08 pm

Post by pe » Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:09 am

davidswhite wrote:If I read this correctly,then Peter(Pe) is telling Greg to have a good life,
as in... goodbye to this site.
Of course,I may be misreading this and hope that ,if I have,Peter will
clarify the purpose of his remark.

David,

you did not misread. i'm just around to finish commitments made : games that are underway, the team competition. just want to finish these in a proper way. just a bit too much "rule admiration" in stead of common sense.

regards,
Peter

Post Reply