blitz question
Richard Alan Knox
rkn...@ix.netcom.com(Richard Alan Knox) wrote:
>In a recent 10 min blitz game on the internet, I reached a ending with
>a rook and 6 pawns vs. rook and 5 pawns. The position was semi-blocked
>and it wasn't immediately apparent to me how to force a win with the
>time remaining. I took advantage of the time advantage I had
>accumulated (I had about 3 mins. left to my opponents 1.5 min) by
>shuffling my king and rook around without attempting to improve my
>position (but at the same time being careful to avoid a 3-fold
>repetition). When I eventually won on time my opponent criticized my
>ethics in winning in this fashion instead of being "sporting" and
>accepting a draw offer made earlier. I pointed out that many top
>grandmasters win games in this exact fashion and that the clock is as
>integral a part of the game as the pieces themselves, none of which
>seemed to carry much weight with my opponent. Any thoughts on this
>matter?
>
Thanks to all who responded to my original post, even those who were/are critical of my
decision (my ego isn't big enough to worry about net flaming). There seems to be a lot more to
this than I considered, including factors relating to my motives,what I really won, etc. Let
me mention first off that it was not rating points I was after and to demonstrate that I even
offered to resign another game vs. the same opponent immediately afterwards if that was what
he/she believed to be the case (my offer was refused, btw). Until someone finds a way of
converting rating points into $$$, they really can be quite meaningless, as a previous post
indicated. My tactics (at least to my way of thinking at the time the game was played) simply
mirrored what I have seen a variety of masters do in numerous games I have played over, so I
figured what's good for the goose...
The best analogy I could think of is a football team "taking a knee" to run out the clock when
they have a lead and don't wish to risk a fumble, interception, etc. This has become an
accepted (and expected) part of football strategy (remember the Miracle of the Meadowlands in
1978?). If the analogy is invalid, it is probably because the game was not being played for
money between two professionals, so I guess I can't begrudge my opponent's POV too badly. What
the game definitely points out (as a couple of responders alluded to) is the effect even a 1- or
2- second increment would have, totally negating any opportunity to take advantage of a time
edge in this type of circumstance.
In an effort to get an "expert" opinion, I sent a copy of my original post to GM Yasser Seirawan
at Inside Chess and he sent the following prompt reply:
Dear Richard,
A tricky circumstance. Most GM's feel that the clock is an integral part of
the game, as important as a piece of a pawn. A loss on time is therefore a
loss, full stop, with no moral dilemmas. For others, when the game has
nothing riding on the line, a "fun" game, the clock is ignored. A draw
doesn't bother them. The players should decide if they are playing for
blood or not. Your opponent need not criticize you, the fault lies with him
for moving to slow.
In a recent Rapid Chess event that I played in SF, the players agreed before
the games to act as "gentlemen" and not pursue a win on time in an otherwise
drawn position. This worked well.
You may consider adding increments, a second or more to each move made for
your future games. This will prevent those jerks who play for time from
succeeding. Smile.
Yasser
Once again, thanks to all who took the time to share their thoughts...
Rich Knox
rkn...@ix.netcom.com
Richard Alan Knox
Philip Delaquess
> When I eventually won on time my opponent criticized my
> ethics in winning in this fashion instead of being "sporting" and
> accepting a draw offer made earlier. I pointed out that many top
> grandmasters win games in this exact fashion and that the clock is as
> integral a part of the game as the pieces themselves, none of which
> seemed to carry much weight with my opponent. Any thoughts on this
> matter?
I'm with you. The clock is part of the game. Since I've lost plenty of
games on time I have never felt guilty about flagging my opponent, those
three or four times it's been in my favor. I flagged a guy who was beating
me, and I flagged a guy who would have lost anyway.
The only draw I ever reached, at an RBO two months ago, was also
clock-related. I had mating material but less than a minute. He was screwed
materially but had five minutes -- an eternity. I proposed a draw on the
slender possibility that I could queen a passer and mate him without
blundering in less than a minute. To my delight, he accepted. He would have
been within his rights (IMHO) to play defense until my clock ran out, and
then claimed a win. In retrospect, that was probably a case where I could
have claimed a draw by insufficient losing chances, had he been
uncooperative, but I'm still really new at this and am not comfortable with
special situations like that.
Philip.
MICHAEL J FITCH
shit.You have the advantage in material twice as much time and refuse to try
and win.All you can think to do is shuffle your pieces around to win on
TIME.You should ask yourself what did i win.Am i playing for Money,Trophy,a
Tournament Title,or did i get this advantage against a Grandmaster and i
want to whole on to it for my ego? If the answer is no,Then you lost.If i
were your opponent i would refuse to accept any more challenges from you
until you apologize for your Chicken-shit behavior.
-**** Posted from RemarQ, http://www.remarq.com/?a ****-
Search and Read Usenet Discussions in your Browser - FREE -
Xeones
?
That's a woeful lack of vocabulary, my friend.
I have some compassion for this last post, because I have had my fair
shair of bullet games on icc, where the last five seconds turn into: suprise
your opponent with a strange check, as much as possible, to drain his time.
Trust me, it's incredibly frustrating to lose like this (ie. Re2+
(scramble, scramble) Kxe2 Bd3+ (rush!) Kxd3 Re8+ (planning on another
move ) - time loss
Yet, when playing with time, the clock is an integral part of the game
and you can and should use it to your advantage when applicable.
-Sean
MICHAEL J FITCH <mike...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:fUGY2.983$me.371077@WReNphoon4...
Bryan Aguirre
Admittedly, the clock is part of the game....but there is nothing more tedious
than a player who will just wait for you to lose on time in a dead-drawn
position (or one in which no progress is being made). If a draw is not offered,
then go ahead and win....but if one is offered and you decline because you think
you can make pointless moves for a minute and a half, that is obnoxious
behavior. You obviously are allowed to do what you did...it is not _wrong_...but
I find it difficult to play against players who are so obsessed with a win, that
they rely solely on the clock when the position screams draw.
We are playing blitz on the internet here for petty internet rating
points....not for the salvation of mankind! Why not be a gentleman about it?
What do you have to lose?
Ron Moskovitz
part of the game, but in my mind it goes against the spirit of the
game to go into a "sitzkrieg" in an even or only slightly better position
if your opponent has reasonable fraction of his original time left.
In a zero-increment, sudden-death time control, sitzkriegs work, but I
think I'd be ashamed to use one is the example you describe.
Luckily, against good players this tactic simply doesn't work, and you'll
quickly find yourself on the losing side of the endgame. (It's real
easy for those pawn-up rook endings to become unfavorable in a hurry.)
-Ron
MICHAEL J FITCH
Article: 4 of 4
From: Xeones <swe...@rcn.com>
Subject: Re: blitz question
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 16:25:27 -0400
"Chicken-shit behavior"
?
>That's a woeful lack of vocabulary, my friend.
>I have some compassion for this last post, because I have >had my fair
shair of bullet games on icc, where the last >five seconds turn into:
Five seconds left and still fighting/playing to win vs 180 seconds with a
material advantage twice as much time and playing to win on TIME.What part
of the word chicken-shit don't you understand.Maybe i should say it this
way,If you and your opponent are fighting to win,And you win on time That's
one thing,but if you get a material advantage and have twice as much time on
the clock as your opponent and your too scared to try and win using your
advantage.You shouldn't play anymore.If i'm mistaken please correct me but
this was just a skittles game on the internet right?
R B
for a win. On the net I would probably gambled and played on for a clear
win or might have just taken a draw and worked on the solution later for
next time.
On the other hand if I was the other guy on net - I think I would have
resigned seeing your play was to wait the clock out and then go find someone
more fun to play. Not meant to put you down - I just do not think I would
be have much enjoyment as the other guy, I do not mind losing on time as
long as my opponent is still playing to win outright.
Regards
Ross
Richard Alan Knox wrote in message
<7gv65j$1...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...
In a recent 10 min blitz game on the internet, I reached a ending with
a rook and 6 pawns vs. rook and 5 pawns. The position was semi-blocked
and it wasn't immediately apparent to me how to force a win with the
time remaining. I took advantage of the time advantage I had
accumulated (I had about 3 mins. left to my opponents 1.5 min) by
shuffling my king and rook around without attempting to improve my
position (but at the same time being careful to avoid a 3-fold
repetition). When I eventually won on time my opponent criticized my
Randy T
sporting. That is why there is a clock and rules. You did what ever it
took to get the advantage. You deserve to reap the benefits!
Randy
rajn...@flash.net
http://www.members.tripod.com/rajncajn
Randy T
executed end game. I say if the best you can do is try to improve your
position in the last few seconds, then so be it. I wouldn't care if you
didn't want to play with me anymore. I have played sore loosers before.
What do you think the clock is for anyway? The person that was on the
loosing end couldn't come up with anything better during the last of his
time. What makes him deserving of a draw? He took longer to think and
reach a lessor position. In my mind he lost. His comments after the game
and yours in this post, make both of you ***big time losers***.
Randy
rajn...@flash.net
http://www.members.tripod.com/rajncajn
MICHAEL J FITCH wrote in message ...
>I know i will get flamed for this but i find your behavior rather Chicken-
>shit.You have the advantage in material twice as much time and refuse to
try
>and win.All you can think to do is shuffle your pieces around to win on
>TIME.You should ask yourself what did i win.Am i playing for Money,Trophy,a
>Tournament Title,or did i get this advantage against a Grandmaster and i
>want to whole on to it for my ego? If the answer is no,Then you lost.If i
>were your opponent i would refuse to accept any more challenges from you
>until you apologize for your Chicken-shit behavior.
>
>
>
Mike VanCleave
MICHAEL J FITCH wrote in message ...
It amazes me that someone would expect anyone to lend credence to a post
that begins with childish name-calling. I have no idea what the rest of the
post says because I made a judgement as to the intelligence of the author
after the first few words and decided I was not interested in what he had to
say.
Andrew Thall
exact same thing. Personally, I play for fun and would not derive much
enjoyment or satisfaction from such a win.
Andrew Thall, NTD
DAVID GRANIK
Richard Alan Knox wrote in message <7gv65j$1...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...
>In a recent 10 min blitz game on the internet, I reached a ending with
>a rook and 6 pawns vs. rook and 5 pawns. The position was semi-blocked
>and it wasn't immediately apparent to me how to force a win with the
>time remaining. I took advantage of the time advantage I had
>accumulated (I had about 3 mins. left to my opponents 1.5 min) by
>shuffling my king and rook around without attempting to improve my
>position (but at the same time being careful to avoid a 3-fold
>repetition). When I eventually won on time my opponent criticized my
>ethics in winning in this fashion instead of being "sporting" and
>accepting a draw offer made earlier. I pointed out that many top
>grandmasters win games in this exact fashion and that the clock is as
>integral a part of the game as the pieces themselves, none of which
>seemed to carry much weight with my opponent. Any thoughts on this
>matter?
>
Game in 10 minutes isn't exactly blitz, irrespective of how it might be
rated on the chess server. I don't think that this is a black or white
issue. I think such a tactic of " milking the clock" are perfectly
justifiable if you are playing extremely quick time controls. In bullet or
lightning chess (2 0 or faster) both players no doubt realize when they
agree to play that factors other than the position on the board are
paramount. Game/5 is a tricky matter. The tradition of blitz is somewhat "no
holds barred" . Still, the WBCA allows claims of Insufficient Losing
Chances, so there are at least some schools of thought that hold that there
ought to be some sportsmanship in a game of blitz. With G/10, I think that
the balance has clearly swung to the other perspective. If you play somebody
in G/10 the position on the board ought to be the most important. One should
strive to win a game of such time control by making GOOD moves. What you
did, simply put, was unsporting. Many, if not most, internet chess players,
would be irate at losing in such a manner. Certainly, your opponents would
be justified in putting you on a "no play" list. If you make it so that
beating you is ungratifying, or losing to you involves a perversion of the
spirit of chess, then you ought not find it surprising that opponents might
not want to play you again. In the end, YOU lose out. Had you tried to
improve your position, create a passed pawn, etc., you probably would have
been successful in obtaining a winning position on the board. Even if you
had not won, you might have learned something. I don't know what exactly you
won, but it bears little resemblence to a game of chess. Your action in the
game was quite craven indeed. If you plan on repeating such behavior in
future games, the least you should do is create a "finger note" which makes
it manifest that sporting considerations will be ignored by you. Or better
yet, refrain from playing on the chess servers entirely. There are already
too many players of your ilk on the servers...
helmet
>won, but it bears little resemblence to a game of chess. Your action in the
>game was quite craven indeed. If you plan on repeating such behavior in
>future games, the least you should do is create a "finger note" which makes
>it manifest that sporting considerations will be ignored by you. Or better
>yet, refrain from playing on the chess servers entirely. There are already
>too many players of your ilk on the servers...
I think his tactics were fair enough, he had taken extra risk by
moving faster than his opponent and is entitled to reap the reward.
His opponent can have no complaints, he should never have allowed
himself to fall so far behind on the clock.
He should know how fast he is with the mouse in a time scramble, if
hes slow then he should either avoid such short time limits or move faster
in the earlier part of the game.
We have all been on the losing end of such tactics on the servers,
when i see my opponents moving instantly in the ending i will often
sac a piece unexpectedly, nine times out of ten they wont notice as
they are moving too fast. Any play within the rules of chess cannot be
complained about. Anyone who does is being a poor loser
helmet
Ron Moskovitz
>
> I have some compassion for this last post, because I have had my fair
>shair of bullet games on icc, where the last five seconds turn into: suprise
>your opponent with a strange check, as much as possible, to drain his time.
I don't know if comparisons to Bullet are entirely appropriate, as
I think everyone who plays bullet expects to win or lose on time in
a fair number of their games.
>Trust me, it's incredibly frustrating to lose like this (ie. Re2+
>(scramble, scramble) Kxe2 Bd3+ (rush!) Kxd3 Re8+ (planning on another
>move ) - time loss
>
> Yet, when playing with time, the clock is an integral part of the game
>and you can and should use it to your advantage when applicable.
I don't know. I think there's a fine line between using the clock
to your advantage and abusing an advantage on the clock.
For example, if I'm up material, but have very little time on the clock,
I consider it the sporting thing to do to offer a draw. Similarly,
from the other side of the board, I think it's the sporting thing to do
to accept the draw.
Tim Mirabile
for you? Then it was your opponent who was trying to steal an extra 1/2 point
by taking advantage of your shortage of time. Only his own time shortage
prevented him from doing so. Why do some consider it bad sportsmanship for
using the clock to gain an extra 1/2 point by turning a draw into a win, but not
for using the clock to turn a loss into a draw?
In this case, with 3 minutes vs. 1.5, I would probably try to make progress and
if the clock helps me, so be it.
Richard Alan Knox <rkn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <7gv65j$1...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
> rkn...@ix.netcom.com(Richard Alan Knox) wrote:
>
>>In a recent 10 min blitz game on the internet, I reached a ending with
>>a rook and 6 pawns vs. rook and 5 pawns. The position was semi-blocked
>>and it wasn't immediately apparent to me how to force a win with the
>>time remaining. I took advantage of the time advantage I had
>>accumulated (I had about 3 mins. left to my opponents 1.5 min) by
>>shuffling my king and rook around without attempting to improve my
>>position (but at the same time being careful to avoid a 3-fold
>>repetition). When I eventually won on time my opponent criticized my
>>ethics in winning in this fashion instead of being "sporting" and
>>accepting a draw offer made earlier. I pointed out that many top
>>grandmasters win games in this exact fashion and that the clock is as
>>integral a part of the game as the pieces themselves, none of which
>>seemed to carry much weight with my opponent. Any thoughts on this
>>matter?
>>
>
> Thanks to all who responded to my original post, even those who were/are critical of my
>decision (my ego isn't big enough to worry about net flaming). There seems to be a lot more to
>this than I considered, including factors relating to my motives,what I really won, etc.
[...]
--
Long Island chess -> http://www.webcom.com/timm/ TimM on ICC and A-FICS
Webmaster, tech support - Your Move Chess & Games: http://www.icdchess.com/
The opinions of my employers are not necessarily mine and vice versa.
MICHAEL J FITCH
From: Randy T <rajn...@flash.net>
Subject: Re: blitz question
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 23:55:39 GMT
>In a blitz game,you don't usually have the luxury to plan. >out a perfectly
executed end game. I say if the best you. >can do is try to improve your
position in the last few. >seconds, then so be it.
HELLO read his post,he didn't try to improve his position all he wanted to
do is move his pieces back and forth until his opponent lost on TIME in a
SKITTLES game.
>I wouldn't care if you didn't want to play with me. >anymore. I have played
sore loosers before. What do you. >think the clock is for anyway? (SNIPPED).
I'd rather loss on time in a won position,But trying to win than be a
Chicken-shit,Trying to win a game on time with nothing to gain,Playing
SKITTLES.Give me a break!.As far as being a sore losser.What did he loss,a
SKITTLES game against a person who lacks Sportsmanship and Character.
I'll play a Chicken-Shit who lacks Character and the Ability
to be a sportsman only once.Then i'll tell him to F-OFF. Remember this was a
friendly SKITTLES game.Nothing to gain,so why play on?
DAVID GRANIK
helmet wrote in message ...
>. I don't know what exactly you
>>won, but it bears little resemblence to a game of chess. Your action in
the
>>game was quite craven indeed. If you plan on repeating such behavior in
>>future games, the least you should do is create a "finger note" which
makes
>>it manifest that sporting considerations will be ignored by you. Or better
>>yet, refrain from playing on the chess servers entirely. There are
already
>>too many players of your ilk on the servers...
> David
>
> I think his tactics were fair enough, he had taken extra risk by
>moving faster than his opponent and is entitled to reap the reward.
> His opponent can have no complaints, he should never have allowed
>himself to fall so far behind on the clock.
His tactics were craven, even if they were legal. I think that most
players generally believe that clock should NOT be the overriding factor in
all chess positions, and in every time control. I thought that the point of
chess was to checkmate the opponent, not to strive to keep more time then
him....
> He should know how fast he is with the mouse in a time scramble, if
>hes slow then he should either avoid such short time limits or move faster
>in the earlier part of the game.
Yeah, yeah, somebody must be pretty naive to believe that a
relatively long (G/10) internet game will be decided by the merits of the
moves on the board.
> We have all been on the losing end of such tactics on the servers,
> when i see my opponents moving instantly in the ending i will often
>sac a piece unexpectedly, nine times out of ten they wont notice as
>they are moving too fast. Any play within the rules of chess cannot be
>complained about. Anyone who does is being a poor loser
>
A good strategy, but one having little to do with chess...making an
absurd move, in the hopes that one's opponent will continue automatic,
unthinking moves. Crap chess.
Since complaining about an opponent's game tactics is also allowed,
then you ought not oppose such complaints. Certainly, it is evident that
complaining about an opponents sleazy tactics involves being less of a poor
sport than grubbing a win by making meaningless moves. It is probably worse
to be a graceless winner than a "poor loser". People who have your attitude
poison chess.
helmet
>
>
>
helmet
I repeat by complaining about the way you are beaten you are
just displaying that you are a poor loser. If you dont like
the rules go and find another game to play.
There is the fifty move rule which prevents games lasting for ever.
When you start a game of chess with ten minutes for the game you have
to be aware that the game could last a large number of moves so
if you fall behind on the clock then losing on time is a possible consequence.
Just because the position is a level rook ending dosent mean your
opponent has to offer you a draw because you have used your time badly.
If you want to do something useful why dont you campaign to have the
rules changed instead of complaining.
And stop putting my signature at the end of your posts
helmet (the real one)
DAVID GRANIK
helmet wrote in message ...
The point that I was trying to make was that some legal tactics
would be considered to be (very) unsporting.
>I repeat by complaining about the way you are beaten you are
>just displaying that you are a poor loser.
I never argued otherwise. However, I did state that I thought
that--from a good sportsmanship point of view --it was worse (in general) to
win by perverting the essence of chess by exploiting "legal tactics" to
absurd lengths, than it was to complain about such tactics after one lost
(or for that matter, won, or drew). I do think that it is not worth
complaining about craven tactics by one's opponent, since the internet chess
games are almost all completely meaningless. Of course, when one's opponent
has the nerve to "say" "good game" after having won on time by shuffling his
King for the last 45 moves, then it must be sorely tempting for some to give
their candid assessment of the quality of the play, and to pointedly
disabuse him of any erroneous assumptions.
If you dont like
>the rules go and find another game to play.
Well, not all chessplayers on the internet servers will have the same
"if it's legal, it's moral" attitude as you. "+ no play helmet" is my advice
for anybody who would strive to avoid the garbage "chess".
Truly, there ought to be a "sporting" chessplayers channel, where tournament
can be held where the players agree to limit their winning/drawing attempts
to sporting means. There can even be a sportsmanship variable that can be
set in a formula. If a player won by unsporting means, the game could be
submitted to an administrator for review. A win by unsporting methods could
retroactively be turned into a loss.
> There is the fifty move rule which prevents games lasting for ever.
>When you start a game of chess with ten minutes for the game you have
>to be aware that the game could last a large number of moves so
>if you fall behind on the clock then losing on time is a possible
consequence.
> Just because the position is a level rook ending dosent mean
your
>opponent has to offer you a draw because you have used your time badly.
I agree, but the implication in rejecting a draw is that you have
some idea about how to win the position by exploiting an advantage on the
board. It would be nice if people were not quite so brazen in their attempts
to win by such cowardly means.
> If you want to do something useful why dont you campaign to have
the
>rules changed instead of complaining.
> And stop putting my signature at the end of your posts
> helmet (the real one)
Sure, as soon as you stop using MY name in the middle of my posts! :-)
Lighten up.
Robert Renaut
game is played with a
clock and a set time limit. If you do not want to accept a draw and want to
continue to play I see nothing wrong with it. If your opponent had managed
his time better then maybe you would have accepted the draw but in this
situation you have a decided edge. I know there are many players out there
that will disagree. If they don't like it.. .then don't play blitz chess.
Richard Alan Knox wrote in message <7gv65j$1...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>...
Chesspride
>game is played with a
>clock and a set time limit. If you do not want to accept a draw and want to
>continue to play I see nothing wrong with it.
Yes...but there is a limit after which playing the clock becomes unsporting.
If we reach R+3 vs. R+3 all on the same side...and the game is legitimately
drawn...then I offer the following as an example of sporting vs. unsporting
ways of playing the clock.
1. Sporting would be if one side has 3 minutes left and the other has 15
seconds...the side with less time (non-increment) would/should realize that YES
they reached a drawn position but in blitz they are also hopelessly behind on
the clock...and so they lose on time in a SPORTING way.
In a rated game...they MIGHT receive a very sporting draw offer from the
opponent...but there is no need to do so.
2. Unsporting would be the same situation where one side has 3 minutes and the
other has 2 minutes and 30 seconds...and the side with SLIGHTLY more time
decides to push the other side over on time...not by trying any positive plan
to win...but simply by shuffling his Rook across squares faster (or just as
fast) as the opponent.
In this situation...this is an UNSPORTING way to play...the game becomes "hit
the clock" and not "play chess"...in fact, in this scenario...a board and
pieces aren't even necessary...the players might just as well be playing PONG
or hitting a button.
Fast hands wins this game...not fast chess processor.
That's the difference.
And for every point you win in playing in such a manner...you lose TEN such
points because your opponents will NEVER cut you any slack when the situation
is reversed...as it shall be.
Eric C. Johnson
Meyer Billmers
> For example, if I'm up material, but have very little time on the clock,
> I consider it the sporting thing to do to offer a draw. Similarly,
> from the other side of the board, I think it's the sporting thing to do
> to accept the draw.
It's only a small extension of this philosophy that says that, if you're
up a pawn but your opponent hangs a piece, then realizes it as soon
as his hand comes off, you should offer a draw as the "sporting thing to do".
Or perhaps you should offer to let him take the move back.
This is a slippery slope. I've won many lost games by fighting on. If
you don't have the fighting spirit, why play? And if you do have
the fighting spirit, why not take advantage of every legal weapon at
your disposal? If people are concerned about losing won games on time, they
should either 1) play slower time controls, or 2) play with a time delay, or
3) manage their time better. Just as I am expected to manage my position
on the board well, if I hope to win...
Ron Moskovitz
Tim Mirabile <ti...@longisland.com> wrote:
>I'd like to add one more thing: What if that R+6 vs. R+5 were actually winning
>for you? Then it was your opponent who was trying to steal an extra 1/2 point
>by taking advantage of your shortage of time. Only his own time shortage
>prevented him from doing so. Why do some consider it bad sportsmanship for
>using the clock to gain an extra 1/2 point by turning a draw into a win, but not
>for using the clock to turn a loss into a draw?
Well, I've noticed that strongerplayers, when in a bad position, are more
likely to try to use their extra time to make their position defensible
than weaker players, who seem more likley to try to move quickly to win
on the clock.
>In this case, with 3 minutes vs. 1.5, I would probably try to make progress and
>if the clock helps me, so be it.
This is my attitude, as well. Play to win the game, and if you're opponent
struggles to find the best defense because he's short on time, well,
that's his fault.
I think the only objeciton that anyone had here was that the original
poster made no attempt to win the game by improving his position.
Ron Moskovitz
> All legal tactics are legitimate winning attempts.
There's a difference between "legal," "legitimate," and "sportsmanlike."
I don't think anybody has accused the original poster of doing something
illegal or illegitimate. We just question his sportsmanship.
Of course, there will always be people who only care about victory,
not about the enjoyment of the game. I think it's too bad, because
I've found that these people inevitably whine the most when they
lose, but what the heck. Whatever floats your boat.
However, people shouldn't be surprised when people lose interset
in playing them because they cravenly try to win on the clock
when there's plenty of time left in a near even position.
>I repeat by complaining about the way you are beaten you are
>just displaying that you are a poor loser.
Does this sound familiar. "She's a cheat--she's a computer!".
"Computers are ruining correspondence chess!" You've
whined as much as anyone, Helmet.
> Just because the position is a level rook ending dosent mean your
>opponent has to offer you a draw because you have used your time badly.
Don't set up stupid straw men. Nobody is saying he should have offered
the draw. We're just saying that he should have tried to win by "normal
means."
-Ron
michae...@my-dejanews.com
reply about anything i've said.Break out your Dictionary to find the
meaning to the word Chicken-shit.It shouldn't be hard for someone as
intelligent as you.I would give the definition,But my intelligence is
so inferior to your's,I don't think you would be able to comprehend my
sentence structure.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Mike VanCleave
michae...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7h7ro7$r9v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
MICHAEL J FITCH
From: Mike VanCleave <mik...@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: blitz question
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 16:23:06 -0700
You've missed the point entirely. No surprise.
michae...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7h7ro7$r9v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
duh huh duh huh duh huh
Yeah i guess your just to smart for this dumb coon-ass.
The poster ask for an opinion i gave him mind.I could have said that he
acted cowardly/petty/unsportsmanlike but chicken-shit was more forceful.Now
if you don't like my name calling i say who f_ing cares not me,Read the
original posters thread and give him your opinion on how he behaved.
helmet
>>I repeat by complaining about the way you are beaten you are
>>just displaying that you are a poor loser.
> Does this sound familiar. "She's a cheat--she's a computer!".
>"Computers are ruining correspondence chess!" You've
>whined as much as anyone, Helmet.
>> Just because the position is a level rook ending dosent mean your
>>opponent has to offer you a draw because you have used your time badly.
> Don't set up stupid straw men. Nobody is saying he should have offered
>the draw. We're just saying that he should have tried to win by "normal
>means."
> -Ron
First off there is a vast difference between standing up to cheats and
being a poor loser. Secondly , taking advantage of the clock
at blitz is "normal means"
helmet
DAVID GRANIK
Richard Alan Knox wrote in message <7h1nsl$s...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>...
>>a rook and 6 pawns vs. rook and 5 pawns. The position was semi-blocked
>>and it wasn't immediately apparent to me how to force a win with the
>>time remaining. I took advantage of the time advantage I had
>>accumulated (I had about 3 mins. left to my opponents 1.5 min) by
>>shuffling my king and rook around without attempting to improve my
>>position (but at the same time being careful to avoid a 3-fold
>>repetition). When I eventually won on time my opponent criticized my
>>ethics in winning in this fashion instead of being "sporting" and
>>accepting a draw offer made earlier. I pointed out that many top
>>grandmasters win games in this exact fashion and that the clock is as
>>integral a part of the game as the pieces themselves, none of which
>>seemed to carry much weight with my opponent. Any thoughts on this
>>matter?
>>
>
critical of my
>decision (my ego isn't big enough to worry about net flaming). There seems
to be a lot more to
>this than I considered, including factors relating to my motives,what I
>me mention first off that it was not rating points I was after and to
demonstrate that I even
>offered to resign another game vs. the same opponent immediately afterwards
if that was what
>he/she believed to be the case (my offer was refused, btw). Until someone
finds a way of
>converting rating points into $$$, they really can be quite meaningless, as
a previous post
>indicated. My tactics (at least to my way of thinking at the time the game
was played) simply
>mirrored what I have seen a variety of masters do in numerous games I have
played over, so I
>figured what's good for the goose...
>
Numerous TOURNAMENT (over the board) games? I don't think think that
such pointless piece shifting is at all prevalent in Master praxis. Perhaps
you could furnish this newsgroup with some of the examples that you have
unearthed. It might be that you have been unable to discern progress in the
position. In any event, it is quite a leap to assume that the Master was
playing on SOLELY to exploit his opponent's time pressure. There are many
masters who will play on to a perhaps inordinate length, but they do so
because they think that they have better skills than their opponent, and
harbor hopes that they will outplay them ON THE BOARD
>The best analogy I could think of is a football team "taking a knee" to run
out the clock when
>they have a lead and don't wish to risk a fumble, interception, etc. This
has become an
>accepted (and expected) part of football strategy (remember the Miracle of
the Meadowlands in
>1978?). If the analogy is invalid, it is probably because the game was not
being played for
>money between two professionals, so I guess I can't begrudge my opponent's
POV too badly. What
>the game definitely points out (as a couple of responders alluded to) is
the effect even a 1- or
>2- second increment would have, totally negating any opportunity to take
advantage of a time
>edge in this type of circumstance.
>
Not a good analogy, unless your example was of a football team "taking
a knee" about 40 times to run out the clock from the middle of the 3rd
quarter! A better sports analogy would be the "4 corners" "offense" used by
North Carolina in the 1970s. Such a tactic was not a crowd pleaser, and drew
scorn upon the game. Eventually the NCAA took strong measures to make such
tactics impossible. College hoops have become an ever more popular spectator
sport ever since the changes were implemented.
Even so, I don't think that sports comparisons are usually valid when
referring to chess.
>In an effort to get an "expert" opinion, I sent a copy of my original post
to GM Yasser Seirawan
>at Inside Chess and he sent the following prompt reply:
>
>Dear Richard,
>
>A tricky circumstance. Most GM's feel that the clock is an integral part
of
>the game, as important as a piece of a pawn. A loss on time is therefore a
>loss, full stop, with no moral dilemmas. For others, when the game has
>nothing riding on the line, a "fun" game, the clock is ignored. A draw
>doesn't bother them. The players should decide if they are playing for
>blood or not. Your opponent need not criticize you, the fault lies with
him
>for moving to slow.
>
>In a recent Rapid Chess event that I played in SF, the players agreed
before
>the games to act as "gentlemen" and not pursue a win on time in an
otherwise
>drawn position. This worked well.
>
>You may consider adding increments, a second or more to each move made for
>your future games. This will prevent those jerks who play for time from
>succeeding. Smile.
>
>Yasser
>
>Once again, thanks to all who took the time to share their thoughts...
>Rich Knox
>rkn...@ix.netcom.com
Pierre Dénommée
>
> First off there is a vast difference between standing up to cheats and
> being a poor loser. Secondly , taking advantage of the clock
> at blitz is "normal means"
>
Absolutely right, FIDE rules state that
10.2. If the player has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a
draw before his
flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter.
(a) If the arbiter is satisfied 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.
(b) If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two
extra
minutes thinking time and the game shall continue in the presence of the
arbiter.
(c) Having postponed his decision, the arbiter may subsequently declare the
game
drawn, even after a flag has fallen.
But in the FIDE blitz rule it is written
C5. Article 10.2 does not apply.
So it is permitted to continue a blitz game without trying to win by normal means.
Pierre Dénommée
Pierre Dénommée
helmet wrote:
> >But in the FIDE blitz rule it is written
>
> >C5. Article 10.2 does not apply.
>
> >So it is permitted to continue a blitz game without trying to win by normal means.
>
> >Pierre Dénommée
>
> Thanks for clearing that up. By the way do FIDE give a definition
> of blitz? ie is a 15 minute or 30 minute game blitz?
>
Yes FIDE has a definition for blitz.
C1. A 'blitz game' is one where all the moves must be made in a fixed time less than 15
minutes.
Pierre Dénommée
Greg Kennedy
>But in the FIDE blitz rule it is written
>
>C5. Article 10.2 does not apply.
>
>So it is permitted to continue a blitz game without trying to
win by normal means.
A few years ago FIDE did not, I believe, recognize
or attempt to regulate blitz games with special rules.
I entered a few tourneys under the rules of the
Walter Browne- oops, I mean the World Blitz
Chess Association, or WBCA, which had its own set
of published rules.
Does anybody know if these are now equivalent
to FIDE's blitz rules? Or if the WBCA is still around?
I was under the impression that the rules were
becoming more and more obfuscated as the result of
situations like the one referred to above, wherein
there is a decision regarding the methods used to win
the game- on the board vs. on the clock.
- Greg Kennedy
helmet
>But in the FIDE blitz rule it is written
>C5. Article 10.2 does not apply.
>So it is permitted to continue a blitz game without trying to win by normal means.
>Pierre Dénommée
Thanks for clearing that up. By the way do FIDE give a definition
of blitz? ie is a 15 minute or 30 minute game blitz?
helmet
helmet
>Yes FIDE has a definition for blitz.
>C1. A 'blitz game' is one where all the moves must be made in a fixed time less than 15
>minutes.
>Pierre Dénommée
This poses an interesting problem for internet chess.
Below 15 minute games players are perfectly entitled to shuffle
pieces to try and win on time and cannot really be accused of unsporting
behavior as they are only following the rules laid down by FIDE.
In games of 15 minutes or over there is some room for
conroversy on internet chess. As according to FIDE the player who
is about to lose on time can claim a draw IF his opponent isnt
trying to win by legitimate means. On the internet though there is no arbitor
going to step in and stop the game so i guess it does come down to
relying on having a sporting opponent.
To summarise those claiming shuffling is bad sportsmanship are
correct, but only if the game is 15 minutes or more, below those time limits
anything goes
helmet
helmet
is in the definition.
Some years ago, while in london i used to play in george
goodwins one day rapids. This rule was always causing controversy.
Indeed i was banned from these tournaments after one particularly
fierce altercation.
It was well known that George Goodwin , being a rather weak player
himself would frequently show bias towards the IMs and GMs playing
in these tournaments. To put it bluntly if an IM was in a spot of bother
against weaker opposition it was not unknown for them to wait until they were
very short of time and then claim that their opponents were not trying to win.
Of course Goodwin was too weak to know if this was the case and besides
it was good kudos having these players in his tournaments.
On this particular day i was on three and a half out of four
points, and was really psyched up. In round 5 i was drawn to play a certain
IM. I opened 1.Nc3 e5 2.d4 and ended up in one of my pet lines, i had him in
all sorts of trouble but he managed to wriggle out. However i had gained ten
minutes on the clock. We came down to a rook ending , pawns both sides
a level position but with plenty of play left.
The moves were being made at a furious rate and the adrenalin was really
pumping, then i saw him look up and nod to someone behind me, next thing
i knew a hand reached across and stopped the clocks. I was so pumped up , i
said what the *uck are you doing ,you twat. All hell then broke loose as
arguments erupted among the many spectators. The IM insisted i wasnt
trying to win , and of course Goodwin backed him up.
Last thing Goodwin said to me before going back to sell his sandwiches
was YOUR BANNED
helmet
Chesspride
>pieces to try and win on time and cannot really be accused of unsporting
>behavior as they are only following the rules laid down by FIDE.
Well...what on earth makes you think that FIDE rules apply on any particular
server?
And not even FIDE advocates the mindless shuffling of pieces....
Eric C. Johnson
DAVID GRANIK
helmet wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>>C1. A 'blitz game' is one where all the moves must be made in a fixed time
less than 15
>>minutes.
>
>>Pierre Dénommée
>
> This poses an interesting problem for internet chess.
>pieces to try and win on time and cannot really be accused of unsporting
>behavior as they are only following the rules laid down by FIDE.
>conroversy on internet chess. As according to FIDE the player who
>is about to lose on time can claim a draw IF his opponent isnt
>trying to win by legitimate means. On the internet though there is no
arbitor
>going to step in and stop the game so i guess it does come down to
>relying on having a sporting opponent.
> To summarise those claiming shuffling is bad sportsmanship
are
>correct, but only if the game is 15 minutes or more, below those time
limits
>anything goes
> helmet
>
Well, Helmet, I'm gratified that your are finally willing to concede
the point that such piece shuffling is bad sportsmanship, at least under
certain time controls. Does FIDE even rate played in 15 minutes or less? If
not, it is obvious why they might not at all care how such games are played.
And the USCF, which rates games played as quickly as G/10, doesn't allow
somebody to win merely by piece shuffling. The opponent of the piece
shuffler could make an insufficient losing chances claim, and if the TD
didn't decide to grant the claim, it is likely that he would agree to the
substitution of a time delay clock.
>
>
>
helmet
> Well, Helmet, I'm gratified that your are finally willing to concede
>the point that such piece shuffling is bad sportsmanship, at least under
>certain time controls. Does FIDE even rate played in 15 minutes or less? If
>not, it is obvious why they might not at all care how such games are played.
>And the USCF, which rates games played as quickly as G/10, doesn't allow
>somebody to win merely by piece shuffling. The opponent of the piece
>shuffler could make an insufficient losing chances claim, and if the TD
>didn't decide to grant the claim, it is likely that he would agree to the
>substitution of a time delay clock.
I actually think the no shuffling rule is very bad.
Not in what it tries to stop but in its implimentation. Rules should be
simple and easy to follow. The no shuffling rule is like i said in another
post very bad because it relies to a large extent on subjectivity.
Often tournament directors are much weaker than the players involved
and cant really be expected to be able to judge whether someone is
trying to make progress in a position.
I think they need to amend the 50 move rule to just 50 moves
being made with no piece being taken regardless of if any pawns have
moved. I think as a group we should combine are efforts and try
and find an improvement to the 50 move rule, then send our findings to
FIDE.
Such a rule would end the confusion over shuffling, it would
also mean the 50 move rule had some meaning, at the moment it
is useless.
helmet
Pierre Dénommée
Greg Kennedy wrote:
>
> A few years ago FIDE did not, I believe, recognize
> or attempt to regulate blitz games with special rules.
> I entered a few tourneys under the rules of the
> Walter Browne- oops, I mean the World Blitz
> Chess Association, or WBCA, which had its own set
> of published rules.
> Does anybody know if these are now equivalent
> to FIDE's blitz rules? Or if the WBCA is still around?
> I was under the impression that the rules were
> becoming more and more obfuscated as the result of
> situations like the one referred to above, wherein
> there is a decision regarding the methods used to win
> the game- on the board vs. on the clock.
>
WBCA rules are very different. In the WBCA the clock is less important,
here are a few quotes from WBCA rules
e.) If both players each have just one identical piece either may claim
a draw by stopping the
clock if neither side can show a forced win within 2 minutes.
This prevent the infamous King+rook vs. King+rook ending to be decided
by the clock.
More draw cases
g.) In K+bishop vs. K+bishop of opposite colors, with only 1 pawn on the
board, or in 2 vs. 1 in
a clearly blockaded position, a draw can be claimed by stopping the
clocks and summoning an
arbiter if necessary, provided there is no forced win within 2 minutes.
h.) K+rook pawn vs. K can be claimed as a draw once the defender is on
the rook file in front of
the pawn. K+pawn vs. K can be claimed as a draw once the defender is
immediately on the
square directly in front of the pawn as long as it’s not on the 7th
rank.
I.) K=rook+rook pawn vs. K+rook is a draw if the pawn is blockaded by
the king and there is no
immediate win.
And one that should discourage unsportsmanlike attempt to win drawn
positions:
13.) When a clearly drawn position is reached either player may stop the
clock and appeal to the
arbiter for a draw.
a.) If the arbiter allows a draw as in rule #8, the game is over.
b.) If the appeal is rejected then a 1 minute penalty is imposed on the
player who stopped the
clock.
Under WBCA rules the clock has less importance because it is possible to
make a claim for a clearly drawn position.
Pierre Dénommée
DAVID GRANIK
helmet wrote in message ...
So the self-styled arbiter of poor losing has on occasion been guilty
of the very same behavior that he is so quick to condemn in others. He
complains and accuses and curses when he does not win.
Your IM opponent apparently obeyed the rules in making the claim, so by
your definition, he couldn't have been unsporting. I don't see anything more
unsporting about trying to salvage a 1/2 point by ruthlessly exploiting FIDE
rules to make such a claim, than by trying to get an extra 1/2 or full point
by piece shuffling until one's opponent's flag falls--a ruthless
exploitation of a time edge.
All hell then broke loose as
>arguments erupted among the many spectators. The IM insisted i wasnt
>trying to win , and of course Goodwin backed him up.
> Last thing Goodwin said to me before going back to sell his sandwiches
>was YOUR BANNED
>
No wonder you've moved your chess to the cyberworld.
Greg Kennedy
Thanks for replying.
>>WBCA rules are very different. In the WBCA the clock is less
important,
>here are a few quotes from WBCA rules
>
>e.) If both players each have just one identical piece either
may claim
>a draw by stopping the
>clock if neither side can show a forced win within 2 minutes.
>
>This prevent the infamous King+rook vs. King+rook ending to be
decided
>by the clock.
Uhgh! This means instead of thinking:
"Rats, I know this is a difficult theoretical
win despite the simplistic drawish appearance,
but I'll never manage to find the right moves
in time OTB."
a player must think instead:
"Aha, normally I could win by trading
down but because of Walter's dreaded
identical-piece rule, I must rethink my
strategy since I would never be able to
convince anyone in only two minutes.
Let's see if there is another way to win
this."
>More draw cases
>
>g.) In K+bishop vs. K+bishop of opposite colors, with only 1
pawn on the
>board, or in 2 vs. 1 in
>a clearly blockaded position, a draw can be claimed by stopping
the
>clocks and summoning an
>arbiter if necessary, provided there is no forced win within 2
minutes.
>h.) K+rook pawn vs. K can be claimed as a draw once the defender
is on
>the rook file in front of
>the pawn. K+pawn vs. K can be claimed as a draw once the
defender is
>immediately on the
>square directly in front of the pawn as long as it’s not on the
7th
>rank.
I hope this was only a brief overview, since
this last includes easy wins in some positions
(pawn on the sixth).
>I.) K=rook+rook pawn vs. K+rook is a draw if the pawn is
blockaded by
>the king and there is no
>immediate win.
>
>And one that should discourage unsportsmanlike attempt to win
drawn
>positions:
>
>13.) When a clearly drawn position is reached either player may
stop the
>clock and appeal to the
>arbiter for a draw.
>
>a.) If the arbiter allows a draw as in rule #8, the game is
over.
>b.) If the appeal is rejected then a 1 minute penalty is imposed
on the
>player who stopped the
>clock.
>
>Under WBCA rules the clock has less importance because it is
possible to
>make a claim for a clearly drawn position.
Thanks again. Note that above the arbiter
can in fact decide the game rather than
the two players by his opinion of what is
"clearly" drawn, as opposed to not so
clearly drawn or not drawn. This is most
unfortunate as arbiters are far from
infallible.
- Greg Kennedy
Pierre Dénommée
helmet wrote:
>
> To summarise those claiming shuffling is bad sportsmanship are
> correct, but only if the game is 15 minutes or more, below those time limits
> anything goes
>
Excellent summary.
Pierre Dénommée
Pierre Dénommée
helmet wrote:
> >
> I think they need to amend the 50 move rule to just 50 moves
> being made with no piece being taken regardless of if any pawns have
> moved. I think as a group we should combine are efforts and try
> and find an improvement to the 50 move rule, then send our findings to
> FIDE.
> Such a rule would end the confusion over shuffling, it would
> also mean the 50 move rule had some meaning, at the moment it
> is useless.
The rule is not useless: it prevents the stagnation of the game. Captures and pawn
moves are the only thing in chess that cannot be undone. The rule requires that an
irreversible change in the position occurs in less then 50 moves. Not counting the
pawns move would require rewriting all ending books and would be unfair to all
player that posses the advantage of a single pawn.
Pierre Dénommée
Pierre Dénommée
minutes on the clock. We came down to a rook ending , pawns both sides
a level position but with plenty of play left.
The moves were being made at a furious rate and the adrenalin was really
pumping, then i saw him look up and nod to someone behind me, next thing
i knew a hand reached across and stopped the clocks. I was so pumped up , i
said what the *uck are you doing ,you twat. All hell then broke loose as
arguments erupted among the many spectators. The IM insisted i wasnt
trying to win , and of course Goodwin backed him up.
Usually telling if someone is trying to win is not that hard, piece
shuffling is easy to spot. If he is not sure, the arbiter should simply
let the game continue, this is written in article 10. It is standard FIDE
procedure for a normal speed game with SD finish to use digital clocks
and to have a 30s increment, so there is little risk involved in continuing
the game.
Here is the relevant article
10.2. If the player has less than two minutes left on his clock, he
may claim a draw before his
flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter.
(a) If the arbiter is satisfied 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.
(b) If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent
may be awarded two extra
minutes thinking time and the game shall continue
in the presence of the arbiter.
(c) Having postponed his decision, the arbiter
may subsequently declare the game
drawn, even after a flag has fallen.
Pierre Dénommée
Greg Kennedy
You have overlooked the fact that after playing
49 random moves, a player can then advance
one pawn one square, and then revert back to
49 random moves, and repeat again and again.
This is obviously what helmet was referring to
above, when he wrote that it is "useless." In
effect, in many positions the rule can be
circumvented to the tune of hundreds of moves,
if there is but a single unblocked pawn on the board.
- Greg Kennedy