Corr Chess Maxims

  
Free Internet Chess Games Server

Install FICGS apps
play chess online


Game result  (chess)


R. Sternik, 2060
L. Nucci, 2066

1/2-1/2

See game 110681




 Hot news
 Discussions
 Files search
 Social network



Baduk

                                          
Forum


Corr. Chess Maxims


Back to forum


Scott Nichols    (2010-09-16)
Corr. Chess Maxims

We should start a list of Corr. chess maxims (rules of conduct). Some suggestions...#1. There is more honor in resigning than to just quit playing and leave. #2. Generally one offer of a draw is enough for at least 10 moves. #3. The player with the most to lose, e.g. rating points, should be the first to offer a draw.

I'm sure others have suggestions, :)


Garvin Gray    (2010-09-17 09:29:23)
Corr. Chess Maxims

Time to look for new opponents when you have played the same person 30 times ;)


Sebastian Boehme    (2010-09-17 19:25:48)
Corr. Chess Maxims

Good idea Scott!

Here comes my 50 Pence about this.

# A short welcome message at the start of the game is matter of politeness and shows respect to your opponent, the way you would want to be respected.

Sadly used by not all players.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-18 19:23:42)
Corr. Chess Maxims

I disagree with two of your ideas Scott. The first player to offer a draw should be the higher rated is wrong. And a draw can only be offered every 10 moves. These are clearly wrong ideas.

In fact you may recall from our own game, where you admitted to being wrong on said issue.

In general, I think it should be the person with the reason to play on should be the one to offer a draw. If its clearly so dead equal then either player. Definitely not by rating though.


Scott Nichols    (2010-09-19 00:07:15)
Corr. Chess Maxims

It is precisely our game Daniel which brought up the draw offer maxim idea. To offer a draw every move or two is clearly distracting. Plus it also included the other maxim about rating differences. You were Black, about 80 points lower in rating, so I had the most to lose by accepting any draw offer.

Maybe in the endgame when it is a book draw, either player can offer the draw "once". But our game was barely out of the opening. Of course these are just "general rules of conduct" and each game is different. So I stand by my original ideas.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-19 00:17:31)
Corr. Chess Maxims

Our game was already a draw by my first draw offer on move 19. I offered a second draw on move 26 and the third and final draw which you accepted on move 38. You achieved zilch from an opening which has been known as a draw for 100 years. I could have offered a draw on move 4 and most people would accept it in that position.

Sorry but you have to prove your rating should be higher by playing real openings and outplaying the other person in them. Just stating well my rating is higher therefore you are never allowed to offer draws!!! is the most absurd logic I have ever heard.

Your own words on accepting the third draw offer were "You're right, this is a complete draw. Sorry for dragging it out."


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-19 00:57:47)
Corr. Chess Maxims

upon looking through my games I found only one instance where I went overboard on draw offers and my opponent asked me to stop at which point I did (it should also be noted I managed to lose the drawn position in the end though I was playing way too many games at once close 150).

Anyways, I know to some Corr ratings are the end all be all of life but to me they are the most meaningless rating I have. Even my blitz ratings are more meaningful. Because, corr is where I test ideas and see if they work or not. I'm never playing seriously and I really don't care about the results hence you see me in way more thematics and unrated events than rated events.

But I will say this, the difference in strength between a 1800 and 2100 is almost zilch. OTB that difference is HUGE. Corr it is meaningless. 80 pts? This difference is less zilch, you might as well be the same rating. So when you talk about "the right" to offer draws based on rating, I have to laugh at you. These are certainly unacceptable "maxims" and if you want maxims to be followed they have to be acceptable otherwise they will simply be ignored.

I played OTB two weekends ago against a player who outrated me by 400 pts. I was crushing him. In his lost position, he offered me 7! Draws. After I beat him, several players came up to me stated I should have called the TD over the repeated draw offers. Being a TD myself, I replied the ambiguity of the situation. It is his RIGHT to offer those draws. I was by no means forced to accept them (and did not). But there is a gray area in the rules that repeated draw offers (in the rule book it says LITERALLY every single move for 10 moves) the td could rule as distraction and issue nothing more than a warning. A second offense also the punishment is only a warning. ONLY on a third offense can the td actually do anything punitive.

So the real answer is, if you don't want a draw. Turn it down. If you don't want to be offered two draws, tell your opponent so. Each person is different and views their scenarios differently. But trying to make up a rule that no one will follow is beyond silly. I will offer a draw to someone whether they are 1000 pts above or below me if I think the position is drawn.


Paul Valle    (2010-09-19 01:36:36)
Suggestion

Something that I do:

If I suddenly realize that I'm lost to a tactical mating attack, I will play the position out till the bitter end.

You might say that I'm just wasting both mine and my opponents time, but I disagree. If your opponent has outplayed you, and you are mate in 5-10 moves to a tactical beauty... then in my book the honorable thing is to play it out. You owe it to the game and your opponent.

I'm not talking about K+Q vs. K, but about positions that could be given as a mating problem. By playing it out you also etch into your head.


kind regards, Paul


Scott Nichols    (2010-09-19 01:45:45)
Corr. Chess Maxims

I remember that game now, it did end in a draw. And you are right about what I said at the end. But I also remember the repeated draw offers that were rejected each time. You were Black, lower rated and we were barely out of the opening, so it was a distraction. I play OTB chess also and believe me, continued rejected draw offers would get that person a loss for that game. A person shouldn't have to ask someone to please quit doing something irritating, most people get subtle hints. Also, I disagree about "telling a person so", that should be done by the TD or Webmaster. That could be another maxim. "in case of any disagreements, please consult TD."

A "maxim" is just a suggestion, not a "rule". So people, especially newcomers, can know what IS and IS NOT proper during the course of a game.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-19 01:54:20)
Corr. Chess Maxims

You're missing the point that what you're suggesting is EXACTLY the opposite of what is proper. I am 80 pts lower, I am 10 billion trillion points lower, I can still offer a draw. Period.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-19 17:32:20)
Corr. Chess Maxims

Btw, I hardly would call you an otb player since you haven't played in TWO years. Clearly, you are not up on the rules as I've explained them to you already how they work with USCF. But since you're not a td, and I am then I will explain them again.

If repeated draw offers is ruled a distraction by a TD: 1st offense warning. 2nd Offense warning. 3rd offense time penalty. 4th offense time penalty. Pretty much all a td can do is time penalties for something like this. If he ruled it a loss, he'd face an appeal to the ethics committee. He'd lose the right to TD events and the result would be overturned to Nihl in the end anyways as that is not a correct ruling by the td.


Scott Nichols    (2010-09-19 19:13:28)
Corr. Chess Maxims

I was going to let it drop, but...since you are from the same state as Obama, YOU need to have things explained further. You are probably right on the rules part, I indeed don't play as much as I'd like OTB. THIS is more about ethics, etiquette. Yeah you have the RIGHT to offer as many draws as you'd like. Just as you have the RIGHT to talk loud on your cell phone in a movie theater or a restaurant, you have the RIGHT to drive slow in the fast lane. And I am SO sure you avail yourself of ALL your rights.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-19 22:34:47)
Corr. Chess Maxims

The more you talk Scott the less you make sense. You should just stop. Your idea for Corr Maxims is good and your #1 Maxim makes sense. The fact that #2 & #3 don't just means you made a mistake. Everyone makes mistake. But okay on to your rambling points.

What does Obama or IL have to do with anything? I don't even get it.

Hmm bad analogy time, okay yes talking on your cell phone in a theater gets you kicked out. At small establishments even just banned. Certainly not a right nor is it proclaimed as such anywhere. It is not "protected" and is well known to be improper. Unlike offering a draw being 80 pts lower has no negative connotation anywhere. Its not illegal. It is protected by the rules. It is not known to be improper. Incorrect analogy.

Driving slow in the fast lane. Highways actually have minimum speed limits and I have seen people get tickets for going below the minimum. On top of that, most states have laws about he fast lane being for passing purposes so they have rules about "slower" traffic keep right (state dependent). So not only is it again something protected by law, it is improper, it can be illegal (state dependent). So again an incorrect analogy.

As much as you wish to live in this strange world where you have to be a higher rated to offer draws, thats not how the rules of chess work. In fact, I would quit playing chess if things did work that way (because it makes no sense). I know people that have as their personal rule not to accept draws if they are the higher rated (fine, thats silly but your choice) (and it always backfires too since they usually end up losing the trying position so badly trying to win it as the "higher" rated should). But at least in the end the rules are preserved - my right to offer a draw was not revoked. You seem to be missing the point that at move 1, ONE player would always be at a disadvantage under your system of only the higher rated being allowed to offer draws. This is quite silly because as all chess players know - no rating system is perfect. Trying to tell someone that a 1989 is 100% better than a 1988 is impossible yet you willing to deny the 1988 his rights of offering draws when he plays that person 1 pt above him? You might just be better off declaring you don't accept draws (I know players like that too). But then you might see people head towards drawish positions knowing your policy and playing them for 200 moves until you're bored. You starting to see the point yet? Whatever system you concoct, there are tradeoffs. The one you proposes has tradeoffs that make no sense for anyone.


Scott Nichols    (2010-09-19 23:26:52)
Corr. Chess Maxims

Of course you don't get it, and by this point I am sure you never will. In the analogies, we all have met "these" type of people. Sometimes they get punished, sometimes not. I think anyone playing in your tournaments could get away with most anything.

AGAIN, in my system as you call it, it is just a GENERAL rule of conduct. Of course players rated 1 point apart do not fall into this category. The main point I make is that most players take their rating seriously. Players work their whole life to achieve a Master or Grandmaster title. They are titles awarded players as a token of respect for their accomplishment from their peers. Maybe we aren't IM's or GM's, but our rating has been EARNED.

So for one player who is a good deal lower rated than the other to offer a draw, especially in the early part of the game, is showing a lack of respect for what that person has accomplished. If fact one draw offer is not bad at all, no matter what, it happens, but to keep at it again and again is bad form.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-19 23:45:16)
Corr. Chess Maxims

Yep, I'm afraid you're a lost cause. No players cannot get away with whatever they want in tournaments read the rulebook dude. You are rating crazy. Do you not realize that for a person to improve they have to be playing beyond their rating? Ratings represent past performance. You need to judge a position based on its features not the person's playing its rating. Many positions reach draw positions early in the game as ours did when people play unambitiously. But I give up trying to convince you of your illogical ways.

Just know this: it is irrelevant whether you use the right to offer draw but it is important that you have it so your point is mute here as well.

A funny incident also happened a few weeks ago: two players kept offering each other draws every 2 moves, declining their opponent's draw then offering it themselves two moves later. It was funny because it was perpetual check and they both knew it. But everytime they offered a draw, the other one would decide maybe he'll mess up. Turn it down and offer it again about 2-3 moves later. By the end of the game each player had offered the other over 15 draws in the perpetual check scenario but the game managed to end decisively strangely.

And btw, your definition of respect and others will different. I certainly don't respect someone cause they've had more time than me to study and made a 2001 rating. I already explained I have no respect for Corr ratings whatsoever. I have also explained my rating does not represent my strength because I do not take it seriously. Do I respect people that have made a career of this? Of course. But I digress because here opinions will vary wildly and be to each their own. We have left the realm of facts. I just think it amusing to always remember that however good you are, there is always some one better. Or put even better, if you could buy a man for what he is actually worth and sell him for he thinks he's worth there would always be a huge profit. Ie there is always arrogance involved when you include ratings. A fun quote to conclude on: "First-class players lose to second-class players because second-class players sometimes play a first-class game." - Siegbert Tarrasch


Scott Nichols    (2010-09-19 23:57:43)
Corr. Chess Maxims

I'll finish this ridiculous argument with another quote, "Those who attack first admits his ideas have given out".


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-20 00:13:09)
Corr. Chess Maxims

I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking your silly ideas which I've proven 100% wrong and you have yet to defend in any way. You are attacking me. Therefore, your own quote defeats yourself. Irony for you.

I think its best to finish this note on the fact that most players who play this game have never read the rules. Not for USCF, FIDE, or any of the sites they play on. Try looking up the draw rules sometimes, you might be shocked to find out about the fact that no place would ever honor your maxim.


Scott Nichols    (2010-09-20 00:34:24)
Corr. Chess Maxims

I knew you'd keep it going. You can't tell a bullhead like you or Obama anything. I know the reason you don't care about ratings is the same reason every loser says after he's lost again. "Well, I don't care about that anyway."

You haven't proven anything except that you seem to want to have the last word in any discussion. See you STILL can't seem to grasp the fact that a maxim is NOT a rule. If you can scroll back up to the top you will see that maxim #2. says "Generally one offer of a draw is enough for at least 10 moves" In your first post you already got it wrong by saying, "And a draw can only be offered every 10 moves." So the only thing you've proven is that you can't read and can't understand English. Here is another maxim.."Always check who the TD is before you enter any tournament."


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-20 01:22:07)
Corr. Chess Maxims

Haha you're psycho, you call me the bull head yet you're the one who has managed to make 7! posts without a single point. All insults. Obama this Obama that. What the f does Obama have to do with anything? You brought up and you keep bringing him up for god knows what reason.

Your lack of logic is astounding. You admit 1 rating point is enough that the lower rated should still be allowed to offer a draw but not at 80pts. What about 2 pts can he offer a draw here or is it still illegal? Where do you draw the line? Can't you see how stupid this is? You know ratings are considered on 200 pt bands right and anything within 200pts is always considered comparable skill levels hence why terms such as Class B( 1600 1799) and Class A 1800 (1999) developed in the first place. Guess what, 80 pts is less than 200 so its the same skill band hence why they were in the same tournament in the first place.

I know exactly what a maxim is and what a rule is. I know the damn difference. You seem to not understand that your proposition is not acceptable as either. In no circumstance should rating ever matter when a player is thinking about whether he/she wants to offer a draw. It is irrelevant as I've proved to you time and time again.

I do care about my OTB rating yes because I try my hardest there when I have time. But my corr rating nope. Its meaningless. I've given draws in winning positions many times because I don't care. What you describe is utter insanity (must be your philosophy). You realize whether your 2084 or 2240 or 2300 or 2400 you're just a fish right? Trying to brag like its an accomplishment is a joke beyond all measure. There is ALWAYS someone better. As IM William Hartson aptly put it, "playing chess badly is where the growth is."

And don't worry you don't have to check for my tournaments as TD because I wouldn't permit you in my tournament anyways. I don't want known trouble makers.

oh well: " If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong."


Scott Nichols    (2010-09-20 02:33:24)
Corr. Chess Maxims

You have totally ruined what started off as a well meaning idea trying to defend an indefensible position with your psychotic ramblings.


Daniel Parmet    (2010-09-20 02:41:00)
Corr. Chess Maxims

Um... you mean your indefensible position? Like I said your #1 is a good idea and both Garvin and Sebastian added good ideas too. You just need to give up your #2 &#3 as I've proved repeatedly. I'm sorry that your and my insults derailed this thread. I really shouldn't have responded to your insults but i'm not used to putting refusing to use any kind of logic whatsoever. I apologize for going down to your level. At any rate, it is you as I said before that went off on psychotic ramblings not I. I just repeatedly proved you wrong.

"Adults are stupid and must be destroyed!" - Stewie Griffin


Scott Nichols    (2010-09-20 15:56:37)
Corr. Chess Maxims

.









 

Message




Chat



 

December 16, 2018

FICGS is also a social network including seo forums, a hot news & buzz blog, a free web directory and discussion forums to meet people from all over the world. Discuss the last events, improve your search engines optimization, submit your website, share your interests...


Feel free to link to FICGS chess server, register & win Epoints :






FICGS Go server, weiqi baduk banner facebook      
Correspondence chess

World championship

Play chess games

Go (weiqi, baduk)

Advanced chess

Play big chess

Chess trainer apk

Rated tournaments

Poker texas hold'em

Fischer random chess

      FICGS correspondence chess banner facebook