"Matt Nemmers" wrote ...
I drew a game in a lost position from a player named Msgt Tancredo
Pastores
of the Army because I didn't give up. I think he was probably aggravated
because a) the game lasted six hours, and b) I hadn't resigned in a lost
position. Well, that may make me "poor sport" for playing on down
material
against somebody who's rated almost 200 points higher, but I drew a game I
should've lost, and that's a difference of one and half points. The way I
see it, I just came through in the clutch.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions on the matter, but I just believe
that
a player has the right to play on until mate -- if in fact he's actually
giving forth an effor to win. Most reasonable players, when down a piece
or
more and see no way to win, *will* resign and that's the category I fall
into. However, if I think there's even the possibility that I can save at
least the draw, I will play on. Hope none of you ever have to play me
OTB!


Back in the late 1980s in the New York Open, I was playing in the Under-2000
section for perhaps the last time. So I was doing pretty well and in fact
won a few hundred dollars when all was said and done.

Midway through the event I saw a mate, or thought I did, and sacked a rook.
Immediately it became apparent I'd had a hallucination and there was no
mate. I was simply down a rook for two pawns.

I was so mad at myself, I refused to resign. Instead I hunkered down behind
my pawns, sending out my last two pieces--a queen and bishop--on occasional
forays to harass the enemy.

My opponent was an older man and this was the last round of the day. I was
clearly lost, but I could also see he was getting tired. So I kept playing.
Really playing, not just sitting there waiting for him to fall asleep.
Eventually at 2 in the morning, I offered a draw--still down a rook for two
pawns--and he accepted, because he wasn't making any progress.

Now that I am an "older man," I too get tired late in my games ... but I
still would not censure an opponent who fought doggedly to defend his
position, even though it were objectively lost.

Tim Hanke

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news:j0D7c.60464$po.550958@attbi_s52...(to Don Mihokovich):
"KidDon" wrote in message
m...(to Matt Nemmers):
"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news:0Kp7c.55769$Cb.865992@attbi_s51...(to Benjamin Jordan):
At what level of play do you feel it would be appropriate to implement
the hypothetical "Insufficient Survival Chances" rule you suggest?
World Championship level? Master/Expert level? Class level?

I ask because anybody can overlook the loss of a piece or a stalemate
position, ensuring that his opponent who's down much material can either
equalize the position or secure a half-point.

Yes, 'anybody can...', and anyone who buys a ticket could win the lottery.
Unlike in the lottery, however, not every player in the same position is
equally likely of winning or losing.

I'm not sure if it was Karpov or Kasparov, but it was one of them, who
overlooked that his last queen move (his opponent had a lone king)
delivered stalemate.

If so, then presumably he must have been in extreme Zeitnot.

The point is, humans are going to make mistakes,

Then should human players resign earlier when playing against computers? :-)

and -- especially at the class level where 90% of tournament players are
-- it would be absolutely arbitrary and unfair to implement such a rule,
in my opinion.

I would tend to agree about that point.

People pay to play in tournaments. I pay just as much as the masters and
experts (if their entry fee wasn't waived) to play for the same prizes
they do. I, and every other person in that event, has every right to
play on until mate.

I would agree that every player has the '*right* to play on until mate', but
that's not the same as saying it's necessarily good 'to play on until mate'.

If you think that's somehow "unethical," well, I have to disagree.
The odds of winning or drawing a game a queen down are slim, but
the chances are there. Since, at the class level, luck and psychology
play a larger role than preparation and opening theory -- this comparison
gradually inverts the farther you go up the rating scale -- I'll take my
chances with the luck, hold on, and hope my opponent screws up....

"We learn by Chess the habit of not being discouraged by present bad
appearances in the state of our affairs; the habit of hoping for a favourable
chance and that of persevering in the search of resources. The game is so
full of events, there is such a variety of turns in it, the fortune of it is
so subject to vicissitudes, and one so frequently, after contemplation,
discovers the means of extricating one's self from a supposed insurmountable
difficulty, that one is encouraged to continue the contest to the last, in
hopes of victory from our skill; or, at least, from the negligence of our
adversary..."
--Benjamin Franklin (The Morals of Chess)

Let's say you are attending an out of town tournament with a time
control that can allow for 5 hr. games. You are up significantly, say
K-Q-R-P v. K-N, early in the second time control of the last round.
You cannot possibly lose, and that last point will earn you prize
money. Would it be good sportsmanship or ethics for your opponent to
drag the game out an extra 2 hours or so, just in the hopes that your
schedule would require you to leave?
Don Mihokovich

In all honesty, I would get impatient and wonder why my opponent was playing
on, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it "unethical." "Poor sportsmanship"
hits closer to the mark, but even that sounds a bit dubious.

Mr Nemmers, why would calling it 'poor sportsmanship' 'sound a bit dubious'
to you? If your hypothetical opponent were playing on '*just in the hopes*
that your schedule would require you to leave' before completing the game,
then his behaviour would clearly seem to be poor sportsmanship to me.

I played in the U.S. Military Interservice Championships
(http://qcchess.homes.mchsi.com) and the time control was 40/2, SD/1. Rated
1589 at the time, I was not only the lowest rated person on my Navy team,
but also the lowest rated player in the whole tournament of 24. (Six man
teams from each branch except the Coast Guard.) I scored only two points
for the Navy in the nine round event in four draws. I had to prove myself
in every game -- nobody accepts a draw from a player rated one or two
hundred points lower than them unless they really believe they can pull it
off. My point is that even if I was up a piece or had a winning advantage,
players rated higher than me would play because they didn't think they
should lose to me. Maybe they're right -- maybe they should have beaten me;
however, I didn't begrudge them the opportunity to play on and try to come
back, even in a tournament where the time control often allowed for six hour
games.

I drew a game in a lost position from a player named Msgt Tancredo Pastores
of the Army because I didn't give up. I think he was probably aggravated
because a) the game lasted six hours, and b) I hadn't resigned in a lost
position. Well, that may make me "poor sport" for playing on down material
against somebody who's rated almost 200 points higher, but I drew a game I
should've lost, and that's a difference of one and half points. The way I
see it, I just came through in the clutch.

Congratulations, Mr Nemmers, though not everyone would share your perspective.

For whatever it's worth, I have played some games with someone (rated about
2300 FIDE) who always insists on adhering to what he regards as universal
good sportsmanship. An unwritten convention in our games is that either of
us has been expected to resign whenever the other player has been able to
attain a recognisably theoretically winning endgame position.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions on the matter, but I just believe that
a player has the right to play on until mate -- if in fact he's actually
giving forth an effor to win. Most reasonable players, when down a piece or
more and see no way to win, *will* resign and that's the category I fall
into. However, if I think there's even the possibility that I can save at
least the draw, I will play on. Hope none of you ever have to play me OTB!

Mr Nemmers, I expect that you should conduct yourself decently if we ever
were to play an OTB game. But you should also consider the 'opportunity costs'
of your apparently routine practice of playing in losing positions until mate,
particularly when against a much stronger player. After I have won a game
against a clearly weaker player, I usually have been ready to analyse the game
and discuss his or her error(s) when I have been asked to do so *unless* my
opponent had behaved in an unsportsmanlike manner, in my view, such as by
having forced me (while he or she was moving as slowly as possible) to
demonstrate how to win a king and queen against king endgame.

--Nick

"Nick" wrote ...

For whatever it's worth, I have played some games with someone (rated
about
2300 FIDE) who always insists on adhering to what he regards as universal
good sportsmanship. An unwritten convention in our games is that either
of
us has been expected to resign whenever the other player has been able to
attain a recognisably theoretically winning endgame position.

I think this is exaggerated courtesy. Not even grandmasters always do this
in their games against each other. Certainly, most players below grandmaster
level will make the opponent prove he knows how to win the "theoretically
winning endgame," and rightly so.

"There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip." --Old proverb

Tim Hanke

You are a disgusting piece of ****.

I can safely hurt your feelings now that Benjamin Jordan won't see my post
and come to your defense now.

Dan

"newsnewsnews" wrote in message
news:qkH7c.878932$X%5.713217@pd7tw2no...

"Benjamin Jordan" wrote in message
...
First of all Matt, I want to thank you for your polite and thoughtful
post,
and congratulate you on your measurable improvement as a chess player
over
the last year. I learned the game as a child, but have only started
playing
regularly quite recently. Any tips you have to help me improve would be
welcome, like: "Stop screwing around on the computer and participating
in
flame wars and play some games." Eh? (A little Canadian lingo there).

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here Jordan. Matt is one of the
weakest players on this site....maybe the weakest. He was a 1000-1200
player
for the bulk of his tournament chess career and suspiciously shot up to
1600
out of the blue.


An articulate speaker, as well as being a decent player himself who has
been
in the company of some top players, that you could probably garner some
good advice from is Sam Sloan.






Rating History for
MATTHEW ROBERT NEMMERS
USCF ID 12763067 Expires 05-04 State ILLINOIS

Source Regular
Rating Quick
Rating


10-02 Supplement 1235 1252/13
08-02 Supplement 1119
06-02 Supplement 1126
04-02 Supplement 1031
12-01 Annual List 1029
10-01 Supplement 1048
06-01 Supplement 1046
12-00 Annual List 904
10-00 Supplement 854
08-00 Supplement 810/19
06-00 Supplement 798/13
02-00 Supplement 1010/09
12-99 Annual List 804/04
10-99 Supplement 804/04

"Nick" wrote in message
om...
"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news:j0D7c.60464$po.550958@attbi_s52...(to Don Mihokovich):
"KidDon" wrote in message
m...(to Matt Nemmers):
"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message
news:0Kp7c.55769$Cb.865992@attbi_s51...(to Benjamin Jordan):
At what level of play do you feel it would be appropriate to
implement
the hypothetical "Insufficient Survival Chances" rule you suggest?
World Championship level? Master/Expert level? Class level?

I ask because anybody can overlook the loss of a piece or a
stalemate
position, ensuring that his opponent who's down much material can
either
equalize the position or secure a half-point.

Yes, 'anybody can...', and anyone who buys a ticket could win the lottery.
Unlike in the lottery, however, not every player in the same position is
equally likely of winning or losing.

I'm not sure if it was Karpov or Kasparov, but it was one of them,
who
overlooked that his last queen move (his opponent had a lone king)
delivered stalemate.

If so, then presumably he must have been in extreme Zeitnot.

The point is, humans are going to make mistakes,

Then should human players resign earlier when playing against computers?
:-)

and -- especially at the class level where 90% of tournament players
are
-- it would be absolutely arbitrary and unfair to implement such a
rule,
in my opinion.

I would tend to agree about that point.

People pay to play in tournaments. I pay just as much as the
masters and
experts (if their entry fee wasn't waived) to play for the same
prizes
they do. I, and every other person in that event, has every right
to
play on until mate.

I would agree that every player has the '*right* to play on until mate',
but
that's not the same as saying it's necessarily good 'to play on until
mate'.

If you think that's somehow "unethical," well, I have to disagree.
The odds of winning or drawing a game a queen down are slim, but
the chances are there. Since, at the class level, luck and
psychology
play a larger role than preparation and opening theory -- this
comparison
gradually inverts the farther you go up the rating scale -- I'll
take my
chances with the luck, hold on, and hope my opponent screws up....

"We learn by Chess the habit of not being discouraged by present bad
appearances in the state of our affairs; the habit of hoping for a
favourable
chance and that of persevering in the search of resources. The game is so
full of events, there is such a variety of turns in it, the fortune of it
is
so subject to vicissitudes, and one so frequently, after contemplation,
discovers the means of extricating one's self from a supposed
insurmountable
difficulty, that one is encouraged to continue the contest to the last, in
hopes of victory from our skill; or, at least, from the negligence of our
adversary..."
--Benjamin Franklin (The Morals of Chess)

Let's say you are attending an out of town tournament with a time
control that can allow for 5 hr. games. You are up significantly, say
K-Q-R-P v. K-N, early in the second time control of the last round.
You cannot possibly lose, and that last point will earn you prize
money. Would it be good sportsmanship or ethics for your opponent to
drag the game out an extra 2 hours or so, just in the hopes that your
schedule would require you to leave?
Don Mihokovich

In all honesty, I would get impatient and wonder why my opponent was
playing
on, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it "unethical." "Poor
sportsmanship"
hits closer to the mark, but even that sounds a bit dubious.

Mr Nemmers, why would calling it 'poor sportsmanship' 'sound a bit
dubious'
to you? If your hypothetical opponent were playing on '*just in the
hopes*
that your schedule would require you to leave' before completing the game,
then his behaviour would clearly seem to be poor sportsmanship to me.

I played in the U.S. Military Interservice Championships
(http://qcchess.homes.mchsi.com) and the time control was 40/2, SD/1.
Rated
1589 at the time, I was not only the lowest rated person on my Navy
team,
but also the lowest rated player in the whole tournament of 24. (Six
man
teams from each branch except the Coast Guard.) I scored only two
points
for the Navy in the nine round event in four draws. I had to prove
myself
in every game -- nobody accepts a draw from a player rated one or two
hundred points lower than them unless they really believe they can pull
it
off. My point is that even if I was up a piece or had a winning
advantage,
players rated higher than me would play because they didn't think they
should lose to me. Maybe they're right -- maybe they should have beaten
me;
however, I didn't begrudge them the opportunity to play on and try to
come
back, even in a tournament where the time control often allowed for six
hour
games.

I drew a game in a lost position from a player named Msgt Tancredo
Pastores
of the Army because I didn't give up. I think he was probably
aggravated
because a) the game lasted six hours, and b) I hadn't resigned in a lost
position. Well, that may make me "poor sport" for playing on down
material
against somebody who's rated almost 200 points higher, but I drew a game
I
should've lost, and that's a difference of one and half points. The way
I
see it, I just came through in the clutch.

Congratulations, Mr Nemmers, though not everyone would share your
perspective.

For whatever it's worth, I have played some games with someone (rated
about
2300 FIDE) who always insists on adhering to what he regards as universal
good sportsmanship. An unwritten convention in our games is that either
of
us has been expected to resign whenever the other player has been able to
attain a recognisably theoretically winning endgame position.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions on the matter, but I just believe
that
a player has the right to play on until mate -- if in fact he's actually
giving forth an effor to win. Most reasonable players, when down a
piece or
more and see no way to win, *will* resign and that's the category I fall
into. However, if I think there's even the possibility that I can save
at
least the draw, I will play on. Hope none of you ever have to play me
OTB!

Mr Nemmers, I expect that you should conduct yourself decently if we ever
were to play an OTB game. But you should also consider the 'opportunity
costs'
of your apparently routine practice of playing in losing positions until
mate,
particularly when against a much stronger player.

This guy "Nick Bourbaki" doesn't normally say much of value, but he is on
the money on this post. I didn't think a geeky clerk like you would
understand a concept like 'opportunity costs', but it seems there is at
least one diamond in the ruff of your psyche.



Jason Repa

"Nick" wrote in message
om...


Mr Nemmers, I expect that you should conduct yourself decently if we ever
were to play an OTB game. But you should also consider the 'opportunity
costs'
of your apparently routine practice of playing in losing positions until
mate,
particularly when against a much stronger player. After I have won a game
against a clearly weaker player, I usually have been ready to analyse the
game
and discuss his or her error(s) when I have been asked to do so *unless*
my
opponent had behaved in an unsportsmanlike manner, in my view, such as by
having forced me (while he or she was moving as slowly as possible) to
demonstrate how to win a king and queen against king endgame.

A great player like you should always be honored by never being required to
mate a clearly weaker player from a clearly winning position. For you to
suffer such hardship would be an insult to your sporting spirit and a
tragedy that has few equals. I feel for you.

Dan

"Dan Pressnell" wrote in message
. com...
You are a disgusting piece of ****.

I can safely hurt your feelings now that Benjamin Jordan won't see my post
and come to your defense now.

Dan

ROFL, OMG, without Benjamin to defend me I am so totally helpless against
your awesome wrath!!


UNCLE, UNCLE, UNCLE.....white flags and all!?!


Jason Repa



ps, the phrase "disgusting piece of ****" is oxymoronic and frowned on in
proper discussion group circles. We much prefer expressions like
"sub-verbal, chromosome-deficient, neanderthal", etc.


pps, suck my dick Pressnell http://www.members.shaw.ca/testing_tests/

"Dan Pressnell" wrote in message
. com...
"Nick" wrote in message
om...


Mr Nemmers, I expect that you should conduct yourself decently if we
ever
were to play an OTB game. But you should also consider the 'opportunity
costs'
of your apparently routine practice of playing in losing positions until
mate,
particularly when against a much stronger player. After I have won a
game
against a clearly weaker player, I usually have been ready to analyse
the
game
and discuss his or her error(s) when I have been asked to do so *unless*
my
opponent had behaved in an unsportsmanlike manner, in my view, such as
by
having forced me (while he or she was moving as slowly as possible) to
demonstrate how to win a king and queen against king endgame.

A great player like you should always be honored by never being required
to
mate a clearly weaker player from a clearly winning position. For you to
suffer such hardship would be an insult to your sporting spirit and a
tragedy that has few equals. I feel for you.

Dan



Dan is out of the closet and is now to be considered a full-fledged troll.


Jason Repa

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message
news:nTN7c.65496$SR1.112688@attbi_s04...
"Nick" wrote ...

For whatever it's worth, I have played some games with someone (rated
about
2300 FIDE) who always insists on adhering to what he regards as
universal
good sportsmanship. An unwritten convention in our games is that either
of
us has been expected to resign whenever the other player has been able
to
attain a recognisably theoretically winning endgame position.

I think this is exaggerated courtesy. Not even grandmasters always do this
in their games against each other. Certainly, most players below
grandmaster
level will make the opponent prove he knows how to win the "theoretically
winning endgame," and rightly so.

"There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip." --Old proverb

Tim Hanke



The problem with this argument in a newsgroup is that there are varying
degrees of "winning" etc, depending on both the position and the players
involved, and it is hard to come up with a hard fast rule as a result. But
there are positions that are just plain ridiculous when the guy is playing
on. I had one game about 5 years ago with a guy that just got up and left
when he knew it was over. I in fact had a mate in 5. IMO there should be a
consequence for this sort of behaviour.

Jason Repa

"newsnewsnews" wrote in message
news:xFO7c.883343$ts4.226519@pd7tw3no...

The problem with this argument in a newsgroup is that there are varying
degrees of "winning" etc, depending on both the position and the players
involved, and it is hard to come up with a hard fast rule as a result. But
there are positions that are just plain ridiculous when the guy is playing
on. I had one game about 5 years ago with a guy that just got up and left
when he knew it was over. I in fact had a mate in 5. IMO there should be a
consequence for this sort of behaviour.

It's apparent that you haven't read the rules of tournaments. So much for
your intelligence.

Dan