This is actually a legitimate question. Years ago I saw a game at the
Marshall Chess Club between two grandmasters. One grandmaster was
extremely angry at the other. He was more than a queen behind. He
simply slowed down and almost stopped moving. When the tournament
director started to mark down the result, he said that no, he was
still playing. Because the time limit was 40 in 2 and the game had
already gone 80 moves he insisted that the game could go on for
another 4 hours until he time forfeited.

I do not know how this was finally concluded. I went home and went to
sleep.

Sam Sloan

Dear Mr. Pressnell,

Heil Dubya! And "Heil Dubya!" to you, too, Mr. Bean. (I hope I am correct in
presuming that that is the name of the person who signs on as "Terry".)

I thank the two of you for a most enjoyable few minutes "browsing the web." I
do not, of course, thank the two assholes Repa and Scam Spam, who know even
less about chess than I had surmised.

Mr. Pressnell, I envy you, your sense of humor and your persistence. I do not
have the patience to follow through as you did, for the sake of clarity and to
make the point. You clearly rivaled Mark Twain and William Shakespear in the
ability to make your point in this thread. Congratulations! It is a pleasure
to participate in the same bbs with you.

"newsnewsnews" wrote in message
news:hQW6c.864737$ts4.309421@pd7tw3no...

I already answered the question. Are you unable to read as well Terrance?

It looks like there was a glitch somewhere because somebody else says he
hasn't seen your answer either. See if your newsreader has a button called
"Send" or something like that. Maybe you forgot to click on that button.
This can all be very confusing until you get used to it.

Dan

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan, Irak und Haïti. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka über Alles!

(The more information that comes out about the attacks on the Twin Towers and
the Pentagon of 11 September 2001 the more it appears that those attacks were
organized by the rulers of the United States and were intended to have the same
effect on the people of the United States that the Reichstag fire had on the
people of Germany in 1933.)

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus

"Terry" wrote in message
...
"Dan Pressnell" wrote in message
om...(to Jason Repa):
"newsnewsnews" (Jason Repa) wrote in message
news:vnW6c.112124$Up2.64411@pd7tw1no...
Dan Pressnell wrote (to Jason Repa):
And thank you for pointing out that this thread is about courtesy.

I never said anything about courtesy you ****ing moron. I was talking
about sportsmanship. Learn the difference between those words and get
back to me.

You are right. Your posts have nothing to do with courtesy at all.
I apologize. I'll return to the topic you wanted to discuss.
What do you think the penalty should be for failing to resign,

A modest proposal could be to lock the offending player in the same room
only with Jason Repa.

and what should the guidelines be?

Given one of Jason Repa's evident obsessions, some guidelines should be
made with respect to the offending player's sex and sexual orientation.

LOL Dan. Keep going - you might get an answer. This guy is a total moron.

At what point does a 'total moron', Jason Repa, become an 'imbecile'? :-)

Despite Jason's abrasive manner, he HAS answered the question and it makes
sense. He has reiterated several times that he is talking about
_sportsmanship_, which includes concepts like "courtesy, striving spirit,
and grace in losing" (American Heritage Dictionary) A badly losing player
who is running out the clock to annoy his opponent is not exhibiting these.

The USCF already has a Code of Ethics. One of the examples of unethical
conduct is "Deliberately failing to play at one's best in a game, in any
manner inconsistent with the principles of good sportsmanship, honesty, or
fair play." It also describes sanctions such as Censure, Suspension, etc.

There is already an "Insufficient Losing Chances" rule so that players will
not lose patently drawn positions on time. Why not have a similar
"Insufficient Survival Chances" rule. As Jason described, the TD would not
tell someone when to resign, but a player could claim a win due to unethical
conduct and the TD would arbitrate.

Why should this need to be spelled out? Repeating demands that he "answer
the question" in overly polite language is baiting and harassment. Par for
the Dan Pressnell course, I guess.

"Dan Pressnell" wrote in message
m...
"newsnewsnews" wrote in message
news:SOW6c.112148$Up2.69013@pd7tw1no...

"Dan Pressnell" wrote in message
om...
"newsnewsnews" wrote in message
news:dyW6c.112133$Up2.72793@pd7tw1no...

You are continuing to harass me. I answered your question. If you
can't
comprehend what I said that is your problem.

Would you repeat the answer for me? Something must be wrong with my
newsreader, because I haven't seen any post you tell what the penalty
should
be for failing to resign and what the guidelines should be.


I told you already idiot, i answered your question. Learn how to read.

Yes, and thank you for the answer. But what I'm saying is that I haven't
seen it, due to technical difficulties. Could you maybe repost it so I'll
see it this time?

Dan

"Benjamin Jordan" wrote in message
...
Despite Jason's abrasive manner, he HAS answered the question and it makes
sense. He has reiterated several times that he is talking about
_sportsmanship_, which includes concepts like "courtesy, striving spirit,
and grace in losing" (American Heritage Dictionary) A badly losing player
who is running out the clock to annoy his opponent is not exhibiting
these.

The USCF already has a Code of Ethics. One of the examples of unethical
conduct is "Deliberately failing to play at one's best in a game, in any
manner inconsistent with the principles of good sportsmanship, honesty, or
fair play." It also describes sanctions such as Censure, Suspension, etc.

There is already an "Insufficient Losing Chances" rule so that players
will
not lose patently drawn positions on time. Why not have a similar
"Insufficient Survival Chances" rule. As Jason described, the TD would
not
tell someone when to resign, but a player could claim a win due to
unethical
conduct and the TD would arbitrate.

He described no such thing. If you think he did, please post his reply for
me to see.

Why should this need to be spelled out? Repeating demands that he "answer
the question" in overly polite language is baiting and harassment. Par
for
the Dan Pressnell course, I guess.

Please repost or direct me to the post he made describing the penalty.

And how does "failing to play your at one's best" include failing to resign?
Also, it's pretty stupid to say that the penalty for resigning too late
should be to have an arbirated win. As for "unethical conduct" please point
me to any rule of FIDE or the USCF that says failure to resign, but playing
on for a chance, is unethical conduct.

If you think asking a question politely is harassment, then you need to
learn what manners are. I've made no personal attacks in this thread. If
you object to my being polite, then I'll say "**** you, you stupid prick."

Are you pleased now, you sorry excuse for a human being? Will you now post
your chess rating under the moronic impression that the number is the
measure of your worth as a human being? Let me say it again, Mr.
I-don't-like-polite-posters. **** YOU.

Let's not have any more complains about polite postings, okay?

Dan

Oh, and Mr. Jordan, I forgot to say this.... You may now resume kissing
Jason's ass. I'm I being sufficiently impolite to you now?

Dan

"Dan Pressnell" wrote in message
om...
"Benjamin Jordan" wrote in message
...
Despite Jason's abrasive manner, he HAS answered the question and it
makes
sense. He has reiterated several times that he is talking about
_sportsmanship_, which includes concepts like "courtesy, striving
spirit,
and grace in losing" (American Heritage Dictionary) A badly losing
player
who is running out the clock to annoy his opponent is not exhibiting
these.

The USCF already has a Code of Ethics. One of the examples of unethical
conduct is "Deliberately failing to play at one's best in a game, in any
manner inconsistent with the principles of good sportsmanship, honesty,
or
fair play." It also describes sanctions such as Censure, Suspension,
etc.

There is already an "Insufficient Losing Chances" rule so that players
will
not lose patently drawn positions on time. Why not have a similar
"Insufficient Survival Chances" rule. As Jason described, the TD would
not
tell someone when to resign, but a player could claim a win due to
unethical
conduct and the TD would arbitrate.

He described no such thing. If you think he did, please post his reply
for
me to see.

Why should this need to be spelled out? Repeating demands that he
"answer
the question" in overly polite language is baiting and harassment. Par
for
the Dan Pressnell course, I guess.

Please repost or direct me to the post he made describing the penalty.

And how does "failing to play your at one's best" include failing to
resign?
Also, it's pretty stupid to say that the penalty for resigning too late
should be to have an arbirated win. As for "unethical conduct" please
point
me to any rule of FIDE or the USCF that says failure to resign, but
playing
on for a chance, is unethical conduct.

If you think asking a question politely is harassment, then you need to
learn what manners are. I've made no personal attacks in this thread. If
you object to my being polite, then I'll say "**** you, you stupid prick."

Are you pleased now, you sorry excuse for a human being? Will you now
post
your chess rating under the moronic impression that the number is the
measure of your worth as a human being? Let me say it again, Mr.
I-don't-like-polite-posters. **** YOU.

Let's not have any more complains about polite postings, okay?

Dan

I suppose that now we'll be hearing that the TD should discipline players
who are POLITE to others.

Some people!

Dan

*Yawn* I should have known better than to feed the trolls AND jump into a
flame war. Sorry everybody. This will be my last post on this.

He described no such thing. If you think he did, please post his reply
for
me to see.

Ok. Jason Repa wrote:
Nobody said anything about TD's telling people to resign.

In a very technical sense you are right, Jason did not describe anything.
Terry brought in the idea of the TD telling people to resign, and Jason was
CLEARLY denouncing that scenario. I was then expanding on the thought.

Please repost or direct me to the post he made describing the penalty.

What do you THINK the penalty would be?? A spanking?? A rook up the rear??
Please. Repa said "disciplinary measures" and that's all he needed to say.
They are already specified by the USCF. Look them up yourself instead of
demanding that he copy and paste them for you.

And how does "failing to play your at one's best" include failing to
resign?
Also, it's pretty stupid to say that the penalty for resigning too late
should be to have an arbirated win.

You forgot the rest of the quote: "Deliberately failing to play at one's
best in a game, in any manner inconsistent WITH THE PRINCIPALS OF GOOD
SPORTSMANSHIP, honesty, or fair play." There is a difference between
"resigning too late" (your term) and _refusing_ to resign to annoy your
opponent. The first could be due to inexperience or delusion, the latter is
unethical. The skill of the players has to be taken into account.

As for "unethical conduct" please point
me to any rule of FIDE or the USCF that says failure to resign, but
playing
on for a chance, is unethical conduct.

See above, but that prompted an interesting idea . . . perhaps there should
be technical checkmate rule like a TKO in boxing. If one player is
significantly behind in material and has no perceivable counterplay, a win
could be claimed. The USCF could decide the exact parameters. Just an
offhand idea.

If you think asking a question politely is harassment, then you need to
learn what manners are. I've made no personal attacks in this thread. If
you object to my being polite, then I'll say "**** you, you stupid prick."

Here is a quote from you to Jason:
See if your newsreader has a button called "Send" or something like that.
Maybe you forgot to click on that button. This can all be very confusing
until you get used to it.

I never said asking a question politely is harassment. Asking it over and
over ad nauseum becoming increasingly condescending is. You are a troll,
and I'll let your record on Usenet speak for itself.

Oh, and Mr. Jordan, I forgot to say this.... You may now resume kissing
Jason's ass. I'm I being sufficiently impolite to you now?

Please re-read my post where I said Jason was abrasive. I've actually never
had any communication with him, although I've seen his posts harassing other
people. The difference between him and you is that he is rude and funny,
you are rude and boring. Oh, and he can play chess.

I suppose that now we'll be hearing that the TD should discipline players
who are POLITE to others.

As an analogy, excessive draw offers, no matter how polite, ARE harassment
and worthy of discipline. It was your constant repetition of your baited
question and condescending manner with your "technical difficulties" that
was harassment.

Ok everyone, that's all, I think anyone rational will be able to get my
meaning. I'm sure there will be attacks and semantic nitpicks to follow, so
please accept my reply in advance: Your mother.

- Benjamin Jordan

P.S. Dan, please try get all your comments in one post. You should try
learning chess - it helps you learn to think ahead.

"Benjamin Jordan" wrote in message
...

*Yawn* I should have known better than to feed the trolls AND jump into a
flame war. Sorry everybody. This will be my last post on this.

Trolls? You come in here and complain about my POLITE postings and then you
call me a troll. **** you, little boy.


He described no such thing. If you think he did, please post his reply
for
me to see.

Ok. Jason Repa wrote:
Nobody said anything about TD's telling people to resign.

In a very technical sense you are right, Jason did not describe anything.

Damn right, liar.

**** you.

Am I being sufficiently impolite now, or will you find something else to be
a crybaby about, asshole?

Terry brought in the idea of the TD telling people to resign, and Jason
was
CLEARLY denouncing that scenario. I was then expanding on the thought.

Please repost or direct me to the post he made describing the penalty.

What do you THINK the penalty would be??

Don't pull that **** on me, little boy. YOU posted a lie, don't hide under
the bed and shift the **** to me.

As for "unethical conduct" please point
me to any rule of FIDE or the USCF that says failure to resign, but
playing
on for a chance, is unethical conduct.

See above, but that prompted an interesting idea . . . perhaps there
should
be technical checkmate rule like a TKO in boxing.

Not if a snob like you gets to administer it. A proven liar is not in a
position to advocate "sportsmanship." Got it, jerk?

I never said asking a question politely is harassment. Asking it over and
over ad nauseum becoming increasingly condescending is. You are a troll,
and I'll let your record on Usenet speak for itself.

You get your tongue out of Jasons anus before you talk to me about civility,
okay?


Oh, and Mr. Jordan, I forgot to say this.... You may now resume kissing
Jason's ass. I'm I being sufficiently impolite to you now?

Please re-read my post where I said Jason was abrasive.

You reread your post about politeness. **** you, little boy.

I've actually never
had any communication with him, although I've seen his posts harassing
other
people. The difference between him and you is that he is rude and funny,
you are rude and boring. Oh, and he can play chess.

Then quit reading usenet. Crawl into a hole if you fly off the handle with
polite posts.


I suppose that now we'll be hearing that the TD should discipline
players
who are POLITE to others.

As an analogy, excessive draw offers, no matter how polite, ARE harassment
and worthy of discipline. It was your constant repetition of your baited
question and condescending manner with your "technical difficulties" that
was harassment.

And you are a saint? **** YOU, BOY.

Ok everyone, that's all, I think anyone rational will be able to get my
meaning. I'm sure there will be attacks and semantic nitpicks to follow,
so
please accept my reply in advance: Your mother.

Attacks? You attack me for no reason, and you have the nerve to talk about
attacks?

You are a liar, a moron, and a worthless excuse for human ****, boy.

Does your mother know you turned out that way?

I'm not being polite now, asshole. Are you having fun yet?


- Benjamin Jordan

AKA, liar.

Dan

"Benjamin Jordan" wrote in message
...
Despite Jason's abrasive manner, he HAS answered the question and it makes
sense. He has reiterated several times that he is talking about
_sportsmanship_, which includes concepts like "courtesy, striving spirit,
and grace in losing" (American Heritage Dictionary) A badly losing player
who is running out the clock to annoy his opponent is not exhibiting
these.

The USCF already has a Code of Ethics. One of the examples of unethical
conduct is "Deliberately failing to play at one's best in a game, in any
manner inconsistent with the principles of good sportsmanship, honesty, or
fair play." It also describes sanctions such as Censure, Suspension, etc.

There is already an "Insufficient Losing Chances" rule so that players
will
not lose patently drawn positions on time. Why not have a similar
"Insufficient Survival Chances" rule. As Jason described, the TD would
not
tell someone when to resign, but a player could claim a win due to
unethical
conduct and the TD would arbitrate.

Why should this need to be spelled out? Repeating demands that he "answer
the question" in overly polite language is baiting and harassment. Par
for
the Dan Pressnell course, I guess.

Well put and thank you!

Jason Repa