Montego: [post deleted WQ]~*~

danoschek: [post edited WQ] I wonder why though? How'd draws ever come to be seen as an acceptable outcome for a game? If the game is truly that evenly played, then a draw it is. I think allowing players to agree to draws while there's still a chance for one side or the other to win is wrong. If anything, I'd require more moves to be made before an agreed to draw is allowed, but I think eliminating them except for the ways I said earlier plus stalemates would be the way to lower the number of draws without changing the rules of Chess.

I see that you have draws in Backgammon and Pente. How is it possible to have a draw in either one of those games when it can't happen if played by the rules that I know?

In shogi draws can not be agreed. Perpetual check loses for the checking player and stalemate, of course, loses for the dead king. As a consequence I've never played a draw in shogi and that's over about 25 years. Professionals play about one draw by repetition in every fifty games and about one jishogi in every two hundred plus. In any case all draws are replayed with switched colours and the remaining time.

ughaibu: This shogi sounds like a fun and challenging game. I've heard a few people talk about it. Chess type game played by millions in Asia I've been told. Perhaps it'll get on this site eventually and I can give it a try. redsales says he plays it too.

Drawing must've evolved differently in the Chess playing traditions of the two games. The whole idea of two players being able to know the outcome and so don't need to play it out is something I find wrong with Chess. I know if I sponsored tournaments that I'd insist on having a change in the draw rule when it came to agreed draws. Of course with F.I.D.E. in control of Chess, it's their way, or the highway.

Walter Montego: The whole idea of two players being able to know the outcome and so don't need to play it out is something I find wrong with Chess

Does that mean you refuse to resign in a lost position, but keep playing till you're mated?

I fail to see why playing on when both players agree the position is draw should be required. Who benefits from that? Furthermore, in modern chess, time control is limited. To reach a position that is drawn by the rules, one might have to play an extra 100 moves. Which might mean ending the game with rapid or blitz.

Of course, if both players agree on a draw, but it's forbidden to "agree on a draw", they could just repeat the position three times, and claim a draw.

may occur with equally strong opponents ... as most chessplayers here know, I usually
try to make at least 40 moves which is about my impression of a full game, still I don't
dare to claim that personal approach as to be obligatory in a world of individuals. ~*~

Sorry but after 17...Kh8 the mate is in 47.5 moves :)

AbigailII: Ah, that's the thing. Who determines that the position is a draw? The players do, right? Don't you see a conflict of interest in this during a tournament? If agreed to draws are allowed, I believe some of the power to have them should be taken from the players involved. Have it go to a tribunal and change the procedure for asking for a draw. Instead of asking your opponent for a draw, you make the announcement it is a draw and have the tournament draw tribunal check your game out as it continues to be played. Or you be required to play more moves or you demonstrate that your opponent can't win the game. Whether or not you can win is no longer your concern. I'd certainly no longer allow the person asking for a draw to be allowed to win the game if his draw is turned down. Just changing this aspect of asking for draws would discourage a lot of early draw offers. Their opponent would be free to decline and then would be able to play on knowing that they couldn't lose the game. This would make a draw offer happening only when the person was certain that he was right.

From what I understand of a game that Ed and Alex have going right now, Ed should've resigned or Alex should've accepted a draw a few moves back. Now, how can that be? I'm glad they're continuing the game until all doubt is removed, even if it's not being done in the most sportsmanlike manner.

Yes, players could purposely start repeating positions during a game to get their draw out of it. I'm sure that would require collusion and could be dealt with. Everything else in Chess is analyzed, a repeated position could come under more scrutiny if they started happening more.

Don't they have tournaments where the time is increased if more moves are needed and all the moves that were required to be made in the allotted have been made? I know there's plenty of tournaments that only give you so much time for the whole game regardless of how many moves the game takes, but it seems to me I've heard of tournaments where they give you a couple hours to make say 40 moves. If the game continues after the 40 moves have been made, they'd add time to the clock and get another move count going. I'm sure something could be worked out if time was a problem caused by changing the draw rules. If it was harder to get draws, I'm thinking games would be played tougher and the players wouldn't plan on an easy game knowing they couldn't expect to hold there own and then offer a draw at the opportune time. That should make the Chess better too.

Your question of me about playing 'til being mated isn't easy to answer and has nothing to do with draws. So I'll not address it now. When you resign, you get zero for a score. A draw can get you zero or a half point depending on the rules of the match or tournament. When it's nothing, as I've seen them do in two player matches, is the percentage of draws the same as when the same two players play each other when the draws count as a half point? And how 'bout when different players are compared? I'd think the ratio would be the same, but perhaps there is a difference. Anybody know?

Matarilevich: What game are you refering to? How can you be so certain that far into the future?

Hi everyone, I would like your advice on this ... I have played this game against Jokl. In the 10th move I sacrified a piece because It lookeded like it will give me a strong attack. However, in the 25th move I eventually had to force a draw by eternal check. Was there something that I missed (and could have won) or was the sacrifice in the 10th move incorrect ?? Thanks for your opinion.

Pafl: I think 10... Nd4-f5 should be better instead of 10... Be7-h4.
What now? After 11.0-0 Nxe3 and after 11.Qd2 Bg5 - blacks position should be better

The red pen has been out and the matter is now settled so a continuation of the flaming is not required. I have left what I think is necessary to follow the constructive conversation but suggest that further debate on one or another's prowess be pursued elsewhere.

Thank you

WhisperzQ :)

chessmec: Thanks chessmec, you are probably right. I guess I made the sacrifice because my opponent played a horrible opening and I kind of felt urged to "punish" him :-)

I saw you game and i have some ideas that would surely lead you to the win.......I will verify my ideas with a computer program and i will post tomorrow......

Pafl: The suggested 10) ... Nf5 seems more powerful at first sight indeed ...
I wouldn't have come into that line since I'd play 3) ... Qe7 in the classical way.
Looking forward to s . chessmaster's analysis, - nice playground for programs. ... ~*~

danoschek: Is 3. ... Qe7 classical ? Didn't know that ! You don't get much of this opening in the books :-)

Pafl: eheh ! I don't own my bilguer anymore but I believe
to remember that Qe7 had an exclamation mark in there ... ~*~

danoschek: Actually i know that 3...g6 is the best move..............but in this early stage of opening 3...Qe7 is playable too of course...........

Pafl: I used 2 engines for helping in my short analysis, for checking my ideas and to find some new ones too......: Ikarus V0.18 and my favourite CM9000-JudgeII.
The JudgeII found a way for winning but Ikarus also had some good ideas..........

So the "party" for black begins with 19...Nxh2! instead of 19...e4?
After it white has to play 20.Ke1 and then 20...Nf3+ 21.Kd1 which is forced.
Then there are 2 moves:

21...Nh4+ 22.Kd2 Qf2+ 23.Kc3 Qxg3 and black has 2 Pawns more and a win is reachable........(The continuation 24.Rg1 Qf3 25.Bxf7?! Qxf7 26.Rxg4 Qf6!? winning a Pawn back is not good, as white has huge problems in the Kingside due to possible advance of black Pawns with h5, but the most important is that black can play Nf3 and then e4 is killing....)

21...0-0-0 and now there are 3 choices for white:

** 22.Nc3 and then 22...Qc6! and white has many problems to solve so he can't survive........

** 22.Na3 and then 22...h5! and black has a very dangerous attack and a very cramped position [edit]for white[/edit].........There are too many threats!
After 23.c3 (for letting the King escape via c2) there is 23...Ng5+ 24.Kc2 Qf2+ 25.Qd2 Qxg3 26.Rg1 Qf3 -+

** 22.Ne2 and then 22...Qc6! -+ Black is winning clearly!

Chessmaster1000: I see Tarrasch is your idol,
but I truely believe in Lasker ... best move ... ... ~*~

Chessmaster1000: Cool analysis, thanks ! I like the first variation (21. ... Nh4+) with nothing left on white's king side :-).

At least I know that I could have won :-). I did not see the beginning of this as I kind of routinely thought that after 19. ... Nxh2 white can play 20.Kd2 with no trouble for him. Obviously I should have looked better.

It is with regret that I have to advise that one person has taken exception to the selection process for recent post deletions so I feel obliged to delete a few more. Personally, I think they were acceptable observations and comments, but some seem to think that the competition over the board should be carried on in this board with personal point scoring the aim. I did not view the posts I left as falling into this category (the ones I did were deleted in the first round) but to be even more than fair the others have gone too. I apologise to the posters but I hope you can see the dilemma.

Needless to say, a precedence has now been set which will be applied into the future. Should you wish to purvey the deletions I expect there are those who have (and have a reputation for) kept a copy ... you might seek there.

Cheers ... with all our best intents intact

WhisperzQ

created just for fun. please look at my tournaments Chess EXPERIMENTS and tell me if you like them. There are 3 Tournaments so far ...
Regards,
Origami.

[... and the direct links are:
DIRTY DOZEN
COURIER and his HORSE
CUT THROAT on 47th
WQ :]

At 01.05. the Mir Malik Sultan Khan Memorial will start - maximum 32 players over 1800, two games (switched colors) for each two players.
At the moment there are 4 slots free. So if you have mor than 1800 please send a message to me that I can warmly invite you!

how do you create a tournament? I'm too busy to be that active here but I just wanted to know . . .

ColonelCrockett: http://brainking.com/en/DefineTournament?trnst=0

chessmec: the link kicks over to the tourney page, is this a "member only" thing?

ColonelCrockett: aha! you have to be a rook member to run tourney's!

ColonelCrockett: Yes. Read here.

Stormerne: somehow I missed that page during the signup process . . .

http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=8659&u=4398&trnst=0

In the Chess-Tournament HIT MAN I made a little break in the marathon and played the game against Matarilevich slowly.
The little enforced combinaison at the end is not the question - the question is: is not there a better move than 29... Nd8? Can't black survive in another way earlier?

>http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=415627


Why do you offer a draw in this game? I've been following it for a few months now. I'm not the best of Chess players, but I know I could win this game with Alex's position. Least ways, I think I could win it, even if my opponent was Bobby Fischer or Boris Spassky. I thought good Chess players, when playing each other, would acknowledge how things were going down and that you would resign in a position such as this. Only us lesser players (such as myself) would hang on and hope for our opponent to err or miscue and perhaps get lucky and win the game.

The reason I raise this is I'd like to remind readers of how I, if I was in charge of Chess rules, would change the rules concernings draws as I posted on this board April 15th and 16th.

Draws in my opinion should not be allowed unless the asking person can show the opponent cannot win the game or for other reasons that I stated. If the opponent decides to play on and refuses to accept the draw the player asking for the draw should be penalized in some way. Such as not being allowed to win the game, or not being able to ask for a draw the rest of the game, or both. The way the draw rules are now just asks for someone to take advantage of the rules or to manipulate them as they're able to. Just doesn't right or in the spirit of fair play to me.

[Minor editing WQ :]

Walter Montego: Please, let us not discuss the game you cited - we did this always here ...
In my opinion a draw offer should not be always repeated, not depending on the position. It should be discussed if there should be a rule: If you make a draw offer you can make in the next move not another offer ... (Feature Request?)

chessmec: I see no reason not to discuss this particular game. It illustrates my argument to a tee. As for a feature request, this has little to do with this game site as it does to me for how Chess itself is played everywhere. I think the draw rules are not right. Perhaps you're right, a feature request is a good place to bring it up also. Draws shouldn't be allowed on this site in game where a draw is not a possible outcome, such as Backgammon or Pente. That does sound like something this site could change and is a legitimate feature request. Though I kind of think that Fencer must like having draws in those games possible, or he'd not allow them in the first place. Chess is different, and its history of draws and how they're allowed to happens precedes some of the controlling powers of it now. And believe me, I'm no fan of F.I.D.E.

[Small edit as the original post this comment refered to has been deleted - WQ :]

This particular game was brought to my attention awhile back. Your phenomenal record of wins and your attitude towards them brings special interest to it too. As anyone looking at my standings can see, I don't play regular Chess on this site. Yet, Chess itself and what happens in it does on occasion hold my interest. You are right that you may play the game as this site and the rules allow you too. I see a lot of duplicity in your actions because of this game and how you treat Alex. Believe me, I find it hard to believe that he ever showered you with insults, but perhaps he has. Who am I to argue with you? Yes, I'm me and we've had numerous disagreements in the past. Doesn't change this particular situation and if anything it brings to light how you are. Do you think you have this game as a draw, or do you have other reasons for continuing it? You're always telling everyone how many moves ahead you can see a game being played. (Yes, I cite the 72 move mate from a four piece Gothic Chess ending). I look at this game you have with Alex. A few months ago, it looked to me like he had it, but I had to differ to your greater playing ability and experience and just assumed that I was missing something you and him could see in the position. Now, when I look at the game after your last move, I can't see how you can't lose it. [Example of projected play in current game deleted WQ :] Is this not the case?

[This post deleted as the original post has been deleted (by its originator) - WQ :].

Generally: A few posts have ben clipped as they were not appropriate for this board.

Further discussion regarding the merit and method of offering draws (in Chess) at Bk and with regard to Chess in general is welcome, but there is no need to revisit the Alex v Ed Trice game, at least until it is over, and then only in a constructive manner plesae.

WhisperzQ

well, take a look at this game.

http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=415628

My opponent wishes to play on, you don't hear me complaining about it.

Let's have all those stone-throwers weigh in on this one. Let's hear you send some of your comments towards Reza.

Unless, of course, you are just biased against me, then I fully expect your silence.

EdTrice: Say Ed, you have difficulties to win it? Anyway, I can not see any draw offer by reza, isn't it? Maybe he thinks you do not take care and make a stalemate :-)
And have a look at my game http://brainking.com/game/ArchivedGame?g=784187 - I resigned IMMIDIATELY after I took the wrong piece. That about morale by the way.

Anyone who wants to play chess live is welcome to give it a try at the http://www.GothicChessLive.com website.

Gothic Chess, Chess, and Checkers rooms (checkers not 100% debugged yet)

WhisperzQ: oh wow - thanks for reminding.
there happened indeed nothing constructive yet,
- and I won't comment the usual noise either ... ~*~

chessmec: thank you for inspiring my next jokes board message. your reflection
of morales for sure must have been, irrigardless of judging its issue-related validity,
just a good and funny example of an optical illusion aware of the source you cited ... ~*~

instead of reflecting morals that were proven virtual and,
to avoid the interferences that make just nice patterns, a strictly optical
approach by hiding humbug - new msgs ? I saw 3 of 9, then - appealing ! ~*~

what exactly is the purpose of this board? I know it is a chess message board but is it to look for opponents, analyze games, or is it an all inclusive (anything can happen) chess message board?

ColonelCrockett: hi coennel, it's not iyt as you see ... looking for
opponents is integrated with chess analysis, the usual pubertarian swelling included ...
just a special tournaments board exists yet, same as you're used to from before ... ~*~

danoschek: are you the same danoschek that was on IYT so long ago?

indeed and still I got the same elephante memory ... ... ~*~

. . . and the same wit that always gets you into trouble I see . . . anyone else from IYT here with you?