Main
Date: 06 Nov 2006 02:30:10
From: John Evans
Subject: Chess Etiquette - Part 3
This is the final post in this series. Enjoy!

http://growwithchess.com/2006/11/chess-etiquette-part-3.html

--
Thanks,
John
http://growwithchess.com/






 
Date: 25 Nov 2006 09:16:09
From: Eliyahu
Subject: Re: Chess Etiquette - Part 3

[email protected] wrote:
> If I can add one comment.
>
> If you're feeling tired or unwell, but have still turned up for a game,
> don't tell your opponent how bad you feel either before or after the
> game.
>
> If you lose, it will spoil it for him. He's supposed to think you'd
> have beaten him any other day.
>
> If you win, it will make him feel that he's supposed to think he's so
> bad you can beat him with only one cylinder going.
>
> I confess I did that last night at the start of the game and thinking
> about it, I can see I was wrong. (I did actually win - which in one
> sense made me feel better).
>
> Mind you he stretched the game out until mate.
>
> John Collins (in UK)

Bs'd

I think it is very much against etiquette to bother other people with
this nonsense.

Eliyahu



 
Date: 22 Nov 2006 11:10:25
From:
Subject: Re: Chess Etiquette - Part 3
If I can add one comment.

If you're feeling tired or unwell, but have still turned up for a game,
don't tell your opponent how bad you feel either before or after the
game.

If you lose, it will spoil it for him. He's supposed to think you'd
have beaten him any other day.

If you win, it will make him feel that he's supposed to think he's so
bad you can beat him with only one cylinder going.

I confess I did that last night at the start of the game and thinking
about it, I can see I was wrong. (I did actually win - which in one
sense made me feel better).

Mind you he stretched the game out until mate.

John Collins (in UK)



  
Date: 24 Nov 2006 05:07:32
From: John Evans
Subject: Re: Chess Etiquette - Part 3
Thats a very good point and I'm glad to see that you are concious of trying
to honor the game by playing like a gentlemen.

--
Thanks,
John
http://growwithchess.com/

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> If I can add one comment.
>
> If you're feeling tired or unwell, but have still turned up for a game,
> don't tell your opponent how bad you feel either before or after the
> game.
>
> If you lose, it will spoil it for him. He's supposed to think you'd
> have beaten him any other day.
>
> If you win, it will make him feel that he's supposed to think he's so
> bad you can beat him with only one cylinder going.
>
> I confess I did that last night at the start of the game and thinking
> about it, I can see I was wrong. (I did actually win - which in one
> sense made me feel better).
>
> Mind you he stretched the game out until mate.
>
> John Collins (in UK)
>




 
Date: 07 Nov 2006 19:05:48
From: Jon
Subject: Re: Chess Etiquette - Part 3
"John Evans" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> This is the final post in this series. Enjoy!
>
> http://growwithchess.com/2006/11/chess-etiquette-part-3.html

Winner Don'ts:
* Recording the moves before your opponent makes them

Must admit I've done this from time to time when it was basically forced
(King in check - only 1 flight square; has to recapture his piece, etc) and
my opponent seemed to taking his time over it. My pen's already in my hand
recording my move so I might as well do his too. It's probably against FIDE
rules these days but is this really bad etiquette?

Loser Don'ts
* Dragging out a lost game

What if your opponent is low on time? IMO Not only does he have to win, he
has to do it in the alloted time.

--
Remove numbers from email address to reply




 
Date: 06 Nov 2006 13:17:16
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: Chess Etiquette - Part 3

[Event "ICC 45 0"]
[Event "ICC 45 0"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2006.10.29"]
[Round "?"]
[White "g8wrb"]
[Black "Inconnux"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator ""]
[PlyCount ""]
[EventDate ""]

1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nf6
3.Nc3 Nc6
4.Bc4 Bc5
5.O-O d6
6.Re1 O-O
7.h3 a6
8.d3 b5
9.Bb3 Bb7
10.a3 Nh5 dumb move, although I wanted a knight on f4 at the time, it
could have been
easily chased off or taken. I also gave away a pawn starting with this
move
11.Rf1 Nf4
12.Bxf4 exf4
13.Qd2 Nd4
14.Qxf4 Nxb3
15.cxb3 f6
16.Rfe1 b4
17.Ne2 bxa3 another pointless blunder, should have moved to a5
18.bxa3 Bc8
19.Ned4 Bxd4
20.Nxd4 Bd7
21.Rec1 c5
22.Nf3 Bc8
23.d4 f5
24.dxc5 fxe4
25.Qxe4 Rb8
26.cxd6 Qxd6
27.b4 Bf5
28.Qc4+ Be6
29.Qc6 Qxc6
30.Rxc6 Bc8
31.Ne5 Rf6
32.Rxf6 gxf6
33.Nd3 Bb7
34.h4 h6
35.g3 Rd8 At this point I was hoping that I could make up for previous
blunders with an
active bishop vs Knight with pawns on both sides of the board
36.Nc5 Bc8
37.Kf1 Kf7
38.Ke2 Ke7
39.Ke3 Kd6
40.Kd4 Kc6+
41.Ke3 Kb5
42.Kf4 Rd2
43.Ne4 Rd4
44.Ke3 Rd8 Should have resigned here
45.Nxf6 Rf8
46.Ne4 Re8
47.f3 Bb7
48.Kd4 Rd8+
49.Ke5 Re8+
50.Kf5 Rd8
51.Kg6 Rd3
52.Kxh6 Bxe4
53.fxe4 Rxg3
54.Re1 Rxa3
55.e5 Kxb4
56.e6 Rf3
57.e7 Rf6+
58.Kg7 {Black resigns}

Certainly not one of my better games :) Must have been the painkillers
that Im on :)
Atleast I didnt hang a major piece though...



  
Date: 06 Nov 2006 22:42:47
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Chess Etiquette - Part 3
Inconnux wrote:

> 10.a3 Nh5 dumb move

I make too many of them.

> 17.Ne2 bxa3 another pointless blunder, should have moved to a5

Pointless blunders kill my game.

> 35.g3 Rd8 At this point I was hoping that I could make up for previous
> blunders with an
> active bishop vs Knight with pawns on both sides of the board

That does not always work out, as its often possible to keep pawns on
the opposite colour to the bishop. I think this is especially so where
there are several pawns (as here), since whilst you could stop one or
two advancing, with several it is hard to stop them all - I just move
into a square your bishop does not attack.

But I think with me having two extra pawns, and fewer pawn islands, it
would have been very difficult to you change the result.

> Certainly not one of my better games :)

We will have to play again some time. Perhaps you can get your own back!

> Must have been the painkillers
> that Im on :)


> Atleast I didnt hang a major piece though...

No, but a couple of pawns is usually enough to throw a game. Not always
I must admit, but usually. I have thrown aways bigger advantages before.


--
Dave (from the UK)

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.

http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)


 
Date: 06 Nov 2006 22:23:23
From: Michael C
Subject: Re: Chess Etiquette - Part 3
"John Evans" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> This is the final post in this series. Enjoy!
>
> http://growwithchess.com/2006/11/chess-etiquette-part-3.html

Hi John, I noticed your articles didn't talk about the actual board, is
there such a thing as a move in chess that is considered bad etiquette?

Michael




  
Date: 07 Nov 2006 03:10:04
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Chess Etiquette - Part 3
Michael C wrote:

> Hi John, I noticed your articles didn't talk about the actual board, is
> there such a thing as a move in chess that is considered bad etiquette?
>
> Michael
>
>

I know a strong player (~ 2200 USCF) who played on ICC as "guest" (when
it was permitted) and sometimes on free week accounts.

Sometimes he starts by going on a "king walk" as he calls it. He moves
his king to the second and sometimes third rank, during the first half a
dozen moves of the game, before returning it to the first rank.

His opponents obviously think he is a complete beginner and believe they
will have a very easy game in front of them. Then he beats them, which I
can imagine would make them rather sick, to get beat by someone who
plays like an idiot.

--
Dave (from the UK)

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.

http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)


   
Date: 07 Nov 2006 15:53:00
From: Michael C
Subject: Re: Chess Etiquette - Part 3
"Dave (from the UK)" <[email protected] >
wrote in message news:[email protected]
> I know a strong player (~ 2200 USCF) who played on ICC as "guest" (when it
> was permitted) and sometimes on free week accounts.
>
> Sometimes he starts by going on a "king walk" as he calls it. He moves his
> king to the second and sometimes third rank, during the first half a dozen
> moves of the game, before returning it to the first rank.
>
> His opponents obviously think he is a complete beginner and believe they
> will have a very easy game in front of them. Then he beats them, which I
> can imagine would make them rather sick, to get beat by someone who plays
> like an idiot.

Classic :-)

Michael




  
Date: 07 Nov 2006 00:14:02
From: John Evans
Subject: Re: Chess Etiquette - Part 3
Great question! I think some moves that would fall under the bad etiquette
umbrella would be promoting when there's no need or if you are losing
checking your opponent just to hold a mate off for one more move. The other
thing that is bad is not to move when you are in a losing position and
letting time run out.

--
Thanks,
John
http://growwithchess.com/

"Michael C" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "John Evans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> This is the final post in this series. Enjoy!
>>
>> http://growwithchess.com/2006/11/chess-etiquette-part-3.html
>
> Hi John, I noticed your articles didn't talk about the actual board, is
> there such a thing as a move in chess that is considered bad etiquette?
>
> Michael
>




   
Date: 07 Nov 2006 01:57:18
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: Chess Etiquette - Part 3
[f'up to r.g.c.misc]

Hello,

07.11.2006 01:14, John Evans:
>> or if you are losing
> checking your opponent just to hold a mate off for one more move.

I wouldn't see this so seriously. Most people take it with a smile, if
somebody gives one last check before resigning and usually is regarded
as some kind of ironical joke. In German we call it "Racheschach"
(revenge check).

Greetings,
Ralf



  
Date: 07 Nov 2006 01:00:11
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: Chess Etiquette - Part 3
06.11.2006 12:23, Michael C:

> Hi John, I noticed your articles didn't talk about the actual board, is
> there such a thing as a move in chess that is considered bad etiquette?
>

1. h2-h4

Greetings,
Ralf


 
Date: 05 Nov 2006 21:49:45
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: Chess Etiquette - Part 3

> I'm surprised at the number of people on ICC that will not comment a
> word (or perhaps just send 'gg') if they lose, but are different if they
> win.
>
I always send 'Thanks for the game'. I rarely send gg after a game,
because if I lost it was hardly a good game for me :) and if I won
then it wasnt for my opponent...

I have spent some time talking after games but not much, and I often
just log off because I want to run the game through Fritz8 to see where
I went wrong while the game is still fresh in my head :)


> [White "g8wrb"]

ahh so thats you :) I played you the other day and lost :/.... Ive
pretty
much given up on the Petroff defense since then. Going with a defense
thats a little more aggressive now:)

J.Lohner
ICC 'Inconnux'



  
Date: 06 Nov 2006 15:21:11
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Chess Etiquette - Part 3
Inconnux wrote:
>>I'm surprised at the number of people on ICC that will not comment a
>>word (or perhaps just send 'gg') if they lose, but are different if they
>>win.
>>
>
> I always send 'Thanks for the game'. I rarely send gg after a game,
> because if I lost it was hardly a good game for me :) and if I won
> then it wasnt for my opponent...

It seems to be an automatic response from a lot of people. I note there
is a discussion about this on the ICC web site.


http://www.chessclub.com/resources/articles/article12_2_queenie.html

I am sure a lot of people have a button set up that sends it
automatically. I would agree 'Thanks for the game' would seem a lot
better than 'gg'. I guess the latter has the advantage of *probably*
being known to some who don't speak English. It is so commonly used on
ICC that I suspect most non-English speaking individuals know what it
means.

> I have spent some time talking after games but not much, and I often
> just log off because I want to run the game through Fritz8 to see where
> I went wrong while the game is still fresh in my head :)

I'd be interested in the views of stronger players in the logic of that.

I can't help feeling you would gain more by discussing then game, and
then later going through it was Fritz. If you discuss it with your
opponent, is it not keeping it fresh in your mind?

You have the opportunity to put it in Fritz a few minutes later, with
the benefit of your opponents views. I know your opponent is likely to
be much weaker than Fritz, but two views are often better than one.

In fact, I've been told to annotate the game on my own first, and then
later look at it with a chess engine - not to immediately put it in Fritz.

>
>
>>[White "g8wrb"]
>
>
> ahh so thats you :) I played you the other day and lost :/....

I found the game! I've stuck my annotations below. All were done before
I stuck it in a chess engine (crafty 20.14). Where the annotations had
the benefit of computer analysis, I have ked them as such.

I think you gave away a few pawns for no good reason, which is why you
lost. I guess fritz will tell you those sort of blunders well, but I
doubt it is as useful at detecting positional errors.

> Ive
> pretty
> much given up on the Petroff defense since then. Going with a defense
> thats a little more aggressive now:)

I've rarely if ever played that, and have not faced it too often, so
don't know the book lines. Some times odd openings can get me in a mess,
but that one did not present me any great difficulties. But a quick
search on the web shows there are some sharp lines.
>
> J.Lohner
> ICC 'Inconnux'
>

Here's the game, with my comments.

[Event "ICC 45 0"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2006.10.29"]
[Round "-"]
[White "g8wrb"]
[Black "Inconnux"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1277"]
[BlackElo "1287"]
[ECO "C47"]
[ICCResult "Black resigns"]
[Opening "Giuoco Piano: four knights variation"]
[NIC "RG.01"]
[Time "19:31:17"]
[GameType "ICCStandard"]
[TimeControl "2700+0"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 {Petroff's Defence - one I don't know at all well. } 3.Nc3
Nc6 {Now into the Four Knight's game} 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.O-O d6 6.Re1 O-O 7.h3
{It may
have been wiser to play this a move earlier, since ...Bg4 pinning the knight
can often make things difficult. It either ties the queen down to
defending the
knight, or accepting doubled f-pawns and the g-pawn missing - not a
great idea
for king safety. } 7...a6 8.d3 b5 9.Bb3 Bb7 10.a3 {With a view to prevening
...b4 and my knight being chassed around. } 10...Nh5 11.Rf1 Nf4 12.Bxf4 {
Perhaps not the best plan, to give my opponent the bishop pair, but it
weakens
his centre somewhat and gives him doublted pawns on the f-file. I'd hope to
exploit that weakend f-pawn later. } 12...exf4 13.Qd2 {Start to attack the
f-pawn, } 13...Nd4? {Fails to protect the f-pawn, so it gives me a free
pawn.

Computer +0.53} 14.Qxf4 Nxb3 15.cxb3 f6 16.Rfe1 b4 17.Ne2 {Computer +0.82}
17...bxa3? {Allows me to undouble my pawns, which are a weakness
especially in
the endgame. } 18.bxa3 {My pawn structure is now somewhat better than a
couple
of moves back.

Computer +1.09} 18...Bc8 19.Ned4 Bxd4 20.Nxd4 Bd7 21.Rec1 c5 22.Nf3 Bc8
23.d4
f5? {Loses another pawn

Computer +2.35} 24.dxc5 fxe4 25.Qxe4 Rb8 26.cxd6 Qxd6 27.b4? {Computer
analysis
shows this to be a poor move. I did it to prevent Rx33, not realising that
after 27.Ng5, Black could not capture the b-pawn, without being mated on the
next move. I never see that in the game, so advanced the b-pawn for its own
protection. } 27...Bf5 28.Qc4+ Be6 {After 29.Qc6 black has to exchange
queens,
or lose the a-pawn. Since I'm a couple of pawns up, exhanging queens is
to my
advantage. I then enter an endgame with a couple of extra pawns. }
29.Qc6 Qxc6
30.Rxc6 Bc8 31.Ne5 Rf6? {Allows a fruther exchange of material, which is
to my
advantage. That said, with two extra pawns, the endgame should be reasonably
easy anyway. } 32.Rxf6 gxf6 33.Nd3 Bb7 34.h4 h6 35.g3 Rd8 36.Nc5 Bc8
37.Kf1 Kf7
{We both try to bring the kings into action} 38.Ke2 Ke7 39.Ke3 Kd6 40.Kd4 {
Waling into a pin was probably not too sensible. } 40...Kc6+ 41.Ke3? {
Retreaking with the king is probably not best, but it does no obvious
damage}
41...Kb5 42.Kf4 Rd2? {After Ke4 forking rook and pawn on f6, this loses
another
pawn} 43.Ne4 Rd4 44.Ke3 Rd8 45.Nxf6 Rf8 46.Ne4 {I'm not being very
active with
my extra material. Should attack more. Black is attacking more than me,
yet I
am material up. } 46...Re8 47.f3 Bb7 48.Kd4 Rd8+ 49.Ke5 Re8+ 50.Kf5 Rd8
51.Kg6
Rd3 52.Kxh6 Bxe4 53.fxe4 Rxg3 54.Re1 Rxa3 {Black has won a pawn
somewhere along
this line, and I'm not sure exactly where. But I now have a passed pawn
with a
rook behind it, which will hard to stop. } 55.e5 Kxb4 56.e6 Rf3 57.e7
Rf6+ 58.
Kg7 {Black resigns} 1-0


--
Dave (from the UK)

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.

http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)


  
Date: 06 Nov 2006 22:16:48
From: Michael C
Subject: Re: Chess Etiquette - Part 3
"Inconnux" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> I always send 'Thanks for the game'. I rarely send gg after a game,
> because if I lost it was hardly a good game for me :) and if I won
> then it wasnt for my opponent...

A loss can still be a good game, usually if you give a much stronger
opponent a run for their money :-)

Michael




   
Date: 06 Nov 2006 12:53:12
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Chess Etiquette - Part 3

"Michael C" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Inconnux" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> I always send 'Thanks for the game'. I rarely send gg after a game,
>> because if I lost it was hardly a good game for me :) and if I won
>> then it wasnt for my opponent...
>
> A loss can still be a good game, usually if you give a much stronger
> opponent a run for their money :-)
>
> Michael
>

Exactly.




 
Date: 06 Nov 2006 04:23:25
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Chess Etiquette - Part 3
John Evans wrote:
> This is the final post in this series. Enjoy!
>
> http://growwithchess.com/2006/11/chess-etiquette-part-3.html
>
Your comment on conduct after games is interesting.

I'm surprised at the number of people on ICC that will not comment a
word (or perhaps just send 'gg') if they lose, but are different if they
win.

One opponent I can think of has beat me 5 or 6x, with a couple of draws.
Each time he was willing to discuss the game. On the one occasion I
beat him, he logs out immediately. After sending a tell, I get from ICC
"xxxxx is not logged in". Seems as soon as he loses, he logs out, with
no comment.

I've noticed this quite a bit - not just with him, but many seem to log
out as soon as they lose, but are happy to discuss the game if they win.

I tend to play long games (45 0, 60 0 or something like that), so if
someone spends over an hour playing a game, a couple of minutes
discussing the game would not seem excessive. Win, lose or draw, I'm
sure we can all gain from discussing the game with our opponent.

Of course, there are exceptions. The other day as white, I beat someone
who played the Caro-Kann, which is an opening I don't know at all. I
made a pretty poor 5th move.

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Qd3?

It was useful for him to tell me that 5.Qd3 was not a book move at all.
I later looked it up and realised 5.Ng3 would have been much better than
5.Qd3.

The game is below. I did win, but mainly my opponent blundered a knight
at 21...Nf3+, as it was quite difficult for me to escape the effects of
my horrible 5th move.

But I think we can often gain by a few words discussing the game. On a
chess server, unlike in a playing room for OTB chess, you don't disturb
anyone else by discussing the game immediatly afterwards.

[Event "ICC 45 45"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2006.11.02"]
[Round "-"]
[White "g8wrb"]
[Black "Traho"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1360"]
[BlackElo "1338"]
[ECO "B18"]
[ICCResult "Black resigns"]
[Opening "Caro-Kann: classical variation"]
[NIC "CK.10"]
[Time "10:01:51"]
[GameType "ICCStandard"]
[TimeControl "2700+45"]

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Qd3 e6 6.a3 Nd7 7.Be2 h6 8.Bf4
Qb6 9.b4
O-O-O 10.Bf3 Ndf6 11.Ne2 Ne7 12.c4 Ng6 13.Bg3 e5 14.c5 Qc7 15.Qe3 Bxe4
16.Bxe4 Nxe4 17.Qxe4 Re8 18.O-O Qe7 19.dxe5 Nxe5 20.Rfe1 g5 21.Nd4 Nf3+
22.gxf3 Qxe4 23.Rxe4 Rxe4 24.fxe4 Bg7 25.e5 f5 26.Nxf5 Bf8 27.e6 Rh7
28.Re1 1-0

--
Dave (from the UK)

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.

http://witm.sourceforge.net/ (Web based Mathematica front end)