The Lying King hehe' ... NO @TheLyinKing
@TheLyinKing said in #14:
> Nothing about being superior here. Just think it's a little foolish that someone so down in the game could do something as elemtary as the same move over and over again to avoid losing. It's a piss poor way to win and lose :)
>
> And for those of you complaining about endless games...that's kinda my point. If you, the losing player, have to resort to mindless repetition, show some respect for the game and resign.
And if you, the winning player, become careless and throw away your winning position by falling into a position that can be repeated mindlessly, show some respect for the game and draw?
> Nothing about being superior here. Just think it's a little foolish that someone so down in the game could do something as elemtary as the same move over and over again to avoid losing. It's a piss poor way to win and lose :)
>
> And for those of you complaining about endless games...that's kinda my point. If you, the losing player, have to resort to mindless repetition, show some respect for the game and resign.
And if you, the winning player, become careless and throw away your winning position by falling into a position that can be repeated mindlessly, show some respect for the game and draw?
If you can force a draw with perpetual check and avoid a loss...Why that's just good chess. Part of the game. - :]
While the truncated game of chess might look like an attrition game, its ultimate purpose is one of board restriction for the opponent king's ability to move at its turn**.
In that sense, leaving legal room for maintained opponent initiative by repeated motion or position cycles or perpetual checks for example, is having failed that ultimate restriction task. Having an apparent material advantage that does not convert into such restriction is not really winning. It could, depending on the irreversible aspects of the position complete information (all material placements and turn), be a potential winning position.
But yes, there might be fog on both sides about the tiny leaks in each other plans, so that one might miss the perpetual defense while the other might fall onto it while not even knowing what it was accomplishing. I have not looked at the game from op. just used the text of it. But such notions are about divining intent. Chess rules exist in absence of players intent.. how might i explain this. To make a rule about plan versus actual move done might be a rabbit hole.
The board truth is that apparently there was such a possibility, and neither side saw better after 3 times passing by the same position. whether it was intended or not, does not change its board existence.. whether is was perfect or not fall onto both players. I go back to the restriction with checking ultimate optimization game, as better guide of fairness of ruleset.
** do mind restricting too much too early though, not as good at checking while restricting, so nowadays considered a draw, you just missed the right timing type of total restriction. stale-mate.
In that sense, leaving legal room for maintained opponent initiative by repeated motion or position cycles or perpetual checks for example, is having failed that ultimate restriction task. Having an apparent material advantage that does not convert into such restriction is not really winning. It could, depending on the irreversible aspects of the position complete information (all material placements and turn), be a potential winning position.
But yes, there might be fog on both sides about the tiny leaks in each other plans, so that one might miss the perpetual defense while the other might fall onto it while not even knowing what it was accomplishing. I have not looked at the game from op. just used the text of it. But such notions are about divining intent. Chess rules exist in absence of players intent.. how might i explain this. To make a rule about plan versus actual move done might be a rabbit hole.
The board truth is that apparently there was such a possibility, and neither side saw better after 3 times passing by the same position. whether it was intended or not, does not change its board existence.. whether is was perfect or not fall onto both players. I go back to the restriction with checking ultimate optimization game, as better guide of fairness of ruleset.
** do mind restricting too much too early though, not as good at checking while restricting, so nowadays considered a draw, you just missed the right timing type of total restriction. stale-mate.
What if you have mate-in-3 after a threefold?
<Comment deleted by user>
@TheLyinKing said in #1:
> If you look at my last game you can see why I'm upset. Clearly had the winning hand but the opponent (albeit luckily) was able to find a pattern that would force a draw.
This doesn't make any sense at all.
If your opponent was able to find a pattern that forces a draw, you were not winning. Period. Winning implies there is no way for your opponent to get a draw.
Either the position wasn't won, or you lack the ability to turn it into a win. Remember, it takes two to get repetition. If you have a winning position, there is no need to even repeat a position a single time.
>
> It reminds me of the first time I played Mortal Kombat. I didn't know wtf I was doing, so I just pressed a bunch of buttons hoping it would land a kick.
>
> This is a great analogy for the underdog draw by repetition, a strategy that is senseless, without logic, and must be abolished by chess players around the world, should we wish to maintain integrity within the game itself.
I propose the following rule change. If a position repeats itself, both players state whether they think they are winning. If neither think so, the game is a draw. If one or both think they're winning, game continues. Does the position repeat again, the player(s) who said they think they are winning will lose the game as your bluff was called. This may result in a game ending in a 0-0 score.
> If you look at my last game you can see why I'm upset. Clearly had the winning hand but the opponent (albeit luckily) was able to find a pattern that would force a draw.
This doesn't make any sense at all.
If your opponent was able to find a pattern that forces a draw, you were not winning. Period. Winning implies there is no way for your opponent to get a draw.
Either the position wasn't won, or you lack the ability to turn it into a win. Remember, it takes two to get repetition. If you have a winning position, there is no need to even repeat a position a single time.
>
> It reminds me of the first time I played Mortal Kombat. I didn't know wtf I was doing, so I just pressed a bunch of buttons hoping it would land a kick.
>
> This is a great analogy for the underdog draw by repetition, a strategy that is senseless, without logic, and must be abolished by chess players around the world, should we wish to maintain integrity within the game itself.
I propose the following rule change. If a position repeats itself, both players state whether they think they are winning. If neither think so, the game is a draw. If one or both think they're winning, game continues. Does the position repeat again, the player(s) who said they think they are winning will lose the game as your bluff was called. This may result in a game ending in a 0-0 score.
Maybe we could improve the rules but not abolish, otherwise the game will be infinite; for example, it is fair to draw if both are repeating because the position demands it, any other move will collapse the position for both. But I don't see fairness if one of the sides spotted a winning plan but he can't go for it anymore because he'd repeat for the third time. But how to make this possible correction to a rule? Maybe a "claim for win" rule; where you are saying you can win, so 3 more repetitions will be added, but now the draw gives the full point to the opponent if you fail on winning.
There is a more problematic rule to me, the win by time with insufficient material, when the opponent have material to make a collaborative checkmate... In the majority of the cases, this rule is unfair and disrespectful, like if someone would bring a centralized King to the corner on purpose... This is the same of calling this person an idiot.. This is a rule that must change somehow quickly.
There is a more problematic rule to me, the win by time with insufficient material, when the opponent have material to make a collaborative checkmate... In the majority of the cases, this rule is unfair and disrespectful, like if someone would bring a centralized King to the corner on purpose... This is the same of calling this person an idiot.. This is a rule that must change somehow quickly.
@jose1122 said in #28:
> Maybe we could improve the rules but not abolish, otherwise the game will be infinite; for example, it is fair to draw if both are repeating because the position demands it, any other move will collapse the position for both. But I don't see fairness if one of the sides spotted a winning plan but he can't go for it anymore because he'd repeat for the third time. But how to make this possible correction to a rule? Maybe a "claim for win" rule; where you are saying you can win, so 3 more repetitions will be added, but now the draw gives the full point to the opponent if you fail on winning.
Yes, that might be interesting. But I do agree... if you want the rules changed, appeal to FIDE, not Lichess.
> Maybe we could improve the rules but not abolish, otherwise the game will be infinite; for example, it is fair to draw if both are repeating because the position demands it, any other move will collapse the position for both. But I don't see fairness if one of the sides spotted a winning plan but he can't go for it anymore because he'd repeat for the third time. But how to make this possible correction to a rule? Maybe a "claim for win" rule; where you are saying you can win, so 3 more repetitions will be added, but now the draw gives the full point to the opponent if you fail on winning.
Yes, that might be interesting. But I do agree... if you want the rules changed, appeal to FIDE, not Lichess.
@Jisu101 said in #29:
> Yes, that might be interesting. But I do agree... if you want the rules changed, appeal to FIDE, not Lichess.
I was thinking about giving a full point to the opponent in the case of draw and I regret it because this would mess with the entire tournament, to favor A because of a decision from B. Then, instead of giving a full point to the opponent in the case of draw, the claimer don't get the half point. It looks way fairer.
> Yes, that might be interesting. But I do agree... if you want the rules changed, appeal to FIDE, not Lichess.
I was thinking about giving a full point to the opponent in the case of draw and I regret it because this would mess with the entire tournament, to favor A because of a decision from B. Then, instead of giving a full point to the opponent in the case of draw, the claimer don't get the half point. It looks way fairer.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.