Markovich wrote on 11/18/11 at 12:07:00:



Hmm, if was to single out the most obnoxious post in this thread it would definitely be the following:

Markovich wrote on 11/04/11 at 06:04:39:


As far as I know, this has been illegal in China and Taiwan for a long time now, though you sometimes hear of it - but suggesting that animal torment of this degree would be "considered delightful" by any civilised person is both distasteful and truly obnoxious and also a bad rhetorical example of food at the table, as calling the police would solve it much better than a chess arbiter could. Not to mention the sickening images it brings to one's mind when you read it...

Gorath wrote on 11/18/11 at 03:49:33:


I guess I missed the "on my ten seconds."  But around here, the accepted method of offering a draw is to say, "Offer draw" and simultaneously push the clock.  Upon casual reading of John's post, that was what I thought his opponent did.  Apparently there was some delay between pushing the clock and the offer.

Tricklev's post was satirical. Taljechin gave an appropriate reply (while someone was singing Randy Newman's "Short people").

The example of IM Cox describes two points: How annoying some behaviors are and how behaviour rules changes over years.

You can't please everybody every time. Chess is a fight of emotions. The only thing you can do is talking with a mindset of respect about disturbing circumstances. If your opponent is not capable enough of answering the same way it's his or her problem. I always had a feeling of pity for those chess players who must hate their opponent for playing their best chess.

Personally I was always content if the opponent gave me the feeling of not having the intention to offend me (even if he did). As my chess isn't on a level someone will ask for my games in 50 years there's no reason to play against someone who does this intentionally. Even in a tournament game I'd prefer taking a walk than sitting there angry.

But I admit - as a titled player things wouldn't be so easy to handle.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 11/18/11 at 06:29:25:


I think Tricklev was joking, although TalJechin's joke was funnier.

IMJohnCox wrote on 11/18/11 at 02:15:02:

FIDE changed a couple of things. The 5 minute rule doesn't apply for the new FIDE time controls because you always have the 30 seconds bonus.
Writing down a move in advance (->blunder check) is now forbidden.
You can answer now before writing, as explained above. The tactics recommended in Chess for Tigers if your opponent is in time trouble is forbidden now. You can only play 1 move before you have to write, not a short sequence.

But IMJohnCox, while I understand your irritation, I don't think that a legal draw offer can possibly be condemned.

>While I agree that his behaviour was wrong, the quoted part is perfectly fine. I've had a discussion about this with the arbiter at the team match I described above. You can make your own move before you write your opponent's down. There's  a limit to it though: You must write down your last move and everything before it before you make your next move.

Yes, to my surprise, you're right - rule 8.1. I'm fairly sure it used to be illegal to do this unless you had less than five minutes left, but of course FIDE has made a number of changes to the rules in the last few years (mostly stupid, as you'd expect). It's still a little classless IMHO, but there it is.

IMJohnCox wrote on 11/17/11 at 23:11:15:

While I agree that his behaviour was wrong, the quoted part is perfectly fine. I've had a discussion about this with the arbiter at the team match I described above. You can make your own move before you write your opponent's down. There's  a limit to it though: You must write down your last move and everything before it before you make your next move.

I changed my habits to answering first over the last year. The simple reason is that it saves time on the clock.