Checkmate not recognized - game id 5000682

Originally posted by Hindstein
Hey, Fabian.

I hope that someone doesn't follow your link to the FAQ and learn something about the movement of the pieces in there. If they do, and (heaven forbid) actually use that move in a game you would be almost certainly be responsible.

Perhaps you should resign all your games now. It is a foregone conclusion....

😀

How does your ridiculous attempt at a joke have anything to do with discussions of a game in progress? Why do you people refuse to see the simple truth in it? I have no issue with people who have a different interpretation of the rule, but I do have an issue with people who try to ridicule my position simply because it is different than theirs. I never said the violation was eggregious, and I even said that I didn't think anyone should get into any trouble for it. I simply stated that in my opinion, a TOS violation did occur in this thread. Not a big one, and certainly not worthy of any kind of serious punitive action, but a technical violation regardless. What you are doing is blowing my position completely out of context, and being rude in the process.

Originally posted by Maxwell Smart
How does your ridiculous attempt at a joke have anything to do with discussions of a game in progress? Why do you people refuse to see the simple truth in it? I have no issue with people who have a different interpretation of the rule, but I do have an issue with people who try to ridicule my position simply because it is different than theirs. you are doing is blowing my position completely out of context, and being rude in the process.

I have yet to reply to any post of yours (and yes, I understand the obvious contradiction in my statement...). I replied to xnomanx.

So you agree with him? You are wrong too. No TOS violation happened in this thread as no move was suggested. What I said is the same as suggesting that they go and read a book and learn about the movement of the pieces. Your suggestion that I have broken the rules is as ludicrous as suggesting that the passer by who gives a robber directions to a bank is responsible for the theft.

EDIT: OK, so that's another ridicule. Sorry - it comes too naturally. Perhaps you'd like a chess context. Try this one: You are in Check. I tell you that the king moves 1 square at a time. You still need to know how to use that information to solve the problem in your game.

Someone was talking about where the line was: it is quite clear to me in that if I say "move your king to x and you will be safe" the line has been crossed. There is a difference.

Originally posted by Hindstein
I have yet to reply to any post of yours (and yes, I understand the obvious contradiction in my statement...). I replied to xnomanx.

So you agree with him? You are wrong too. No TOS violation happened in this thread as no move was suggested. What I said is the same as suggesting that they go and read a book and learn about the movement of the pieces ...[text shortened]... move your king to x and you will be safe" the line has been crossed. There is a difference.

Read this carefully:


Game in progress


Any questions?

"Read this carefully:

Game in progress "

But there was no game in progress - it had come to halt when BOTH
players failed to spot an e.p. in the position and asked for help.

BOTH players believed that the system had failed.

One of them had the misfortune to ask what the problem was.
He was told there was nothing wrong - they simply did not know
the rules of the game.

There has been no cheating - chill.

Originally posted by Maxwell Smart
Read this carefully:


Game in progress


Any questions?

What are you actually arguing? Is it just for the sake of it, or do you just have nothing better to do. Go back and look at the game.

You've agreed that a draw is not an option, so either black loses on timeout, or Black loses to forced mate resulting in the EP rule. Either way, white wins.

However, the biggest irony here is that it was white asking the question, not black. So, if you are right (which you aren't) it was Learnchess him/herself who told black how to move and potentially prevent him from his win.

So why are you arguing? It is completely pointless.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
But there was no game in progress - it had come to halt when BOTH
players failed to spot an e.p. in the position and asked for help.

Huh?

Let's not mangle terminology here. The game is 'in progress' until a result obtains, irrespective of whether the players know all the rules or not.

I was the first one to respond to the OP's question. In regard to games in progress, my interpretation of the TOS is probably stricter than most. However, I thought it was okay to mention that there was nothing wrong with the software. If even that comment was over the line, then I guess I'll soon get my knuckles rapped sharply with a wooden ruler.

BTW, my original comment was probably technically incorrect. I didn't mean to imply that the RHP software is perfect, with absolutely no bugs. Hehehehe.

Look, I may be wrong, but I believe that in an OTB situation like this a Tournament Director would not comment, thereby allowing a flag to fall or a player to resign, and ONLY THEN, WHEN THE GAME IS OVER would explain the only possible move to both players. The players of a game are responsible for knowing the rules, even if not knowing them can result in a loss.

I'm not arguing that some huge offense was made here, that people should be banned, or any other nonsense other posters have mentioned, but, for the sake of being clear and consistent on the rules, I believe this WAS outside influence on a game in progress and would not have been allowed if this were an OTB tournament or official event.

I would love the opinion of a TD (or sight administrator) on this, because as I said, I may be wrong about the interpretation of the rule here; I'm only stating what I believe is the case.

There's NO REASON for anyone to be hostile here, this is simply a discussion of the rules; in no way am I trying to insult anyone so can we all please be civil about this?

Let's say in this position:



White plays 1.g4+ and claims checkmate.

Does everyone still think it's OK to tell Black what his only legal reply is?

Originally posted by Maxwell Smart
How does your ridiculous attempt at a joke have anything to do with discussions of a game in progress? Why do you people refuse to see the simple truth in it? I have no issue with people who have a different interpretation of the rule, but I do have an issue with people who try to ridicule my position simply because it is different than theirs. ...[text shortened]... you are doing is blowing my position completely out of context, and being rude in the process.

You are correct on both counts.
It is a violation of the terms of conditions (law broken).
It isn't important. The circumstances are innocent and trivial (public interest test fails)
🙂

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Let's say in this position:

[fen]8/8/4R3/3P1k1r/5P1p/4P2K/6Pb/7b w - - 0 1[/fen]

White plays 1.g4+ and claims checkmate.

Does everyone still think it's OK to tell Black what his only legal reply is?

Of course..that's a good point. Over the board they would have accepted it as checkmate and gone away happy with the result. In this instance then it was the software - by not giving checkmate - that provided the outside help or at least caused the players to raise the question in the forum which led to the outside help taking place.

I'll leave it to someone with a higher intelligence to draw conclusions.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/profile/playerprofile.php?uid=422202 Tetteman is the opponent.

If he created this thread, then yes, I'd say some kind of action is in order because of the violation of the Game In Progress rule.

However, there is no evidence that Tetteman viewed this thread or even is active on the forums.

Personally, I think this wasn't really a hint, because the FAQ is there for anyone to use. It clearly defines enpassant in the FAQ.
Yet, if you haven't read the rules of chess before playing it, you deserve to lose.
Learnchess created this forum because he didn't see the enpassant move... In an OTB game, what would happen? Would he claim checkmate and would his opponent agree?

Because this is online CC chess, and because the RHP software knows the rules itself, it didn't declare checkmate, and that - in of itself - is enough of a hint for Tetteman to find the only move possible.

actually the software automatically would let know black there is something as the software recognizes checkmate when there really is checkmate. So the software would be telling black you have a move. It would just be black's responsability to find out what that move is. But that black has a move is definintely clear. Now if someone asks is there something wrong with the software and someone simply responds no I do not think that is a tos violation. But it is blacks responsability to find out what the move is. OTB is a little different because there is no software saying still no checkmate.

Originally posted by onehandgann
actually the software automatically would let know black there is something as the software recognizes checkmate when there really is checkmate. So the software would be telling black you have a move. It would just be black's responsability to find out what that move is. But that black has a move is definintely clear. Now if someone asks is there some ...[text shortened]... the move is. OTB is a little different because there is no software saying still no checkmate.

precisely!

RHP gave the opponent a hint.

Originally posted by Mahout
Of course..that's a good point. Over the board they would have accepted it as checkmate and gone away happy with the result. In this instance then it was the software - by not giving checkmate - that provided the outside help or at least caused the players to raise the question in the forum which led to the outside help taking place.

I'll leave it to someone with a higher intelligence to draw conclusions.

Two points on my behalf:

- the discussion on wehter this is a violation of the ToS is rather theoretical in this case (not to use the term hypochritical). Nobody had a bad intention and I am sure both players learned from it.

- in the end, the first responsible for the possible confusion about rules in this case, is Russ. By ending the game programmatically in case of checkmate, and not so in this case (which is correct, of course), he provides third party assistance. Let's ban him from the site.

Satisfied?