3 replaced http://chess.stackexchange.com/ with https://chess.stackexchange.com/
source | link

I do think that the intention (and thus behavior) behind a move is what could make a move unsporting. Even in the example of football (soccer), the intention behind passing the ball to the defender makes the pass sporting or unsporting. Merely passing the ball is not unsporting.

Also, the example you mentioned is very conspicuous, meaning that we can conclude without a reasonable doubt that the passing of the ball to the defender is intended for wasting time (for example) and thus unsporting.

For a chess move to be judged to be unsporting, we need to be reasonably sure about the intent behind the move. Thus, blunders are not unsporting moves. They're just blunders.

Having established that, This is one example of an unsporting move(s) (conditions explained below).

    [FEN ""]

    1. d3 c5 2. Kd2? d5 3. Ke3? Nf6 4. Kf3?

If a strong player (ELO 2200+) in his/her right mind makes such an opening in a classical or rapid game, then we can reasonably conclude that he/she is deliberately trying to insult his/her opponent, essentially saying with these moves - "You're so bad that I can beat you even after making such rubbish opening moves". Or we could conclude (although less likely) that the player is not interested in playing the game and thus acting unprofessionally and thus unsportingly.

Here, it's not simply the case that we know that these opening moves are objectively bad, but we also know that the player who is making these moves also knows that they are objectively bad. So this is unlike the king moves of SteinitzSteinitz, who made them thinking they are objectively good.

I do think that the intention (and thus behavior) behind a move is what could make a move unsporting. Even in the example of football (soccer), the intention behind passing the ball to the defender makes the pass sporting or unsporting. Merely passing the ball is not unsporting.

Also, the example you mentioned is very conspicuous, meaning that we can conclude without a reasonable doubt that the passing of the ball to the defender is intended for wasting time (for example) and thus unsporting.

For a chess move to be judged to be unsporting, we need to be reasonably sure about the intent behind the move. Thus, blunders are not unsporting moves. They're just blunders.

Having established that, This is one example of an unsporting move(s) (conditions explained below).

    [FEN ""]

    1. d3 c5 2. Kd2? d5 3. Ke3? Nf6 4. Kf3?

If a strong player (ELO 2200+) in his/her right mind makes such an opening in a classical or rapid game, then we can reasonably conclude that he/she is deliberately trying to insult his/her opponent, essentially saying with these moves - "You're so bad that I can beat you even after making such rubbish opening moves". Or we could conclude (although less likely) that the player is not interested in playing the game and thus acting unprofessionally and thus unsportingly.

Here, it's not simply the case that we know that these opening moves are objectively bad, but we also know that the player who is making these moves also knows that they are objectively bad. So this is unlike the king moves of Steinitz, who made them thinking they are objectively good.

I do think that the intention (and thus behavior) behind a move is what could make a move unsporting. Even in the example of football (soccer), the intention behind passing the ball to the defender makes the pass sporting or unsporting. Merely passing the ball is not unsporting.

Also, the example you mentioned is very conspicuous, meaning that we can conclude without a reasonable doubt that the passing of the ball to the defender is intended for wasting time (for example) and thus unsporting.

For a chess move to be judged to be unsporting, we need to be reasonably sure about the intent behind the move. Thus, blunders are not unsporting moves. They're just blunders.

Having established that, This is one example of an unsporting move(s) (conditions explained below).

    [FEN ""]

    1. d3 c5 2. Kd2? d5 3. Ke3? Nf6 4. Kf3?

If a strong player (ELO 2200+) in his/her right mind makes such an opening in a classical or rapid game, then we can reasonably conclude that he/she is deliberately trying to insult his/her opponent, essentially saying with these moves - "You're so bad that I can beat you even after making such rubbish opening moves". Or we could conclude (although less likely) that the player is not interested in playing the game and thus acting unprofessionally and thus unsportingly.

Here, it's not simply the case that we know that these opening moves are objectively bad, but we also know that the player who is making these moves also knows that they are objectively bad. So this is unlike the king moves of Steinitz, who made them thinking they are objectively good.

2 added 154 characters in body
source | link

I do think that the intention (and thus behavior) behind a move is what could make a move unsporting. Even in the example of football (soccer), the intention behind passing the ball to the defender makes the pass sporting or unsporting. Merely passing the ball is not unsporting.

Also, the example you mentioned is very conspicuous, meaning that we can conclude without a reasonable doubt that the passing of the ball to the defender is intended for wasting time (for example) and thus unsporting.

For a chess move to be judged to be unsporting, we need to be reasonably sure about the intent behind the move. Thus, blunders are not unsporting moves. They're just blunders.

Having established that, This is one example of an unsporting move(s) (conditions explained below).

    [FEN ""]

    1. d3 c5 2. Kd2? d5 3. Ke3? Nf6 4. Kf3?

If a strong player (ELO 2200+) in his/her right mind makes such an opening in a classical or rapid game, then we can reasonably conclude that he/she is deliberately trying to insult his/her opponent, essentially saying with these moves - "You're so bad that I can beat you even after making such rubbish opening moves". Or we could conclude (although less likely) that the player is not interested in playing the game and thus acting unprofessionally and thus unsportingly.

Here, it's not simply the case that we know that these opening moves are objectively bad, but we also know that the player who is making these moves also knows that they are objectively bad. So this is unlike the king moves of Steinitz, who made them thinking they are objectively good.

I do think that the intention (and thus behavior) behind a move is what could make a move unsporting. Even in the example of football (soccer), the intention behind passing the ball to the defender makes the pass sporting or unsporting. Merely passing the ball is not unsporting.

Also, the example you mentioned is very conspicuous, meaning that we can conclude without a reasonable doubt that the passing of the ball to the defender is intended for wasting time (for example) and thus unsporting.

For a chess move to be judged to be unsporting, we need to be reasonably sure about the intent behind the move. Thus, blunders are not unsporting moves. They're just blunders.

Having established that, This is one example of an unsporting move(s) (conditions explained below).

    [FEN ""]

    1. d3 c5 2. Kd2? d5 3. Ke3? Nf6 4. Kf3?

If a strong player (ELO 2200+) in his/her right mind makes such an opening in a classical or rapid game, then we can reasonably conclude that he/she is deliberately trying to insult his/her opponent, essentially saying with these moves - "You're so bad that I can beat you even after making such rubbish opening moves".

Here, it's not simply the case that we know that these opening moves are objectively bad, but we also know that the player who is making these moves also knows that they are objectively bad. So this is unlike the king moves of Steinitz, who made them thinking they are objectively good.

I do think that the intention (and thus behavior) behind a move is what could make a move unsporting. Even in the example of football (soccer), the intention behind passing the ball to the defender makes the pass sporting or unsporting. Merely passing the ball is not unsporting.

Also, the example you mentioned is very conspicuous, meaning that we can conclude without a reasonable doubt that the passing of the ball to the defender is intended for wasting time (for example) and thus unsporting.

For a chess move to be judged to be unsporting, we need to be reasonably sure about the intent behind the move. Thus, blunders are not unsporting moves. They're just blunders.

Having established that, This is one example of an unsporting move(s) (conditions explained below).

    [FEN ""]

    1. d3 c5 2. Kd2? d5 3. Ke3? Nf6 4. Kf3?

If a strong player (ELO 2200+) in his/her right mind makes such an opening in a classical or rapid game, then we can reasonably conclude that he/she is deliberately trying to insult his/her opponent, essentially saying with these moves - "You're so bad that I can beat you even after making such rubbish opening moves". Or we could conclude (although less likely) that the player is not interested in playing the game and thus acting unprofessionally and thus unsportingly.

Here, it's not simply the case that we know that these opening moves are objectively bad, but we also know that the player who is making these moves also knows that they are objectively bad. So this is unlike the king moves of Steinitz, who made them thinking they are objectively good.

1
source | link

I do think that the intention (and thus behavior) behind a move is what could make a move unsporting. Even in the example of football (soccer), the intention behind passing the ball to the defender makes the pass sporting or unsporting. Merely passing the ball is not unsporting.

Also, the example you mentioned is very conspicuous, meaning that we can conclude without a reasonable doubt that the passing of the ball to the defender is intended for wasting time (for example) and thus unsporting.

For a chess move to be judged to be unsporting, we need to be reasonably sure about the intent behind the move. Thus, blunders are not unsporting moves. They're just blunders.

Having established that, This is one example of an unsporting move(s) (conditions explained below).

    [FEN ""]

    1. d3 c5 2. Kd2? d5 3. Ke3? Nf6 4. Kf3?

If a strong player (ELO 2200+) in his/her right mind makes such an opening in a classical or rapid game, then we can reasonably conclude that he/she is deliberately trying to insult his/her opponent, essentially saying with these moves - "You're so bad that I can beat you even after making such rubbish opening moves".

Here, it's not simply the case that we know that these opening moves are objectively bad, but we also know that the player who is making these moves also knows that they are objectively bad. So this is unlike the king moves of Steinitz, who made them thinking they are objectively good.