63

Why not just: Thanks for the game. You wanted to play a game, and your opponent gave you a game. Played well or not, you could thank him for giving you the opportunity to play.


58

It is not a question of ethics, but more about being courteous. Chess is a game where it is impossible to separate the joy of the game from the competitiveness/ego aspect so by declaring a forced win in N moves, you are effectively asking your opponent to resign immediately even though he hasn't seen the forced win yet owing to his lesser faculties/skill ...


48

In short: Yes. It is a polite way to acknowledge an enjoyable game. "Good game" isn't the same thing as saying, "well-played game". Saying "good game" just means you enjoyed playing it. You could have enjoyed it for many reasons. For example, it could mean something as simple as, "thank you for being polite and not stalling or offering draws from badly ...


47

Assuming you also have plenty of time on your clock, make a break: have a drink, or check your mail, or pay a visit to the bathroom, or grab a book (even if it's an openings book, it doesn't count at cheating in that position ;) ), or go verify if your baby hasn't hurt herself with that knife she was trying to grab when you were too busy calculating your ...


46

No it's not bad etiquette at all. A player being higher rated does not entitle them to automatically get the result they want, even if the position seems to indicate such a result. And in the rare case your opponent gets offended by this, congratulations. You've just gained a psychological edge.


45

From my experience (small to medium central European Opens), offering a handshake without words is a commonly accepted form of resignation. The handshake is not part of any official rules. However, there is some reasoning behind it: You shake hands after the game ended (just as you do before it starts). So you only start extending your hand once that end ...


44

A repetition giving the opponent the opportunity to claim a draw is a de facto draw offer but not a de jure draw offer. What does that mean? Well the "de facto" part means that in practice it has the same effect as a formal draw offer while the "de jure" part means that legally it is not a formal draw offer. Psychologically it makes a ...


41

No it's not. Your opponent spent more time to reach a winning position and you spent less time to get time advantage. It's quite fair to use your time advantage over your opponents position advantage. Time control is a part of chess.


39

There are many people who want to play chess with you. You can play chess online! Online sites such as chess.com and lichess.org will match you with opponents of similar rating so you should win about 50 percent of the time. Furthermore, playing online as well as studying chess will immensely improve your chess, and maybe you'll play your friend again and ...


38

The behavior you describe is bad sportsmanship and goes against the policies of chess.com. See the chess.com fair play policy and this blog post about the new abuse report system which includes an option specifically for "poor sportsmanship / stalling in games".


36

I think the reason becomes more apparent when you consider why the rule is in place for OTB games - an opponent constantly moving their hands around the board and moving the pieces around can be very distracting while the other player is likely still trying to concentrate on the position. By contrast, in online chess both players are using their own ...


36

There are lots of ways to play with a handicap in chess. One way is to give one player a starting material advantage, where the weaker player starts with an extra queen, or the stronger player replaces their queen with a bishop/rook, or starts with some of their pawns missing - anything that weakens one player's starting position can be used to even the odds....


35

There is no rule or law that says that you have to try and checkmate in as few moves as possible and so there is no ethical requirement either. In fact, if there are just a few pieces left on the board and you are very short of time it makes a lot of sense to take all the opponent's pieces as quickly as possible and only then worry about how you are going to ...


33

Chess.com's site rules have the following to say: You can NEVER use chess programs (Chessmaster, Fritz, etc) to analyze current ongoing games unless specifically permitted (such as a computer tournament, etc). The only type of computer assistance allowed is games databases for opening lines in Turn-based Chess and Vote Chess. [...] So it boils down to ...


32

The majority of the users find that insulting. Is it really insulting to [...] I can answer the question based on this excerpt alone. The answer is yes.


31

As a general rule, if something is not done out of malice then it's not bad etiquette in my book (especially if it's allowed in the rules). So if all you do is play on in a lost position, then I don't see how anyone could complain; for instance, should a novice not be allowed to play on until checkmate? That would be absurd, no matter who said novice were ...


30

That's called a mouse-slip, and it's part of playing online. Watch some of Carlsen's online play (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJlOlufG-JM) and you'll see even he mouse-slips on occasion. Common etiquette seems to be to continue playing out the game and try to be more precise next time.


29

In a tournament game, you are not supposed to speak at all other than to offer a draw or adjust a piece. This includes saying check. This tends to seep into casual games among more experienced players (I haven't said check in years). For players that do not compete in tournaments at all, I don't think that there is any obligation to point it out. When ...


29

Just to offer a different answer: No. No takebacks, no draw offers. In short time controls this is part of the game. It's the same as a blunder under pressure. I pressured the opponent on either time or position, and the person cracked and made a mistake. Or your other example, of moving the king instead of castling in the beginning: That's what one get ...


28

It is perfectly good etiquette. Something similar happened in an Amber blindfold Gelfand - Kramnik: [FEN ""] 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 Bg4 5. h3 Bxf3 6. Qxf3 e6 7. Nc3 Nbd7 8. Bd2 Bb4 9. Bd3 O-O 10. a3 Ba5 11. O-O Re8 12. b4 Bc7 13. cxd5 exd5 14. b5 Nf8 15. bxc6 bxc6 16. Qd1 Ne6 17. Qa4 c5 18. Nb5 Bb6 19. dxc5 Nxc5 20. Qc2 Nfe4 21. Bb4 Nxd3 22. ...


27

Seeing how Super Grandmasters capture pieces can be instructive: Garry Kasparov Capturing an adjacent piece: Capturing a distant piece: Source: YouTube Carlsen (white) vs Caruana Source: YouTube Aronian (white) vs Morozevich Source: YouTube Hikaru Nakamura (white) vs Vladimir Kramnik Source: YouTube Summary: With the exception of Kramnik, captures ...


27

No, what you did is what is known as a gambit. You offered your opponent material (in this case a water bottle), which he accepted. This would be considered a blunder on his part, since although it gave him a temporary hydration advantage, it ended up costing him time due to the uncomfortable situation it caused for his bladder, which needed to be resolved. ...


27

It depends. The USCF Code of Ethics states that the following is unethical: Deliberately failing to play at one's best in a game, in any manner inconsistent with the principles of good sportsmanship, honesty, or fair play. I would take this to mean that if you have a mate in 1 and you see it but purposely don't play it, you're being unethical. However, I ...


26

Yesterday, I played a tournament match, and at the table next to me the guy asked his opponent for his rating. “I don’t really know...” was the reply, “about 1580, I think. And yours?” “Euhm... about 1400”, the guy mumbles in reply. If you don’t want to give out your exact rating in reply or you don’t know it yourself, I would not ask the question to begin ...


25

I don't think this would be a breach in etiquette - but I think it is a somewhat dangerous thing to do for you. Chess is as much about mental fortitude as it is about "playing skill" and regardless what your opponents answer is - it can get into your head and affect your play. If your opponent is a lot lower rated than you are, it tempts you to play these "...


24

This is really a question for fairly low-rated players, who tend to play things out to the bitter end. If you are reasonably strong, the only reason your opponent does not resign earlier is that he thought you played such a good game that he allows you to execute the checkmate (I have done this), or thinks that the final position is beautiful, and saw it ...


24

I play for two purposes: to win the game, or when winning is unlikely, to draw the game. to improve my chess skills, which eventually enables me to win/draw more games. These are good goals, although you might want to add "to have fun" because if you don't have fun you are quickly going to lose motivation. I do not care about my opponents' ...


24

According to the FIDE Laws of Chess: It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. If you placed the water there with the intent that it would cause him to use the bathroom (and thus distract him) this would be an issue. If you were just doing it to be nice, there is no problem. The FIDE Code of Ethics doesn't really have much ...


20

I followed @itub's suggestion and filed a report against the particular user. Here's the answer I got from Chess.com support: [...] Certainly, this is not what we want on our site! I have sent this member to our investigative department for a close watch on this account. They will be monitored and if they continue this behavior, we will have to ...


20

Etiquette doesn't really come into it unless your name is Gata Kamsky (strong language warning for the link). The rule is very simple. If you want flagging to be a part of the game then play with no increment, otherwise always play with an increment.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible