I say go for the quickest checkmate. While some people complain that other players are dragging out a game that's lost, it doesn't make sense to drag it out even longer when a quick checkmate is available.
Bad sportsmanship/showboating
Sort:
N2UHC Sure go for a quick check mate is fine but in many situations there is no quick check mate available.
I agree, should not showboat against a novice.
Once, in a tournament, my opponent was down a full piece and kept going. I won two more pawns, he kept going. Finally I've got 5 pawns to his king. He kept playing. So I stabbed him in the heart.
pipituche wrote:
Once, in a tournament, my opponent was down a full piece and kept going. I won two more pawns, he kept going. Finally I've got 5 pawns to his king. He kept playing. So I stabbed him in the heart.
Justifiable homicide since he could have resigned prior to being stabbed.
gnobretaw wrote:
Is it considered bad if I am playing a game and figured out a mate in 3 moves, but instead I decide to either capture all the opponent's remaining pieces and/or try to promote all of my pawns to queens before he resigns?
I think that is bad not only for making it last longer when it shouldn't but the person probably will learn more from the mates that happen with fuller boards.
Though if I'm ever clearing pieces it is because I just don't see a quick certain mate and I suck :P
I agree, people should be able to learn from the games they lose. Now what if its against a computer and you're on an international flight across the Pacific?
A lot depends on who you are playing and also what is the time control.
Answers can vary depending on those factors.
ponz111 wrote:
N2UHC Sure go for a quick check mate is fine but in many situations there is no quick check mate available.
But we're talking about being in a winning position and checkmating quickly as opposed to taking all your opponent's pieces and promoting several queens.
Is that what we are talking about? There are creative ways to continue play without either checkmating quickly or taking all of your opponents pieces and promoting several queens. This does not have to be an either/or situation. There are way more than two alternatives.
If im in a totally won position I immediately lose interest. If you want to be particularly cruel for say something like someone not resigning when they should we all have our reasons..
Flip the board and see your opponents best chance for Stalemate. And proceed to let him think he's going to get it to the last move then keep it going... Good practice for real situations where a draw is possible..
Estragon, Suspose you are in a vote chess game that has been going on for months. You at this point have only two opponents one is a near expert and the other is a master. They are in a completely hopeless pawn endgame and they know it is completely hopeless. They even mention it is hopeless. But one says let's continue to play as they might time out.
Your whole team has been waiting for them to resign for many moves. This affects your team a they do not want to have too many games going at once.
Would it be ethical for your super administrator to say something to the other team? [ not say anything unnecessarily antagonistic..]
Worth doing so the opponent gets an increasing sense of doom at the slow sure death of a chess midget
ponz111 wrote:
Estragon, Suspose you are in a vote chess game that has been going on for months. You at this point have only two opponents one is a near expert and the other is a master. They are in a completely hopeless pawn endgame and they know it is completely hopeless. They even mention it is hopeless. But one says let's continue to play as they might time out.
Your whole team has been waiting for them to resign for many moves. This affects your team a they do not want to have too many games going at once.
Would it be ethical for your super administrator to say something to the other team? [ not say anything unnecessarily antagonistic..]
If I were you, I would start preparing for his answer RIGHT NOW! 
There are ways to resign a game which are very nice.
You should always aim for the quickest & most efficient 'kill'. That's a mark of your skill as a player - anything else is just childish!
stephen_33 wrote:
You should always aim for the quickest & most efficient 'kill'. That's a mark of your skill as a player - anything else is just childish!
Not to mention plain ugly.
stephen_33 wrote:
You should always aim for the quickest & most efficient 'kill'. That's a mark of your skill as a player - anything else is just childish!
heh, heh--this just keeps popping up on the hot topics list. i agree with you wholeheartedly as i posted yesterday. but be careful using words like "always" or you'll have responders like ponz111 getting on you about absolutes etc. i don't know why he would go through all this trouble to defend what is clearly bad form every time. but let's give him the benefit of the doubt. by his post #26, i don't think he fully understood the original poster's question.
Actually never in my life have I run into a situation where it would be advantageous to do something about a player playing on out of spite.
So it is a rare bird and your idea that I have a temptation to be spiteful is not correct in my case. Also, I do not spend time to reason out what I am going to do in such a situation since the situation was very rare if ever for me.
In general, talking in absolutes, makes little sense.