11499 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Elubas does have a point. There have been many examples of someone miscalculating something in what would otherwise be a winning game. I know I've often became too comfortable in a game and missed an important, but easy to stop move.
http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=58353408Just for fun
No. This guy wins - http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=448689850
Stalemate in a 45/45
Agreed. I usually go for the *simplest* win when someone wants to play the game to checkmate. If I ask for a computer analysis of such games, it whinges (whines, in American) and grizzles and *I don't care*. Obviously, if with a little effort I can find a mate in four rather than trade everything off and then have a long drawn out ending, I will. But if there's any chance of confusion or error, I take the simple route.
I find it odd that people I play on this site tend to want to play to completion. But perhaps they want to practice their defence, or even see an example of how to win the endgame that exists. And the practice doesn't hurt me; I've fumbled a bit on some endgames I should have know what to do with efficiently right from the word go.
One thing I _do_ tend to do when mate is 2-3 moves out and the opponents moves are forced is put in conditional moves. Which I intend as a gentle hint that "Hey, you were *so* lost you could have resigned."
But people are allowed to play to completion, and I learned a lesson the day I blundered and put my nephew into stalemate. I'm very careful about that now!
Trying to claim that your opponent is being rude is rude in and of itself. If your position is that hopeless, it's called resign the game!
R-E-S-I-G-N-S Spells Relief!
It's a little different than say, LeBron James delivering the facial with an in your face slam dunk when Miami is already up by 50. It's not like the losing team can just pack up and go. They have to ride it out the entire 48 minutes.
Chess doesn't work that way. You don't like what you see. Resign!
When a position should clearly be resigned (I mean "clearly", not "Black's down a pawn, so Black should resign since a 2800 would cream him in this position), I find it rude NOT to resign, and I sometimes will PURPOSELY promote 5 pawns all to Queen, or 5 Rooks, or 5 Bishops, or whatever I feel like doing to rub in the point that he or she needs to resign!
suppose you are playing a cheat and it's 2 moves from checkmate, you're getting thrashed but your opponent gets booted before the mate, would you have felt thick for resigning too early ?
First i would want him back to give him the whuppin he deserves. 2nd i would want to do it again. 3rd i repeat first 2 previosly mentioned. 4th i would forget that game so quick as it meant nothing. 5th is what i take on those type of situations.
and the 6th ?
(just in case it might make any sense)
This reminds me of this game. There are several ways to mate here. Free members get only one line, so I went with the most forcing one just for the conditional moves. This starts a couple of moves ahead because I thought the black was clever with Ke7, tempting b8=Q??, giving them a stalemate.
This game also uses promotion when already ahead!
There is an Australian expression which is apt in this situation -
'If a man's down, keep your foot on his neck.'
1 1 bullet game, we both did way more than our fair share of nonsensical moves. and we both finished with over 3 minutes...
If I have anything less than two queens and the checkmate isn't obvious then yeah I'm promoting. More than two queens is overkill. lol
In online games, I prefer the quickest way to win, except when there is a forcing sequence (or more than one) of moves that lead to mate, which I can enter and then ignore the game until it's over. OTB: whatever's quickest.
@ekorbai, haven't heard that one before, but you might like this one. Australian fairness ... for values of fairness: "Don't hit a man when he's down. Kick him, it's easier." (Not that I know if that saying is particularly Australian, but it may be; these days the "never give a sucker an even break" is more likely to be heard.)
I think you should Always Need 2 Queens. One Queen makes The Mate and The Other Queen makes a meal for you.
You missed 87... Ne1.
Yeah I saw that after :(
by chessbeginner77 6 minutes ago
8/4/2015 - Classic King Hunt
by jflynn40824 9 minutes ago
I'm the Round Mound Of Unsound
by The_Ghostess_Lola 15 minutes ago
Will i ever reach 1500 ?
by chessman1504 16 minutes ago
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
by akafett 24 minutes ago
Any help with this puzzle ?
by chessbeginner77 26 minutes ago
Hurt/Heal Top Non-World Champions
by twighead 29 minutes ago
How do I review and annotate my game?
by kleelof 29 minutes ago
can magnus carlson cross the 3000 elo barrier
by ISeeHowYourePinned 29 minutes ago
by King_undercover_vamp 35 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!