12305 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?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
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!
No- It's sensible! I don't consider not resigning or actually promoting rude.
Nakamura vs Rybka with eight knights.
Similar to the game EdwardT2 posted.
I just finished a game that is a good example on when promoting more than once is the easiest way to win. Anyone who feels offended when this happens to them should resign before the first queening. I was playing white.
I've read the FIDE Laws of Chess and their and USCF's rules for competitions. I see clauses dealing with intentionally distracting the opponent, but none with making "rude" moves on the board.
If you don't like the moves I make, if they offend you, I invite you to rip your own eyeballs out and stomp those suckers flat so you won't have to see my moves, and then to kiss my buttocks in servile supplication.
Don't like my move? Deal with it, Vladimir.
I've done it on a few occasions (I mean like promoting to knights and bishops with two queens on the board) but seeing as my opponent would rather make nonsensical moves in lost positions to try and time me out I figure he deserves it!
It depends. Against a beginner, I will not promote pawns and mate. In a mad time scramble, I'll queen because of the easy plan/"no need to think" provided to win. Against a similarly rated or higher rated opponent (with sufficient time on the clock) I will promote until they reisgn. As chris2212 puts it: one rude turn deserves another. When you are similar strength and the opponent keeps playing on in a lost position with no tricks (eg. stalemate, a trap, the hope of confusing the winning procedure), he deserves two queens breathing down his neck, fooling him he is going to be stalemated and then delivering mate. He can forget you buying him a pint and talking good naturedly about the game afterwards.
I had a Queen and pawn vs. a rook recently. I couldn't get him with just the one queen so I made a second queen, made the win a snap.
My preferred technique in those situations is to promote the extra queen/queens and keep on hanging them until I once again only have one queen....
THere was one guy I was playing(in a friendly game mind you-when I didn't have that much time) and I was up a rook and a bishop and he kept playing on. So I resigned, thanked him for the games and went off to talk to some other people in the club
One always has the extraordinary option of ignoring the dark intent of their opponent and deciding one's move as if; (A) the game of chess has rules and (B) the current position of the pieces is relevant.
Remember ... just 'cuz you're paranoid, doesn't mean THEY'RE not out to get ya!
Depends on the situation. If you have a rook or better and your opponent doesn't, then you already have sufficient material. But if in same situation, your pawn is already advanced to the 6th & the king is already on his back rank, then go for it if it makes it easier. But if all you have is a minor piece (or even 2) then go ahead & promote, as mating with a single knight or bishop is pretty well impossible, and takes about 20 - 30 moves with a king & bishop pair. Knight & bishop mate is excruciating, as you first have to drive the king into the cornor opposite your bishop color, and then push him from there to the corner that matches your bishop, which will generally make the game run 100 moves or so. (half that just trying to herd the king)
Rude is when you have a rook & bishop and all he has is 2 pawns, and instead of just going for a mate, you run around and take all his pawns and make 3 queens for yourself. Such is the sort of sportsmanship one would expect from a 9 year old. The goal is mate, get 'er done.
My opinion: If promoting to more queens gives you a faster checkmate, go for it. If it's just to spite your opponent, it's probably rude.
How can you spite your opponent by promoting more queens than needed? All he/she has to do is resign and there is no 'spite' to begin with. Catch my drift?
And firebrand, I get your point as well, I typically resign once I see there is no hope. but if I'm in a lost game, and all of a sudden my opponent ignores my king and goes unnecessarily grabbing material and trying to promote when the game should be done in 5 moves or less, then I won't resign, I will try to see if the patzer I'm playing ends up stalemating me for a draw.
Or on a similar note, if it was a good hard fought game, and my opponent surprises me with a good checkmating pattern (like one involving a sacrifice or two) I will go ahead & play it out just to be sporting and let him see the final mate he earned from clever play.
You're a rare breed then, ChonleyB. I've never gotten the opponent that would let me play out a nice checkmate attack. It's either an immediate resignation once something like that is started (which is fine with me), or if I'm in the endgame up winning material, I'll often get the sour grapes refusal to resign until one move away from checkmate. Its the latter type that I will then keep them alive as long as possible until they get the hint that what they are doing is also wasting their own time.
How far ahead?
If I am up two queens and could checkmate with my next move but, I decide to promote... yeah
If I could still lose to a savvy player, while I am only ahead by three pawns or less...?
You can do the math on that one...
Some ridiculous posts.
Play how you want. If it makes it easier for you, promote more. If you're simply playing superflous moves to taunt, then yes that's poor manners. But promoting to help your attack isn't.
If you aren't certain your opponent has a win or want to see how they finish, you don't have to resign. I just won from a position I thought about resigning in. Depends on the standard of player.
Too many people trying to tell others how to play.
Do not ever under promote to a bishop in this position though.
A long, long time ago (Jan 2012) when I was just a beginner (I am much more advanced now, jk) I was screwing around with a guy that only had his king left. He didn't resign so I thought I would experiment with promotion. I had no thoughts of getting even with him, simply playing around. I was not paying attention at all and upon promotion of my 3rd queen I stalemated the game. I learned my lesson, pay attention! I will probably still mess around again someday and promote excessivly, depending on the circumstances, but always pay attention to the promotion. All the dirty details can be seen here:
"Rub it in - Rub it in - Let the tingle begin . . . "
How did I let someone rated 600 points lower outplay me?
by Sqod 9 minutes ago
Find your REAL ELO rating: ELOMETER.NET then post here the results
by Biotk 11 minutes ago
Refutation to the Ruy Lopez
by X_PLAYER_J_X 20 minutes ago
Anyone that solves this one on first try..
by SirRobC1984 20 minutes ago
Share fun games here!
by kellypk417 21 minutes ago
Openings you've given a good try but discarded.
by QueenTakesKnightOOPS 21 minutes ago
Chess Set Guidance
by vaporofnuance 24 minutes ago
by SirRobC1984 27 minutes ago
Broadening My Opening Repertoire for White
by X_PLAYER_J_X 31 minutes ago
11/24/2015 - In The Middle
by cat10703 32 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!