17264 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!
Personally, I find that if you're in the position that they can just promote pawns to kingdom come, then you should have resigned a while ago.It isn't rude to promote pieces- unnecessary maybe- but it is your fault for being in that position in the first place. We all need to learn how to play better, losing badly is a great way to do this.
I have played against some people who are vastly down in material, and refuse to resign or spam draw offers. If I have the opportunity, I'll just promote to all knights or bishops just to extend the torture (being careful not to stalemate of course.) Otherwise if my opponent has been normal and is just trying to salvage a game, I'll promote only enough to ensure a win.
So it seems that the discussion of whether rudeness is justified by the rudeness of others continues.
I tell my students not to resign until they are about 1600 (USCF, not chess.com) strength. They have too much to learn.
In my own practice, I often promote to a B+N and practice that mating pattern. That way I get something out of the last few moves, and my opponent does too. Unless my opponent is a strong enough player to know that endgame. In which case, they're strong enough to know when to resign too.
What is achieved by playing on here? It's nothing to do with learning from the winning technique because it takes none.
I hate it when they spam draw requests. The last time this happened my opponent gave me a free knight in the first few turns, so for the next 20 or so I had to deal with a few draw offers a turn.
Any ways, about the pawn promotion, I always see it as their inability to checkmate. Like this sort of thing:
Most like the person playing black made a stupid mistake earlier and dropped a piece, but missing the checkmate(s) seems to be far worse.
I should have specified, as I usually do, that I was talking about live chess games. In correspondence chess, resign when you no longer have any chances to swindle.
Even that bit of knowledge requires some skill tho. A +1500 in correspondence should be able to figure it out. If not, find the absolute fastest way to mate the person and then make sure you don't play them again.
In case anyone is wondering such things don't happen in otb tournament chess. only in internet blitz/bullet.
it happens also OTB.
its only rude of the part that isnt resigning. you cant refuse to resign a lost position insisting on seeing the game continue AND complain about the game continuing.
I don't want to turn this into another "Why won't they resign?" thread, but there's absolutely no reason to not resign if you've got a lone king against king + rooks. Not really any need to promote another rook, either, but to each his own.
Probably, and there wont be any need to promote the 4th rook either, but it's prettier.
not rude to avoid resigning, not rude to promote a tenth knight or bishop
My favorite online scenario is a game where I had about 10 minutes left, he had 25 or so, wouldn't resign. He had just a King, I had a Knight and 4 unstoppable pawns. I promoted all 4 pawns to Knight and mated with King and 5 Knights vs Loan King! If he doesn't want to resign, I see no problem with piling it on!
Loan king is a funny way to relate to the situation - if he doesn't resign, then the fact that he still has a king is just a loan from you until you decide that it's time to mate the guy..
it's not rude, dude
well, maybe it would be mre proper to just promote them to Rooks or Knights.
If the game's reached that stage, not resigning is rude.
If the defender is that far behind, and refuses to resign, just to annoy his opponent, what rude behavior would he not deserve??
How on earth can it be rude? This is a battle, do you think that Wellington was wrong to accept the Austrians help at Waterloo?
Can you not think of anything better to put on the forum?
It's true, it sometimes happens over the board that a person won't resign.
Nigel Short's solution was to start taking up huge amounts of time and act like he's thinking really hard. A bunch of people would come over and start watching the game. Even the densest of people eventually get the message and resign.
If you refuse to resign, you should have to explain why you didn't resign in the analysis room after the game. Or at least listen to your opponent while he enumerates every possible way he could have checkmated you.
In correspondence chess, at least there's conditional moves that are available for the obvious continuations.
Promote to 5 knights and checkmate him that way.
I'm winning for no apparant reason
by Yehudit a few minutes ago
@What rating would you stop seeing Fried Liver & Fools Mate Attempts?
by Ubik42 a few minutes ago
I'm losing for no reason.
by TheGreatOogieBoogie 2 minutes ago
Why is Caro-Kann so popular?
by builderboss126 3 minutes ago
Tough luck for Aronian 5.5 hour game!!!
by owltuna 3 minutes ago
CHESS.COM is not fair !!! alas
by Phantom_of_the_Opera 3 minutes ago
A Search for Older Chess Software
by rooperi 6 minutes ago
I am quitting chess.
by Mersaphe 6 minutes ago
What's the quickest way to get a title?
by kikvors 7 minutes ago
Rare Gambit in the Sicilian
by ghostofmaroczy 8 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 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!