15473 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!
Noble of you sir, but you may as well promote your pawn(s) to queens and finish your opponent off. Chess is an unforgiving game. There's no shame in it...
I have played other games with more queens as well, but I don't have them saved anywhere
If you have mate, it's etiquette to take it.
It's also etiguette to not waste someone's time by playing out a hopelessly lost position. When someone does that to me, all sense of etiquette goes out the window. Even an absolute rank beginner knows his goose is cooked when he's only got a king left and the opponent has rooks, queens, and pawns still on the board. There comes a point when playing on in such a position doesn't bring any educative value. When people step over that point in the game, it becomes the first act of rudeness. That's why I teach them a lesson for it by not delivering the immediate mate.
Why so serious?
Also please note allowing checkmate is probably better if it is in a few moves, after your opponent did a marvelous queen sacrifice to send your king to the middle of the board or something. However, if your opponent has two pawns + king vs king, you might as well resign
Yup, I agree with this. If your opponent earned a checkmate, give it to him if its there in a few moves.
Yes this whole topic ridiculous. Of course it is okay to promote pawns but also is dignified to respect your opponent & checkmate as soon as possible once sufficient material is amassed to do so.
To humiliate an opponent (especially a weaker-strengh player) with 4-Queens or 5-Bishops or suchlike is reprehensible.
Is conceited & bullying behaviour that only those without proper-manners would even consider.
How is that bullying? That is not bullying. Can you say I resign/quit while being bullied and have it finished? No. Can you resign in chess before all that happens. Yes. Thats a big difference right there. Control.I think there are people here who get that. You cannot force your opponent to "suffer" (if being up against 5 queens is suffering, at least one should be pretty), your opponent can end it at any time.Now, I'm not saying that justifies doing it, and I'm not saying that it doesn't justify doing it, I'm just saying that it seems like people think the player with a lone king against 5 queens and whatnot is forced into that position. He/she never is.
Well if an opponent wants to take the piss by not resigning in such a situation, I reserve the right to take the piss in return. If he is genuinely a beginner and unable to fathom what is going on I would be a bit kinder
No cjett. Weaker players maybe not resigning as been told to fight-on. That is no reason to humilate. Simple checkmate ASAP is enough.
I was playing a guy who wouldnt resign and it ended 8 rooks against a king
The game of chess has an objective & purpose. Checkmate your opponent & win !
Of course to do anything else is rude !!
Also I'd like to add that you are not really humiliating your opponent, your opponent allows himself to be humiliated (if you at all consider such positions humiliating).Its like if somebody were uploading a picture of you that you find humiliating (but the other person doesn't) to facebook, and there you are in front of their computer with the ability to cancel the uplaod before it finishes. If you dont its more your fault than the other persons
Losing is rude? Drawing is rude? Forcing a threefold repetition in an otherwise losing position is rude? Really?
"Its like if somebody were uploading a picture of you that you find humiliating (but the other person doesn't) to facebook, and there you are in front of their computer with the ability to cancel the uplaod before it finishes. If you dont its more your fault than the other persons"
This is scary that he thinks that. There are a few ethical principles here that apparently nobody has taught you:
a) A person doing an unethical thing bears significantly more responsibility for it than a person who fails to stop it.
b) A person can be a victim even if they could have behaved differently and avoided it.
c) The morality of an act does not depend at all on whether or not someone else can stop it from happening.
From his profile, this is likely a guy who grew up in Bosnia during the '90's. Hmmm....
All of your points (a,b and c) are irrelevant. Try reading not skimming what I posted.
Also, could you please explain the bosnia comment, so you can clearly show everybody what kind of stuff you use to show your point. (btw. your assumption is false)
WINNING is Rude. We should help those who are down on their luck (or Chess ability, as the case may be) !
Btw, Can you spare me a Knight, Chessfriend ?
You don't seem to get my post, do you.
Person A is doing/about to do something (to/in regards to person B) which he does not think is humiliating (for himself in reversed roles and of course person B) and he does not know that person B find a it humiliating (which he does). Person B is able to stop/prevent person B but doesn't. Who is (more) at fault there?
Also, while doing something to humiliate somebody or even doing something that you know will humiliate somebody may be unethical I definitely don't view doing something with neither intent or knowledge of such a humiliation unethical, do you?
And yet to pass such ignorant judgement makes you even more reprehensible. Like I said before, even a rank beginner knows the futility of fighting on against 4 queens against a bare king, so it is just as much my right to create an army instead of checkmating as it is his right to waste time playing on when resignation is appropriate. Why is it that people like you can't seem to comprehend how simple that is to understand? Are you really that thick-headed?
In blitz, I'll refuse rematches when they force me to play out an elementary checkmate. They lose the right to a rematch in my book.
You're not doing them or yourself any favours. If they don't know any better, then teach them how lost they are by being expedient about their defeat, and if they do, manage the amount of time you waste on them while practicing your efficiency.
In either case, the course of action should be the same and you don't have to concern yourself with speculating about their motivations.
the tournament director should throw out all who is giggling. onlookers should be quiet until the game is over.
I got lost about here "Person B is able to stop/prevent person B but doesn't. " I must not read well.
Wow. You really posted that? I feel sorry for you and for the people who have to deal with you (thankfully I dont have to). Enjoy your life ;)
by olichris a few minutes ago
I am quitting chess.
by AndyClifton a few minutes ago
Is Chess really declining in popularity?
by FromMuToYou a few minutes ago
Borislav Ivanov is BACK!
by FirebrandX a few minutes ago
Tracking albeit censored
by FromMuToYou 3 minutes ago
Is this end position winning?
by TheGreatOogieBoogie 3 minutes ago
Is it agaisnt the rules so delay games?
by Billion_Tactics_Boy 4 minutes ago
An Annotated Game from a Patzer
by chess102410 4 minutes ago
Is this unreasonable?
by Taxi 7 minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by UltraLaser 12 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!