12231 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!
delcarpenter, no. For example, match play in golf. When one player is ahead by more than the number of remaining holes, they do not finish the round.
In bridge it is common to "claim" the rest of the tricks instead of playing them out when you hold a hand that will obviously win the rest of the tricks (e.g. all trumps when no one else has any).
I'm not sure that this is completely accurate.
In match play, there is no option for the losing player to continue and no chance for him to win. The game has been decided and is thus over. In chess, while the outcome may seem a foregone conclusion, it is not an absolute (stalemates, blunders, etc.).
With regards to bridge, the same holds true. There isn't a chance for the other players to win, and thus the winning player essentially shows his hands and proves that he has won the remaining hands. This is closer to accurate than your golf analogy but still falls short with regards to certainty of outcome.
delcarpenter, match play in golf is somewhat similar to resignations in chess. While the quoted post is true regarding this (match over), there have been situations where one resigns previous to the match being declared over. For example, if one is down 7 with 8 holes to play.
i had an experience that i have my a queen,1 rook and 2 pawns andmy oppenent still wants to play and and doesnt want to resign ,i can make a quick mate but i decided to advance my 2 pawns to make a pawn mate , its his choice not mine.
I think I would have made a quick mate if it was clear to me how... More satisfying...
basically if you feel you cant win with the material you have , then go for another queen. never however just pile the queens on for spite.
What about to pile the queens on just for FUN?!
I almost did this to a friend who has the attitude of "NEVER EVER EVER EVER Resign... fight to the bitter end". I was pushing four pawns down the board while his king had five squares to move to and that was all he could move. I stopped short of getting queen number 2 before I decided I couldn't do it to him any more and put him out of his misery.
I didn't look at this link, but I know exactly what you mean. I played against a couple players that would not resign when all they had was a lone King.....what a waste of my time.
Now, I can understand those that go far into the game, because blunders may happen that can turn the tide thisquick. However, in instances like BQ and I have described, there is no reason to continue.
just resign. lol
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.
Perhaps this thread asks the wrong question.
I believe you should try and win the game as quickly as possible, as long as doing so doesn't compromise your position and possibly cost you a win. I've actually Queened two pawns before because my opponent still had a very active Queen and I was so low on material that it would have been difficult (or impossible) to checkmate.
What's rude and unprofessional, however, is "toying" with your opponent when you have the game already sewn up. I'm sure in some parts of the world, that will get you hit in the mouth.
Not on the internet.
Was that stalemate intentional or you just missed it?
112.Nf2# would win. Obviously you could win much earlier...
Ha Ha!! While looking at this game made me laugh, it's not funny if the opponent doesn't resign. As I wrote in a previous post, a waste of time.
If you have to promote multiple times to continue enjoying the game, go for it. I can't imagine how it's rude if your opponent can end it any time he wants to. Mating with a KQ vs. K isn't fun at all, so make the game interesting with K+3N vs. K or something like that.
I think we're done here. Can we close this?
If we lock it now how can some guy bump it in 2014 with their ground breaking insight?
There's always THIS game by Nakamura
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?
You fail to understand the point. If your opponent knows he is lost and knows you can easily handle the mate, isn't he actually "toying" with you? I could just as easily claim you'd also get hit in the mouth in some parts of the world for doing that.
"Melik & Me! with GM Melik Khachiyan and BrotherJosh"
5334 Problems, Combinations, and Games
by Roholla-r a few minutes ago
5/28/2015 - Mate in 3
by aaasiddig 5 minutes ago
Sideline responses to Nimzo-Indian?
by aklir 6 minutes ago
i feel bad for both UK and America chess
by Ziryab 8 minutes ago
Are tactics really the way to go?
by yureesystem 13 minutes ago
Incorrect rule implementation
by Ziryab 14 minutes ago
So? You Wanna Play me? . . . . For I am DEATH! . . .
by tkbunny 14 minutes ago
I Played Well Until...
by Lespaul_Lover 15 minutes ago
Millionaire Chess 2!!
by themaskedbishop 16 minutes ago
How to stop emails of moves
by Vultamore 16 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!