Well, I think that you should'nt totally leave the pawns to rot. make sure that they can promote if you need to, but if you just run 'em up the board and promote, then you have more chance of drawing. believe me, i've lost a good deal of points that way.
Promoting pawns when you are ahead in material...Rude?
Sort:
there is no "rude" in chess - it's your job to push your advantage.
Promoting a million pawns is just as rude as the the guy not resigning. One would not have to happen if the other didin't. If you don't understand that you are lost then you can't know if If I do or do not need more material to mate you.
chrisr2212 wrote:
you people don't know the meaning of the word "manners", or how to respect a beginner
I think beginners should always play on until mate, but what if they aren't a beginner?
EdwardT2 wrote:
There's always THIS game by Nakamura
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1480850
I remembered this game when I saw the title of this thread. Hilarious!
chrisr2212 wrote:
joeydvivre wrote:
And pretty amazing that a guy giving up 1000 rating points would make a comment like that. I think Chrisr should play with lordhypnoz with th goal of promoting about 6 queens.
you blokes seem to have a lot of difficulty with just allowing someone learning the game to just play it out as it pleases them, without being insulting towards them, just because they wanted to play on...
you immediately assume they are being rude, so you in turn choose to be rude to them, yet they may not have been rude to you at all....
you think too much
You think too much. Those who are so new that they don't see playing on as rude will in turn also fail to see multiple promotions as rude.
As soon as they realize what's going on, they're free to resign at any time. Or in other words, they can end the multiple promotions at any moment.
joeydvivre wrote:
@FirebrandX -
First off, the argument about how much weaker children should be protected in children's sports is an old tired argument and I am not going to get baited into it here. I've been on both sides of it and I can tell you that I want my 900 player son to enjoy playing chess but I also respect the argument that as long as someone plays by the rules, they are doing nothing wrong. The argument comes up every time some kid's basketball team beats some other team 90-0 or some precocious eighth grader has 90 mph heat.
But...since you are a stickler for rules - there is also nothing in the USCF tournament directors handbook (which, btw, I have read and am a certified USCF tournament director) that says he has to talk with anyone not involved in the tournament about anything. The tournament director can just say "Sorry - none of your business. Your kid wants to play by the rules, we play by the rules. Get lost". If you had kids that play sports, you would know that overbearing parents are a serious problem. I've seen freaking assaults by parents over questionable calls or possibly bad coaching. Parents need to stay out of it.
There is a little difference between the examples you gave and the chess match. In chess, resigning is a perfectly accepted and expected response to getting trounced. I don't think that is true in the sports you mentioned, even though, I believe there is the option to forfeit the game. If the loser of the chess match had not been taught how to resign, then it is hardly appropriate to lay that blame on the winner.
The TD humiliating and discouraging the 3rd grade winner of the chess match mentioned above seems like it did call for action on the part of the parent. I guess it would have been better for the parent to take it to the organizing committee then to waste his time with the idiotic TD.
I don't see the issue for the one losing when the opponent "over-promotes". If I was trying for a stalemate, that would be playing into my hands as it would be giving me a better chance for the draw. If, by chance, the opposite is true, one can hardly hold it against the one "over-promoting" if doing so increases his chances for the win.
So, its either a help to the loser or a help to the winner. No excuse for any QQing over this.
I don`t think it is rude. Look at the below position taken from my game. Why should it be rude to promote my g pawn and to win with two queens with no effort? I find it more interesting to spend my time thinking of moves in games where I do have to find good moves. If I played less games at the same time I would maybe see the point in mating without promoting a pawn.
The child was playing bad chess (as has already been pointed out, the extra material makes a draw more likely) Bad sportsmanship? You bet, tho it's just an 8 year old enjoying himself. But if so, it's an issue for the parent, not the TD, who should have kept his mouth shut.
The thing about being humiliated is a non issue. If you don't have the sense to resign a lost position, you're humiliating your self.
I've been accused of over promoting. He protested when I regained my queen and already had a rooks advantage. Something about elegance, which I didn't understand. But he was a bigger player than I, and the last thing I want to do is throw away a game because I disdained a promotion then made a mistake.
Anyone know what he meant by elegance?
ciljettu wrote:
I'm with wafflemaster... as long as he does not resign... I will keep on HUMILIATING him!
You have my vote too.
I was always taught not to dish out what you can't take. If I have a gnat buzzing about my face and you think I have to squish it with chop sticks instead of a flyswatter, buzz off...
I very much agree with Reb. In otb play I resign a lost position as soon as it is apparent it is lost. Is it too much to expect the same from an opponent? A few times when the opponent has not resigned a dead lost position I have promoted one or more pawns hoping to drive home the point of just how hopeless his position is.
joeydvivre wrote:
I also resign "early". And I don't like it when people play out lost positions, but I also don;t need to humiliate anyone in chess.
I think you are onto something but, you miss the idea that some people make fools of themselves...
thaxiss wrote:
. . .Anyone know what he meant by elegance?
An elegant solution is often contrasted to a brute force solution. Elegance is associated with small numbers, surgical precision and cleverness while brute force is associated wih overwhelming numbers, blunt instruments and no need for a plan.
But what he really meant was waah, waah, now I have no hope of scamming a victory out of this game.
DKof wrote:
thaxiss wrote:
. . .Anyone know what he meant by elegance?
An elegant solution is often contrasted to a brute force solution. Elegance is associated with small numbers, surgical precision and cleverness while brute force is associated wih overwhelming numbers, blunt instruments and no need for a plan.
But what he really meant was waah, waah, now I have no hope of scamming a victory out of this game.
Are we always really reduced to only elegance as our M.O. ? I don't mind if I have to win ugly. If I have an obvious 5 move mating combination that involves promotion and two more that don't, but my opponent has three chances in each scenario to have to make me recalculate, a few more different times when he doesn't make the strongest moves, thus dragging the game out, I think I'll save my tylenol and go for the obvious.
Reb wrote:
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
Reb, in the unspoken poker game of chess etiquette then, multiple under promotion is like "raise!"
I agree ..... maybe chess needs a doubling cube like backgammon has in order to make some people resign when they should OR maybe lose twice the rating points when you " double" ?
There is on ChessCube tournaments
It would be rude if you were saying "Nyah Nyah Na Na Nah" and making " moose antlers" while doing so...
alot of it depends on the timescale of the game. it may be ok to take the mickey in a quick game, with an opponent rated at your level, but some of the examples i've seen on this thread could take years to play out the speed i move at. if you have nothing better to do than promote all your pawns to something less than a rook, you really need to go on a long walk to clear your head.
Follows the rules, hence cannot be rude.