Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Promoting pawns when you are ahead in material...Rude?


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #221

    ChessSponge

    FirebrandX wrote:

    when I'm punishing someone for refusing to resign, I promote to rooks. Most immediately resign when they see I won't even give them a stalemate chance by using rooks instead of queens.

    Depends on the person I guess. I've had someone try this on me once and I made sure to use every last second I had in my time while making the game last for as long as possible with my moves.

     

    As long as stalemate is a tie, I will go until a person proves they can win with mate. If that person decides to waste my time during the process, I will waste theirs back. In the end I'm never bothered by it so whatever they're trying to prove by doing so isn't working and I've already set aside the maximum amount of time for the game before I started. So it would probably be best for them to just mate and get it over with rather than prove a point, they won't have taught me to resign when they want someone to.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #222

    ekorbdal

    I agree with Tragasus - usually once you have promoted a pawn (usually to a Queen), your opponent should resign and not waste everybody's time.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #223

    ClavierCavalier

    Interesting to see this come back after 3 months.  Just a couple of days ago I posted this in the "Fun with chess" forums showing the extreme punishment of one who doesn't resign!


    Apologies for anyone who had to see this crap again...

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #224

    Dutchday

    Usually one queen should be enough to win and it is not rude to get it. Getting multiple promotions while you could win easily is very childish, even if you think the opponent should have resigned. Two wrongs don't make a right. I certainly never resigned when people started getting multiple promotions and I never will. I'll resign when I'm good and ready. If I'm in the mood to play the game out, not my problem what the opponent does!

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #225

    FirebrandX

    Dutchday wrote:

    I'll resign when I'm good and ready. If I'm in the mood to play the game out, not my problem what the opponent does!

    Then I'll promote as much as I want and checkmate when I'm good and ready. If I'm in the mood to make a point about wasting time, not my problem what the opponent does!

    And btw, a right and a wrong doesn't make it even. Playing on when you know the opponent will easily be able to checkmate you is what's really childish. Promoting extra pawns just makes a statement about how rude that is. So either resign or don't pass judgment when you waste their time to begin with.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #226

    AnthonyCG

    It's an annoying waste of time either way. Just trap the king with a rook and end the stupid game.

    People like to think chess is like other sports where if you try hard maybe you can pull something off. Chess isn't like that. At some point you're just screwed and there's nothing you can do about it.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #227

    BruceJuice

    I don't think they always expect to win. In sports like football or basketball the teams will play on in one-sided games even though it's blatantly obvious that there is no way they can win the game. Perhaps they are bringing this over to chess.

    Strong players know that one-sided games are usually a matter of technique or a science. But I think most people will see it as a game or sport instead of a science and they will play on until the end.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #228

    ClavierCavalier

    "All that matters is that I gave it 110%."  Football players, and now chessplayers...

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #229

    chapablanca2000

    BruceJuice wrote:

    I don't think they always expect to win. In sports like football or basketball the teams will play on in one-sided games even though it's blatantly obvious that there is no way they can win the game. Perhaps they are bringing this over to chess.

    Strong players know that one-sided games are usually a matter of technique or a science. But I think most people will see it as a game or sport instead of a science and they will play on until the end.

    Yes, but in a football or basketball game, there's no option to resign, nor is there any way to "win as quickly as possible". About the closest thing is for the losing team in a blowout to start playing its bench players, and that usually happens after the winning team does the same. And the closest thing to playing on a queen down would be if a basketball team is down, say, 20 points with two minutes left, and they keep fouling the other team to put them on the free throw line and prolong the game. 

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #230

    CalamityChristie

    flatters1 wrote:

    What does chess etiquette have to say about promoting pawns when I'm already ahead in material?  Say a bishop and two pawns..  It seems safest and fastest for me (at my skill level..  about 1400 turn-based online)  to win by doing that, but it seems like piling on.  Would doing so irritate people?    Is it insulting to keep your advanced pawns two ranks back deliberately?  What am I missing here?  Thanks guys!

    what you're missing is ....

    it's insulting to "intend" insult

    (though even then, your opponent may still not be dumb enough to hurt themself with it)

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #231

    Elubas

    Yes, there is the possibility of resigning to end the misery, but I would say that if you are promoting to seven knights, chances are you are doing it out of spite. And spite is not a good thing, in my opinion.


  • 23 months ago · Quote · #232

    mandlebrot

    I was down to a king verse an opponent who still had a queen and plenty of pawns.  He had a clear mate in one, but decided to premote all of his pawns.  About 15 moves later he stalemated me.  Lesson?  Never resign, that is if you are willing to endure the shame.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #233

    CalamityChristie

    lot of big egos play chess and you've just exposed the chess achilles heel.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #234

    Elubas

    AnthonyCG wrote:

    It's an annoying waste of time either way. Just trap the king with a rook and end the stupid game.

    People like to think chess is like other sports where if you try hard maybe you can pull something off. Chess isn't like that. At some point you're just screwed and there's nothing you can do about it.

    As annoyingly theoretical as it may be, I don't assume there is such thing as a 100%/0% chance of anything happening. Even if there is a 100% chance of something happening, my mind is too limited to ever know if that is really the case. And I'm not talking about heart attacks during a game (although I am including temporary blind spots in our brains) or anything like that.

    I actually played a position with two rooks vs one against houdini, with me having a passed A pawn (it's a long story; actually, I was arguing with my father that the position was the kind I had a 100% chance of winning against anyone; I don't believe that anymore), houdini having three pawns on the kingside as well as I; we both had a queen. Surprisingly, I still had to be a little careful. I did win, but I feel like I would probably miss something to throw away the win once in a blue moon; for instance, forgetting about houdini's Qxf2+ as I move my rook away from f2 to support my passed pawn! In any case, I cannot at all say I am certain I would win that position 1000 times out of 1000, at least against houdini.

    So I still keep the option open that there is a small possibility of any position being won or drawn by the underdog, although in some cases the percentage could be as low as 10^-30, crazy numbers like this.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #235

    AnthonyCG

    Elubas wrote:
    AnthonyCG wrote:

    It's an annoying waste of time either way. Just trap the king with a rook and end the stupid game.

    People like to think chess is like other sports where if you try hard maybe you can pull something off. Chess isn't like that. At some point you're just screwed and there's nothing you can do about it.

    As annoyingly theoretical as it may be, I don't assume there is such thing as a 100%/0% chance of anything happening. Even if there is a 100% chance of something happening, my mind is too limited to ever know if that is really the case. And I'm not talking about heart attacks during a game (although I am including temporary blind spots in our brains) or anything like that.

    I actually played a position with two rooks vs one against houdini, with me having a passed A pawn (it's a long story; actually, I was arguing with my father that the position was the kind I had a 100% chance of winning against anyone; I don't believe that anymore), houdini having three pawns on the kingside as well as I; we both had a queen. Surprisingly, I still had to be a little careful. I did win, but I feel like I would probably miss something to throw away the win once in a blue moon; for instance, forgetting about houdini's Qxf2+ as I move my rook away from f2 to support my passed pawn! In any case, I cannot at all say I am certain I would win that position 1000 times out of 1000, at least against houdini.

    So I still keep the option open that there is a small possibility of any position being won or drawn by the underdog, although in some cases the percentage could be as low as 10^-30, crazy numbers like this.

    That's great and all but it's not the same as a situation where one person has a queen and 20 pawns versus a lone king. You litteraly have no control over the course of the game. Whether the game is won or drawn depends completely on the other player. And the odds of human error occuring in such a position are too low to even bother depending on.

    Playing is just a waste of time imo. You won't comeback until hell freezes over and you can't be having fun pushing the king around with no control over your situation. So what is the point?

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #236

    gambiteer12

    A player has the right to make any legal move he pleases, whether that may be shuffling his king or promoting needlessly to minor pieces. If that annoys you, you're playing the wrong game. I'd feel much worse getting mated in 20 moves than 120.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #237

    TheGrobe

    The right, yes, but then that wasn't the question, was it?

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #238

    Elubas

    Well, that's your opinion Anthony, but not everyone views it the same way. Personally I wouldn't play those overwhelming positions on unless in a bullet game, but if someone wants to keep their opponent honest, make sure they don't over-confidently promote too many queens and eventually make a stalemate, I think that's up to them. I agree that playing on positions to the end might waste time that could have been used for something else, but some people just really enjoy the struggle, even to the point of playing on some ridiculous positions.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #239

    apsu2323

    a player playing a completely lost position is hoping for you to mess up. You must not mess up. Promote as much as you need- all of them if you like.

  • 23 months ago · Quote · #240

    patrick1286

    it really doesnt matter


Back to Top

Post your reply: