Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

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


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #201

    AnthonyCG

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 2 years ago · Quote · #202

    ab121705

    AnthonyCG wrote:
    waffllemaster wrote:

    Heh, this is funny.  Joeydvivre is right, 1 in 100 billion is a fair estimate.  A piece down vs a GM (no compensation)?  It's hard to make a comparison.  It's not like surviving a 100 foot fall, more like surviving jumping into an erupting volcano...

    You have to believeeeeeeeeee!!!!

    hmm. did not know this referred to GMs; I doubt I will ever have the oppty to play one

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #203

    MattMcan

    So joey, just to make things clear..  My statement of "But I'd estimate the chances for a win (closer) to 1 in 1,000 for good opponents of equal skill" is fantastically wrong.. Which means that there aren't 1 in 49,000,000,000 Grandmaster level games (basically ever in recorded chess history) where a Grandmaster resigned a won position a piece down?   Because that's what you just said in case you weren't aware...

    Maybe if you'd like to bring science into it you'd prefer to be more precise?  If we're going to argue about our ballparks I think I'll still manage to come out ahead.

    That was never my point though.  My point was only that many a game has been resigned in otherwise winnable situations due to the propriety of chess politeness.. I think that's unfortunate.

    I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so antagonistic.. But I've got nothing against you.  I'm sure you're a smart player, I wish you were a little more friendly though.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #204

    FirebrandX

    MattMcan wrote:
     My point was only that many a game has been resigned in otherwise winnable situations due to the propriety of chess politeness.. I think that's unfortunate.


    I always thought people resigned because they couldn't see a way to save the game. People (not even GMs) don't give up so easily just because they are down material. They resign because they evaluate the situation as hopeless. If it turns out they were technically wrong, that doesn't specifically mean they would have been able to find the solution on the board. They already tried and gave up. It's the same as blundering. I've resigned drawable endings before, but my resignation wasn't because I wanted to be polite.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #205

    MattMcan

    FirebrandX wrote:
    MattMcan wrote:
     My point was only that many a game has been resigned in otherwise winnable situations due to the propriety of chess politeness.. I think that's unfortunate.


    I always thought people resigned because they couldn't see a way to save the game. People (not even GMs) don't give up so easily just because they are down material. They resign because they evaluate the situation as hopeless. If it turns out they were technically wrong, that doesn't specifically mean they would have been able to find the solution on the board. They already tried and gave up. It's the same as blundering. I've resigned drawable endings before, but my resignation wasn't because I wanted to be polite.

    Fair enough.  But is the situation hopeless under what one might consider perfect play, or hopeless regardless? 

    While I don't think one should base their moves on hoping the opponent doesn't see the flaw in the plan, I also don't feel people should assume the opponent will play perfect and necessarily see what you see.

    There are situations where I agree with most.. A grandmaster just isn't going to mess up when play is down to 6 pieces and he's up a minor piece.. It's just not going to happen.. I personally think there's still room for error in the middle game though, be it overlooking a forced mate or hanging a piece, it happens even to grandmasters.

    However even if it's KQ vs K which is probably drilled into all of our heads so that we could do it blindfolded, half asleep, with two hands behind our back.  What's the harm in playing it out.. Definitively lost games play out quickly.  More than a few people would find that rude though.  It would be as if you were saying "You're an amateur".   I've known a few people who would get REALLY worked up over something like that..  Honestly though, I'd still prefer to play it out.. Not because I want practice on my K+Q vs K endgames, or because I think my opponent is going to mess up.. But simply because I prefer the sense of closure checkmate brings.. It's an aesthetic thing for me more than anything else..  At least it is when it's fairly obvious to me who's going to win.

    But I have personally felt the social pressure from similiar situations. I've even resigned out of "Politeness" when I felt there was at least a decent chance of drawing and would have preferred to play on and would have meant no disrespect in doing so.  It bothered me that my only choices were to bow to a social convention I feel is silly, or infuriate someone essentially because that social convention is in place.

    I think there are plenty of valid reasons to resign, but lacking a good reason.. Why not just play on, even in a losing position.  Who does it hurt, other than an ego based on silly convention..  Again though, if you're tired, it's late, or you just don't want to.. That's fine.. I just don't think it should be expected.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #206

    browni3141

    I don't like playing out lost games. When the position is so bad that I have no plan to follow and I might as well make random moves, then I'm not playing chess anymore. I prefer to resign before that happens.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #207

    MattMcan

    browni3141 wrote:

    I don't like playing out lost games. When the position is so bad that I have no plan to follow and I might as well make random moves, then I'm not playing chess anymore. I prefer to resign before that happens.

    I think that's absolutely fair, no one should expect you to play out a game you've no interest in..   Would you feel offended if your opponent did want to play out a game he was losing though?  Because a lot of people would. 

    It seems to me there's always a plan though, even if it's limited to playing for a draw with a depth of 1 move.

    Honestly I've preferred the few times I've managed to wring a draw out of a loss more than when I've won with a standard King Pawn endgame.  It felt more like a win, even though it wasn't.  But I imagine everyone's different, I would never begrudge anyone else to play as they chose.. I just wish the same held true Universally.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #208

    waffllemaster

    AnthonyCG wrote:
    waffllemaster wrote:

    Heh, this is funny.  Joeydvivre is right, 1 in 100 billion is a fair estimate.  A piece down vs a GM (no compensation)?  It's hard to make a comparison.  It's not like surviving a 100 foot fall, more like surviving jumping into an erupting volcano...

    You have to believeeeeeeeeee!!!!

     

    Wow, cool :)

    But now show it going into a volcano Laughing

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #209

    waffllemaster

    MattMcan wrote:
    FirebrandX wrote:
    MattMcan wrote:
     My point was only that many a game has been resigned in otherwise winnable situations due to the propriety of chess politeness.. I think that's unfortunate.


    I always thought people resigned because they couldn't see a way to save the game. People (not even GMs) don't give up so easily just because they are down material. They resign because they evaluate the situation as hopeless. If it turns out they were technically wrong, that doesn't specifically mean they would have been able to find the solution on the board. They already tried and gave up. It's the same as blundering. I've resigned drawable endings before, but my resignation wasn't because I wanted to be polite.

    Fair enough.  But is the situation hopeless under what one might consider perfect play, or hopeless regardless? 

    While I don't think one should base their moves on hoping the opponent doesn't see the flaw in the plan, I also don't feel people should assume the opponent will play perfect and necessarily see what you see.

    There are situations where I agree with most.. A grandmaster just isn't going to mess up when play is down to 6 pieces and he's up a minor piece.. It's just not going to happen.. I personally think there's still room for error in the middle game though, be it overlooking a forced mate or hanging a piece, it happens even to grandmasters.

    However even if it's KQ vs K which is probably drilled into all of our heads so that we could do it blindfolded, half asleep, with two hands behind our back.  What's the harm in playing it out.. Definitively lost games play out quickly.  More than a few people would find that rude though.  It would be as if you were saying "You're an amateur".   I've known a few people who would get REALLY worked up over something like that..  Honestly though, I'd still prefer to play it out.. Not because I want practice on my K+Q vs K endgames, or because I think my opponent is going to mess up.. But simply because I prefer the sense of closure checkmate brings.. It's an aesthetic thing for me more than anything else..  At least it is when it's fairly obvious to me who's going to win.

    But I have personally felt the social pressure from similiar situations. I've even resigned out of "Politeness" when I felt there was at least a decent chance of drawing and would have preferred to play on and would have meant no disrespect in doing so.  It bothered me that my only choices were to bow to a social convention I feel is silly, or infuriate someone essentially because that social convention is in place.

    I think there are plenty of valid reasons to resign, but lacking a good reason.. Why not just play on, even in a losing position.  Who does it hurt, other than an ego based on silly convention..  Again though, if you're tired, it's late, or you just don't want to.. That's fine.. I just don't think it should be expected.

    Have you ever seen a grandmaster game? ... not trying to be rude, I just mean they resign pretty late as a rule, especially in important games (they're in the running for money / a title).

    It's fine to play out a "pointlessly" lost game like K+R vs K.  Once someone's done it enough times, and their peers are obviously good enough to not mess it up, people (generally) don't feel the need to see it anymore and will resign.

    If someone is something like 1400 (USCF) and still insists on playing out K+R vs K against their peers though, I'd have to wonder what kind of OCD they might have that doesn't let them resign a clearly lost game heh.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #210

    ClavierCavalier

    I'm not sure it's rude, but I played a game where my opponent decided to promote a bunch of pawns.  I kept playing because I would have had a stalemate if they captured the pawn I used to put them in check, which they didn't fall for.  Since they made it clear they were going to promote all their pawns instead of getting the quick, and I've come to realize that the chances of stalemate seem to be more when you have a bunch of queens against a lone king, I continued playing.  They then ended up chasing the king all over the board with their queens like they couldn't figure out how to get a checkmate.

    Something like this.  It was several months ago so the game is lost, but it was similar to this, and I'm not exaggerating about it.  I remember the computer analysis went crazy over all the missed mates.



  • 2 years ago · Quote · #211

    FirebrandX

    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.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #212

    netzach

    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.

    I received that advice before (from good-player) promote to rooks to prevent stalemate so well said.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #213

    cookiemonster161140

    netzach wrote:
    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.

    I received that advice before (from good-player) promote to rooks to prevent stalemate so well said.

    rooks reduce the chance of a stalemate but does not eliminate the possibility. 

    I like to underpromote sometimes in those circumstance...because you never know when you might need to checkmate someone with 6 Bishops in real life.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #214

    DazedKnight

    To quote Bobby Fischer, "I like the moment when I break a man's ego."

    Promote all your pawns if you can.

    :)

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #215

    yourChess

    I think that the circumstances are true that if you promote when you are ahead is not rude.I have been a dumb player and promote so i got stalemate.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #216

    ponz111

    There ius nothing wrong with not promoting to a queen--I have had a couple of games lately where it was absolutely essential to promote to a N.

    In games where  you are way ahead and your opponent will not resign  and you have plenty of time and want to try and make a point--then go ahead and under promote.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #217

    chapablanca2000

    I just wonder when it became acceptable (or even encouraged, according to some posts) to play a rook-down endgame all the way out to mate. In my day (here I go), a player learned the basic checkmates very early in his or her career, and so it was assumed that every club level player knew how to win a piece up. And you NEVER saw a master-level game, even one given in an instructional book like Chess Master Vs. Chess Amateur, where the weaker side kept playing even when he was down a piece. So what is it with these chess coaches telling their pupils to NEVER resign? A pox upon them, I say. 

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #218

    JariIkonen

    Promote pawns until you have a full set again and then practice mating with 2 bishops. or 3 knights. =D

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #219

    Chessking47

    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" ?  

    I agree, and Chesscube has a doubling cube in... TOURNAMENTS

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #220

    1RedKnight99

    I don't think it's rude. If it's the quickest way to mate, do it.


Back to Top

Post your reply: