8923 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!
http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=58353408Just for fun
The queening of a pawn in a winning position should encourage the opponent to resign. After all, the opponent is playing on in the hope that you make a mistake, which is perhaps nearer to being rude as we all know how devastated we feel when we lose a winning position. However, both of these strategies are acceptable within the rules of a very fair game, so I don't see how it can be considered rude.
queening a pawn or promoting to a knight or a bishop or a rook is not rude.
Trying to claim that your opponent is being rude is rude in and of itself. If your position is that hopeless, it's called resign the game!
R-E-S-I-G-N-S Spells Relief!
It's a little different than say, LeBron James delivering the facial with an in your face slam dunk when Miami is already up by 50. It's not like the losing team can just pack up and go. They have to ride it out the entire 48 minutes.
Chess doesn't work that way. You don't like what you see. Resign!
When a position should clearly be resigned (I mean "clearly", not "Black's down a pawn, so Black should resign since a 2800 would cream him in this position), I find it rude NOT to resign, and I sometimes will PURPOSELY promote 5 pawns all to Queen, or 5 Rooks, or 5 Bishops, or whatever I feel like doing to rub in the point that he or she needs to resign!
No. This guy wins - http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=448689850
The losing team in a sport can always call it quits. What happens if they stop? Do the laws of physics change?
I generally won't rub it in to my opponent. I'll just try to win the game, in a fairly efficient manner to avoid losing too much energy. Chess naturally takes energy, and the process of winning is not the same thing as the state of most likely being able to win a position. You need that state, but you also need the alertness and energy for the execution as well in case the opponent doesn't resign.
It's sort of like how you may be certainly able to run 100 meters (just an example), but simply don't feel like it. But if you are asked to run those 100 meters, you need not just the ability, but the non-laziness to execute that ability.
Elubas does have a point. There have been many examples of someone miscalculating something in what would otherwise be a winning game. I know I've often became too comfortable in a game and missed an important, but easy to stop move.
Stalemate in a 45/45
Agreed. I usually go for the *simplest* win when someone wants to play the game to checkmate. If I ask for a computer analysis of such games, it whinges (whines, in American) and grizzles and *I don't care*. Obviously, if with a little effort I can find a mate in four rather than trade everything off and then have a long drawn out ending, I will. But if there's any chance of confusion or error, I take the simple route.
I find it odd that people I play on this site tend to want to play to completion. But perhaps they want to practice their defence, or even see an example of how to win the endgame that exists. And the practice doesn't hurt me; I've fumbled a bit on some endgames I should have know what to do with efficiently right from the word go.
One thing I _do_ tend to do when mate is 2-3 moves out and the opponents moves are forced is put in conditional moves. Which I intend as a gentle hint that "Hey, you were *so* lost you could have resigned."
But people are allowed to play to completion, and I learned a lesson the day I blundered and put my nephew into stalemate. I'm very careful about that now!
suppose you are playing a cheat and it's 2 moves from checkmate, you're getting thrashed but your opponent gets booted before the mate, would you have felt thick for resigning too early ?
First i would want him back to give him the whuppin he deserves. 2nd i would want to do it again. 3rd i repeat first 2 previosly mentioned. 4th i would forget that game so quick as it meant nothing. 5th is what i take on those type of situations.
and the 6th ?
(just in case it might make any sense)
This reminds me of this game. There are several ways to mate here. Free members get only one line, so I went with the most forcing one just for the conditional moves. This starts a couple of moves ahead because I thought the black was clever with Ke7, tempting b8=Q??, giving them a stalemate.
This game also uses promotion when already ahead!
WOW, a lot of CHEATERS!
by kco a few minutes ago
Playing Online chess with those "unrated" newish accounts
by i_r_n00b a few minutes ago
WANG HAO BEATS CARLSEN AND ANAND
by geoffalford 2 minutes ago
Draw w/ K+Q vs K?
by CyroForm 2 minutes ago
5/18/2013 - Mate in 4
by Starter4 4 minutes ago
Funny Najdorf Trap
by learningthemoves 6 minutes ago
A Move So Brilliant Only A "Program" Could Have Played It
by shoopi 9 minutes ago
why do people stall when they are losing?
by Jenium 12 minutes ago
by Elizabeth_Teri_Baker 16 minutes ago
Need Help Getting Kids To Take Chess SERIOUSLY...
by Conflagration_Planet 18 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com