wagrro> surely if a player feels that their opponent is in such a weak position that they should resign , then the game could be finished off fairly quickly
Not at all. As one gets stronger, one sees victory farther and farther in advance, and the only type of opponent that I gripe about is the sort that knows they are lost, but then plays very slowly to drag out the game as long as possible.
Not at all. As one gets stronger, one sees victory farther and farther in advance, and the only type of opponent that I gripe about is the sort that knows they are lost, but also plays slowly to drag out the game as long as possible.
i totally agree with this gripe - suddenly stretching out you play to max allowed time, when up until a point you played at a much quicker pace, indicates bad sportmanship in my opinion, but if you keep up your average pace you can fight on to the end
i find that some people like to resign when 1 move away from checkmate
I hope you don't find any problem with that. I do it all the time - usually more than 1 move from checkmate - as long as it can be forced, there is really no point in continuing to play. Same goes for forced draws.
And the reason people keep playing in lost positions is that you'll forget to move, and they'll end up winning on time.
Sometimes people say that they will not play a person who doesn't resign but I will not play a person who asks for resigning. It annnoys me when someone saids the game is over. resign!!
no problem - i find any reasonable play acceptable and enjoyable - whether we/they resign or play on at the same pace
to likesforests > wish you success in the world open 2008 tournament, please give us some feedback once you've finished ( or even during ) the tournament
Since you're a National Master, I obviously owe your knowledge of the game some respect. Let me suggest this to broaden the meaning of your statement: A good player who can clearly comprehend the direction of the game towards his defeat has nothing further to gain from the game, and therefore resigns. A junior player has ample amount to learn from losing a game and continues to play.
With my 1350 rating, I sometimes continue playing games against higher rated players because I'm learning even in defeat. Frankly, when I begin a game against a 1500+ rated player I already know I'm going to lose. If I'm to resign as soon as I lose my queen, then I shouldn't have bothered starting to play the game in the first place. And I do resign, once I can clearly see the direct path towards my defeat. But I don't resign immediately upon falling into disadvantage.
With a 1350 rating, I'm obviously not terribly good. But I can still butcher someone with a 1000 rating. And when they're refusing to resign, the game can still be fun for me too, because I can challenge myself. I can try some tactic that I'm not thoroughly comfortable with and see if I still win. I can challenge myself to mate my weaker opponent in an aggressive number of moves. Even though the win may be a foregone conclusion, there's plenty of other ways to enjoy the game!
There are venues for higher-rated players where chess becomes more business than game. But chess.com clearly isn't one of those. Enjoy the game!
I agree with bvangunten, but I have to comment on the kind of comment as above. It has been debated many times before, but... This is so extremely silly! "Insulted"!? When someone is so easily insulted, there's something he/she is hiding...
Truly, someone with sufficient selfesteem and confidence would not be insulted in any chess situation. Masters are only human and can be as childish as anyone of us, bad losers, bad winners (apparently)...
The "insult" would consist of the opponent wasting your precious time on the game? Or perhaps, it's an insult that your opponent hopes for you to make a blunder that would give a draw, or even a sudden and unexpected loss? Because - this is how I reccon you consider yourself - you don't do blunders, right? At least not against those with a lower rating... To believe that you may make a blunder - that's the disrespectful insult against your authority? How old-fashioned... Or perhaps, considering your lack of confidence, you're afraid of actually DOING that blunder and lose against a low rated player that you were going to beat? That would look bad in you record, right? Exposing you to that risk is the insult, perhaps? With real confidence, you would just lean back, smile, and as bvangunten said, challenge yourself in winning as fast or cleverly as possible.
If you are sensitive to the diversity of human social behaviour, people who don't follow your preferred codes of conduct, maybe you should play more computers...
Just a side note. In blitz here there is glitch. Say you have only your king and your opponent has king and knight. In blitz on chess.com it does not matter if the opponent does not have mating matieral he or she can still win on time. Obvioulsy once an opponent is down to only a knight it is a draw no matter what the time and in blitz on other sites and over the board I think that is standard practice. Thats not the case here. No big deal - just kind of annoying if you dont know beforehand. I guess the funniest would be the game getting down to two lone kings and one player still winning on time. Lol.
This is kind of a repeat post, but I think that the rule about insufficient losing chances should be in play if the player has little time.
Uuuuuhhhh, Chawil? A lot of chess players believe that finishing your game is courteous. Also, it is good to play on, because your opponent might stalemate you. And making your opponent run out of time isn't wrong. If you can't play blitz without running out of time, don't play blitz. It's simple logic.
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.