8741 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!
In a just-completed game, I (playing black) achieved a King and Pawn vs. King endgame, with my pawn safely passed and ready to promote. There was no danger of a stalemate should I rush to promote to a Queen, but nevertheless, I promoted instead to a Rook.
My reasons were two-fold. First, I felt like having some practice with my endgame, to quickly and economically achieve checkmate with less than the "best" piece. Also, my opponent was playing on, so I inferred that maybe he or she also might want some practice in eluding checkmate, or simply figured I might blunder into a stalemate at some point.
Second, I was (by under-promoting) trying to send a message that . . . yes . . . I can finish this game without a Queen, so if you want to resign, go ahead.
The reason for this post is to gather some input from other players. Do you find it rude if someone under-promotes to drag a game out for extra moves? Because it was not my intent to be rude. Do you see it as a Tactic, to try to "earn" a checkmate with less-than-the-best material? Or do you see it as what it was, at its core -- a chance for an opponent to "see the light" and just resign, for an opponent to take the opportunity to say to him/or herself: "This game is over, he can obviously checkmate me with no trouble or else he would have gone ahead and got a Queen"?
Your thoughts would be welcome, and in advance -- thank you for your imput.
I dont think it's rude to play a legal move. And you don't have to justify it to anyone, least of all your opponent. He always has the option to resign a lost game.
Not rude, fun.
What I find weird is occasionally playing someone who starts purposefully throwing away every piece he can as soon as he realizes he is lost. Not in a desperate-sacrifice-to-get-counterplay kind of way... but seemingly just trying to delegitimize the entire game.
Thanks to everyone who has so far responded to my post.
I think that was a delightful story, Paramedic. Instead of saying "checkmate" you just say "beam me up" -- cool new strategy!
Jamie, I am thinking that such a desperate throwing away of pieces was probably to either a) get you complacent and then perhaps sloppy, or b) was an effort to achieve a position where he might get a stalemate.
Or perhaps he should simply not be allowed around sharp objects.
I once played a game where my opponent had me beaten but was behind on time so I continued to play on. He under promoted many pieces to bishops and knights. I wasn't insulted, in fact it was kinda fun. (I will only resign if checkmate is imminent or I am clearly outclassed-which happens more than I like ;)
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
by dragonair234 a few minutes ago
5/18/2013 - Mate in 4
by Spartan_Titans 3 minutes ago
The Norwegian Super Tournament!
by fabelhaft 6 minutes ago
any Fritz 12 portable user there?
by ALISHA_A 6 minutes ago
Solve this Riddle if you can
by viper10091009 9 minutes ago
by Doggy_Style 10 minutes ago
We need more amateurs to post their annotated games.
by LoekBergman 12 minutes ago
Study Partner for "My System" by Nimzowitsch
by reflectivist 16 minutes ago
Conclusions of my research
by LongIslandMark 23 minutes ago
Opening explorer should be "washed"
by Stigmatisert 25 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com