I do find it odd that someone who wants the game to end (via their opponent's resignation) would spitefully drag it out like this.
I also find it amusing when the hanger-on actually does get stalemated and steals the half-point.
Take these opportunities to practice your efficiency -- finish your non-resigining opponent off as quickly and efficiently as you can.
I do find it odd that someone who wants the game to end (via their opponent's resignation) would spitefully drag it out like this.
I also find it amusing when the hanger-on actually does get stalemated and steals the half-point.
Take these opportunities to practice your efficiency -- finish your non-resigining opponent off as quickly and efficiently as you can.
The onus is not on the clear winner to practice his efficiency - after a point it becomes so ridiculous that the lesson to be gained becomes more important. I'd be more happy if this game was still going on...
If he wants to keep playing he shouldn't complain. He especially shouldn't post this and call it bad sportsmanship. Lay off him? Not a chance.
It is not your place to tell him what he "should" and "should not" do.
Attitudes like yours only alienate players and discourage them from playing on.
Chess is one of the few sports/games where a player can just "give up" or "concede." It takes experience to learn when to do this, even when faced with a situation that, to a more experienced player, is an obvious lost position.
Let him learn and, if you encounter a player like him, finish him ASAP.
I do find it odd that someone who wants the game to end (via their opponent's resignation) would spitefully drag it out like this.
I also find it amusing when the hanger-on actually does get stalemated and steals the half-point.
Take these opportunities to practice your efficiency -- finish your non-resigining opponent off as quickly and efficiently as you can.
The onus is not on the clear winner to practice his efficiency - after a point it becomes so ridiculous that the lesson to be gained becomes more important. I'd be more happy if this game was still going on...
The onus is also not on the clear winner to teach a lesson. I was merely suggesting a more adult way to go about it, and one that acheives the result the winner is after in the first place.
If he wants to keep playing he shouldn't complain. He especially shouldn't post this and call it bad sportsmanship. Lay off him? Not a chance.
It is not your place to tell him what he "should" and "should not" do.
Attitudes like yours only alienate players and discourage them from playing on.
Chess is one of the few sports/games where a player can just "give up" or "concede." It takes experience to learn when to do this, even when faced with a situation that, to a more experienced player, is an obvious lost position.
Let him learn and, if you encounter a player like him, finish him ASAP.
Wrong. His playing on is his discretion. No one was preventing him from hitting the resign button, and the stalemate hope is silly.
If you encounter a player like him, punish him. Promote to knights, torment incessantly. "It takes experience to learn to do this"? This is that experience.
If he is meant to be learning, then yes it IS my place to tell him what he should and should not do.
In cases like this you "learn" from experience over the chess board (i.e. being faced with hundreds of losing positions and learning when to resign).
He does not need to learn via a 1700 level chess.com player who tells him to resign.
You do not learn to stop a car by someone telling you how, you learn from the experience of driving.
Some beginners play on in order to see how certain endings are successfully converted by their opponent. If you're truly interested in teaching them, then in these cases you've actually denied them the lesson they were seeking.
WoW...wish I could do that once in a while...
If he is meant to be learning, then yes it IS my place to tell him what he should and should not do.
In cases like this you "learn" from experience over the chess board (i.e. being faced with hundreds of losing positions and learning when to resign).
He does not need to learn via a 1700 level chess.com player who tells him to resign.
You do not learn to stop a car by someone telling you how, you learn from the experience of driving.
No, it's not like you have a DRIVING INSTRUCTOR or anything is it...
You are not qualified to be a "driving instructer" my friend. Neither am I, at this point, but I am not telling him how to play HIS game.
You do not learn to stop a car by someone telling you how, you learn from the experience of driving.
ummm... really? I don't recall "the experience of driving" telling me to hit the brake - that would have been my dad, actually.
The notion that you're motivation is to teach them is disingenuous anyway, and is a thin veil for the real driver: Spite -- pure and simple.
Well My coach(IM David Ross) Tells me to never resign no matter what the position is. I think I will Listen to the International Master Than you guys.
You show him this game and he might expel you 
out loud.
If he is meant to be learning, then yes it IS my place to tell him what he should and should not do.
In cases like this you "learn" from experience over the chess board (i.e. being faced with hundreds of losing positions and learning when to resign).
He does not need to learn via a 1700 level chess.com player who tells him to resign.
You do not learn to stop a car by someone telling you how, you learn from the experience of driving.
No, it's not like you have a DRIVING INSTRUCTOR or anything is it...
You are not qualified to be a "driving instructer" my friend. Neither am I, at this point, but I am not telling him how to play HIS game.
Yes I am, actually. I know how to play, like most of the club level players on this site. So I am in a perfectly good position to instruct. And for the record, I'm not your friend.
Sorry But I would never take ANY kind of instruction with someone that has "Rainbow" in his name.
If he is meant to be learning, then yes it IS my place to tell him what he should and should not do.
In cases like this you "learn" from experience over the chess board (i.e. being faced with hundreds of losing positions and learning when to resign).
He does not need to learn via a 1700 level chess.com player who tells him to resign.
You do not learn to stop a car by someone telling you how, you learn from the experience of driving.
No, it's not like you have a DRIVING INSTRUCTOR or anything is it...
You are not qualified to be a "driving instructer" my friend. Neither am I, at this point, but I am not telling him how to play HIS game.
Yes I am, actually. I know how to play, like most of the club level players on this site. So I am in a perfectly good position to instruct. And for the record, I'm not your friend.
Got it man.
And, as an added bonus, you may have the last word.
Cheers.
The notion that you're motivation is to teach them is disingenuous anyway, and is a thin veil for the real driver: Spite -- pure and simple.
As it should be. Your "more adult" properness is boring. I'm glad you'd be such a chess gentleman.
HE called the other player rude. HE made this thread. HE is in the wrong.
I'm glad that someone demonstated with increased tedium how tedious the "I shall not resign ever" position is.
Fortunately there are people out there that will.
Beginners who don't listen and think they know better than the guy who's been playing seriously for years or decades should be ignored. A good kick in the ass maybe.
if you have a chess coach, it's probably a good idea to follow his advice. on the other hand, if you ask him about this game, it's unlikely that he'll tell you that your opponent was being a bad sport...
most experienced players find the phase of a game once the result is "decided" to be boring. the threshhold of boredom varies from an advantage of 2 pawns, to an advantage of a minor piece, to an advantage of a rook or queen. if both players are bored, then the player who prolongs the game is (in my opinion) being rude. if, however, the losing player does not have the experience to know how to win easily with 3 queens, then they are entitled to keep playing in order to see it. unfortunately it'll be boring for their opponent.
when i was younger, there was a scholastic chess team that had a rule that they could not resign. these were players from 1600-2200 uscf! so they were strong enough that it was pretty clear they were wasting their time and my time. in order to give them negative feedback for their poor sportsmanship, i would torture them, including resetting my entire backrank with promoted 2r, 2n, 2b, q. this in fact worked out well when finally one member of this team violated their protocal and resigned on move 20 at a national championship, giving me some much appreciated rest before the next game!
re the question about mating with knights: 3 is sufficient for delivering mate. but 6 was very pretty :-)
My favorite thing to do in positions like this to sac everything except a bishop and night and mate that way.
If my time is going to be wasted, I would at least like to practice something interesting.
And as far as the driving analogy goes, someone always tells the prospective driver what the pedals do before the first time he/she gets behind the wheel.
Boo, red sox!
Only kidding, I wouldn't know a Red Sox if I hit it with my car.