Wanton Destruction!

More Won Ton Destruction:

Nice games Emu

Not particularly sound play, but the title of the thread is Wanton Destruction... so they would seem to qualify.

The opponent I played in this game (whom I have beaten twice out of two games) does not know when to resign.  In the actual game I just ran his king around the board (while he was probably hoping for a stalemate) until he ran out of time...Why?  Because I felt like it! :P  The checkmate at the end I added just for fun's sake :D  My opponent has been blocked seeing as this is the second time he's done this and then asked for a rematch.  Here is the game.

Computers never resign and I have terrible time management in 5-minute blitz  (so terrible that I don't risk playing humans there so far), so the destruction took 30 moves instead of 15 (I failed to deliver # in 3 ).

A funny thing is that the rematch lasted for only 4 moves, as the computer caught me premoving the Sniper Defence played against almost any 3 first White's moves - 1. e4 g6 2. Qf3?! Bg7 3. Bc4!? c5?? 4. Qxf7# 

I love wontons.

@coon74: 16. Bf4+

Yeah, I know I missed a ton of faster mates all the way, but I had 1.5-2 minutes on the clock already and didn't think on moves for more than a few seconds. And I don't have fast pattern recognition ironed out. I just didn't look at the whole board at move 16, was thinking about bringing the other rook in fast.

Just to finish the topic off, let's see how the comp improved its anti-Reti game in a rematch  (again, a 5-minute blunderfest from both sides; however, 19. Nc7+ wasn't a blunder, it was a correct clearance sac ; however, 21. Bb6? was a trappy blunder - 21... Nc3 was better, while 21. Qa4+ led to a forced mate; also, I have no idea why I played 11. Nc7+ first instead of 11. Rg1, allowing Black to grab an extra knight in the Kd8 Rg1 Qxg1+ line).

Ever since this thread was started, I've been thinking of changing my user name to WontonDestruction. I'll always think of this now when I have an opponent who should resign, but instead allows me to keep pounding on them.

Here is a 5/0 game. I don't usually analyze these. However, I did go in and add some comments to this one to describe my plans and what I was thinking.

Nom nom nom!

Wu, have you had a chance to check out Post #51? It's probably the most "random" game I've ever played.

Hahahahahahah!

Imma say this one qualifies because it ends with an unbroken series of checks and takes. Not a brilliancy, but just goes to show that if you're playing neck-and-neck position-wise with someone in the endgame, you had better check check check check and keep checking. My opponent's error I believe was to not find a way to keep checking me, especially with an king in the open, allowing me to go on a final tear. Wontons!

Here's the computer analysis of the above game. Interesting.

Here is an example where the willingness (out of boredom? spite? whimsy?) of my opponent to go pound-for-pound in exchanges leads to a very poor pawn structure, a hung queen, and a rapid mate. Wanton destruction!

"tend to be annihilated by mysterious alien artefacts" Hahaha! :)

It's a happy ab negativa keeping with this thread: 24. (resigns) is a proper (albeit perhaps slightly late, but not too late of a) move. Nice! Esp. 23... Qf1f4. Talk about visually dense notation.

Here's a question regarding the whole resignation thing: at what point is or is not resigning a purely "go-for-the-goad" move? I.e., so you've played on a few moves just to check that your opponent hadn't simply blundered into crushing whatever blunder you made so that really you should resign but you were just checking so ok, NOW: do you keep playing on the cringe-inducing hopes that your opponent after having pierced you will make some even greater blunder late late in the game, or just respectfully resign and ask for a rematch? Which do you choose? Which do people choose?