No
An Insult?!
Sort:
Sure, anyone can mate with a queen and a rook or two rooks. Those are the first mates you learn. However, it takes real planning to checkmate someone with just a knight or a pawn(gaurded by something of course).
No, usually I would not play to mate anyway, unless it is in a blitz game
Oct 31, 2010
0
#6
Oh, no! Another issue for people with soft toes to feel offended about. Some of the folk on chess.com can already barely keep track of all the offending behavior committed against them by their opponents.
A checkmate is a checkmate, for cryen out loud!!!!!!!! Anybody who gets offended by being checkmated by a lower peice is missing several screws.
smiley15 wrote:
Wow, 3 posts that are only 'no's. One even has an exclamation mark! Ten Points!
Anyway, does it honestly matter? That was 4 decades ago when Garry Kasparov was 7. The world was crazy then.
You're right. That was the age when huge carrots ruled the world.
being checkmated is itself a insult whether it is by a queen or a pawn. its like losing a soccer match by 1 goal difference or by a 10 goal difference. losing is losing and it is in your opponents hand dat hw he/she wil defeat you.
This is indeed a strange topic. I can imagine two players both thinking that the other person shows bad behavior. The first person is offended because the second one didn't resign before check mate, the second person is offended because the first one check mated with the wrong piece. What will the next thing be? Someone being offended because his opponent played the wrong opening considering that to be rude behavior. Or someone being offended because the second one didn't accept a draw offer despite that the second person had a winning position?
I actually did once encounter a player who was offended because I didn't accept his draw offer. It happened after a combination that enabled me to win a pawn and maintain the best position. Right after I won the pawn he offered draw. Of course I declined it. As a result he started making rude remarks. Obviously he was the one being rude. Well, that was certainly a weird experience. This is one of the very rare times I met a player who was rude; as a matter of fact I can't right now remember any other player who has been rude. So in my experience the vast majority of players have an excellent behavior.
Since pawn or minor piece mates are usually harder to perform, I like them more, especially if there is a major piece sacrifice involved. And if you are on opposing side, you can easily stop it by resigning earlier.
I don't think there's anything wrong with spicing up a win. As for the losing side, they must choose between resignation and a loss by whichever route the opponent chooses.
no
It is insulting when people checkmate me with any of their pieces.
ivandh wrote:
It is insulting when people checkmate me with any of their pieces.
Haha. i agree. but I think people feel that when you smother mate them, or checkmate them with a pawn or something, they feel that they aren't good enough because you checkmated them so easily. They feel inept. I sometimes prefer the more intricate mate when the decision appears, because it makes me feel like a freakin genious. Some people just have to rub it in.
If I get mated, I prefer that it is a mate consisting of interesting minor pieces or an interesting tactical position. Of course, I prefer not to be mated...
Nov 1, 2010
0
#17
Estragon wrote:
If you're in a position where the opponent has a choice of pieces with which to mate you, and yet playing on, it would seem you are beyond the sting of insult.
darkhorse00 wrote:
being checkmated is itself a insult whether it is by a queen or a pawn. its like losing a soccer match by 1 goal difference or by a 10 goal difference. losing is losing and it is in your opponents hand dat hw he/she wil defeat you.
This made me laugh until I coughed up blood....maybe I should see a doctor....but I have a move to make....maybe I will see a doctor later.
Can't blame a person for selecting the more aesthetically pleasing mate. I would do the same.
Mates with pawns are aesthetically pleasing.
Just found out, from this 1970s chess article, that supposedly it is "rude", if one were in a position to mate with multiple pieces, to select mate with the lowest ranking of said piece selection. Then it reminded me of BattleChess, where when you mate with a pawn, it's completely lack-luster, vs. say a rook/queen. I remember the bishop/knight type mates were mediocre, but definitely the pawns were lowly in graphics compared.
So does it tick -YOU- off to get mated by a pawn or lower piece if something like a queen could have instead?