An Insult?!

In this "Pion Coiffe" or "capped pawn" (the marked pawn or piece usually wore a cap or a ring to make it always indentifiable) game Howard Staunton was required to mate with his King's Knight's pawn. Any other ending automaticaly loses for white. Pion Coiffe is considered a very large odds and generally only offered by extremely strong players to extremely weak ones. While this isn't the most elegant example of a capped pawn, it does show some of the difficulties.:

 Interesting!

In fact, by playing on a completely lost game, the loser is offending the winner.. on the other hand, the offended winner is counter-offending the loser by checkmating with a minor piece. I am getting confused now.

What was I talking about?

Then you might find this more-elegant Capped Knight game played by Max Lange equally so:

I did...thank you. I hadn't run across the notion before. Yes, that was more elegant

You're welcome.  I might be even more interensting to note that Max Lange had announced "mate in 3".

No

As my history prof said, gentlemen must have satisfaction.

  The most obvious move was 64...Qf2#, but I thought 64...Qd1# was more beautiful, as it is a pure mate.

  I didn't feel insulted when he didn't resigned, and he was a queen down in this lost endgame! So I hope he doesn't feel insulted by my choice.

  Actually, I could even choose to destroy all his pawns first, promote my owns and then checkmate. He would allways have the chance to resign and avoid this "insult".

If someone does not want to be checkmated in a particular way, all he has to do is to resign before mate... It is very simple! But if you choose to prolong a lost game, well, just watch your oponent destroy you in the way he likes.

 +1

 LOL.

So does it tick -YOU- off to get mated by a pawn or lower piece if something like a queen could have instead?

Only if he says "gg" afterwards

Thank you.  I have resigned games when I'm only down a pawn because I know that my position is untenable.  I do so out of respect for my opponent's time and  intelligence.  I'll usually ask my opponent if he/she would mind if I resigned and, if so, will sometimes request a rematch.  This way, I offer my opponent the chance to outwit me a second time rather than put him/her through the tedium of mopping me up.

If one is hoping for some epic blunder, then he/she doesn't appreciate chess in my opinion.  That's playing to win rather than delighting in a timeless game.  In this case the game might as well be tiddly winks.  The players have the mentality of dumb jocks.  There is a difference between playing a game for the joy of doing so and playing a game solely to stroke one's ego.  This is why I abhor touch-move and would prefer that my opponent take back a mistake and make the best move possible.  It ceases to be interesting otherwise. 

Personally nothing makes me feel better then pulling off a smothered mate... its so pretty.  I think that if your playing a game and see that you can be checkmated by multiple pieces you should resign. 

I also think you should out of good form checkmate in the quickest way possible.

 No, but it gives me extra enjoyment to mate someone else with a pawn. =]

Well, it's better to lose by 10 goals than lose by kicking a goal on yourself with one second on the clock.

Usually, prey don't have the luxury of choosing how they will be eaten by their predators.  They still taste the same whether nibbled on or violently ripped to shreds.

~The Doctor

Well, you have to remember that odds are given to allow players of different abilities to play together with each having a chance to win. Capped pieces are generally considered a much greater handicap than even Queen odds. So, in order for Lange to have won, his opponent, in this case Jenny von Schierstedt (gespielt zu Halle im Oct. 1856... only Lange refers to the odds as Chevalier couronné.  Lange also played Herr von Schierstedt at the same time. I thought at first they were married, but then Lange referred to Jenny as fräulein. So, I imagine they were possibly brother and sister.) Being such great odds automatically tells us Jenny (or any player receiving such odds), was not a great player and probably lacked the skill to allow the knight to mate, and, apparently, lacked the skill to prevent it.  She was probably simply making the best moves she could find.

 I think it is an admirable demonstration of efficiency to mate with the lowest-ranking piece possible.

I've also learned that chess players are an awfully sensitive lot.  Especially when they lose.