Mating with a pawn is extremely hilarious whether it happens to the opponent or to you. At least I think it is. Seriously though, taking a game that seriously is not going to add years to your life. Laugh it off and try not to let it happen again, unless you are the one doing it.
An Insult?!
Sort:
Feeling insulted ? No ! On the contrary, I enjoy when my opponent finds the most noble way to mate... That's part of the beauty in chess :)
If one is able to achieve mate on his opponents using pawns, or even by smothering them, he or she has likely done something intricate that requires some deep thinking. So kudo's! I have achieved mate a few times in my life ths way and it is very satisfying in a way that mating with Queen and Rook isn't (though I will gladly go for mate any way I can).
BlueKnightShade wrote:
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.
Was it me?
Jumpin' on the revive bandwagon because I missed this thread the first time. My contribution:
Well, I couldn't mate with a "variety of pieces", but I think this counts as an insult.
It's only rude if the opponent makes his piece do a slow, "dancy" move to the square, and then makes it "hop" up and down on your toppled king. Not that I'm speaking from experience. Much.
Dec 10, 2010
0
#48
woodshover wrote:
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.
bobby fisher is a stick, no carrot.
Dec 10, 2010
0
#49
Whenever someone insults me by a smotherd mate by choice I demand a battle of life and death.
I've killed 3 chess players for that.
Frankly I've never paid any attention to what I am checkmating with, or being checkmated by.
Dec 10, 2010
0
#51
sumosanta wrote:
Mating with a pawn is extremely hilarious whether it happens to the opponent or to you. At least I think it is. Seriously though, taking a game that seriously is not going to add years to your life. Laugh it off and try not to let it happen again, unless you are the one doing it.
I agree! One of the reasons I enjoy playing chess is to see such things happen. The unexpected is most delightful.
Dec 10, 2010
0
#52
Azukikuru wrote:
Jumpin' on the revive bandwagon because I missed this thread the first time. My contribution:
Well, I couldn't mate with a "variety of pieces", but I think this counts as an insult.
I wouldn't consider that an insult if I had been Black. Good for you! Such mates make chess intriguing to me.
Dec 10, 2010
0
#53
batgirl wrote:
Then you might find this more-elegant Capped Knight game played by Max Lange equally so:
Amazing!
A mate's a mate mate. so who cares how it's done. Anyway, I'm full of sour grapes.
Dec 10, 2010
0
#55
chompman2 wrote:
A mate's a mate mate. so who cares how it's done. Anyway, I'm full of sour grapes.
You need to change your diet.
I believe that even promoting multiple queens can not be consider an ofense.Yes, if we do it we are unecessarly prolonging a game, but we must remember that the losing side can stop the game whenever he wants, by resigning. In some way, the losing side is making it longer too.
How can someone complain that the oponent is unecessarly prolonging a game if they are doing it too?
Both actions are a waste of time.
Fezzik
We have a similar saying: um erro não justifica outro (a mistake doens't justify another one)
But I do not believe those behaviors are necessarly wrong.
It is a matter of personal preferences and culture, but I believe coerence is needed.
By not resigning they showed they don't think it is rude to prolong the game. So they have to be coerent and accept useless moves from the other side too.
DC-poc wrote:
batgirl wrote:
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.:
Why didn't black just take the Kings Knights Pawn then?
Because they were not good enough to do this.
If they were not so incompetent in chess white would never give them such an advantage.
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.
Well, it's better to lose by 10 goals than lose by kicking a goal on yourself with one second on the clock.
It is not true in championships where goal difference is used as a tie break.