You should always aim for the quickest & most efficient 'kill'. That's a mark of your skill as a player - anything else is just childish!
heh, heh--this just keeps popping up on the hot topics list. i agree with you wholeheartedly as i posted yesterday. but be careful using words like "always" or you'll have responders like ponz111 getting on you about absolutes etc. i don't know why he would go through all this trouble to defend what is clearly bad form every time. but let's give him the benefit of the doubt. by his post #26, i don't think he fully understood the original poster's question.
As far as I'm concerned, do whatever you want, it's your time.
But you risk not so much stalemate than accidentally falling back in a drawish position - except for dead won ones, where I have no sympathy for the other player.
Lots of laughs you should use extra brain atoms to aim for the quickest and most efficient kill. Sorry but in some posiions it makes little sense to do that. Usually an abolute statement is a sign of not knowing alternatives.
again, you don't seem to understand the original point which was: if you already see a mate in a few moves, is it bad form/poor sportsmanship to traipse around the board taking everything instead of going for the quick mate which you've already figured out. and MY answer is: absolutely, unequivocally and in all other ways, a resounding YES--it is bad form, not gracious, not elegant and a sign of immature, poor sportsmanship. and that's irrespective of the players' ratings and all those other red herrings you've thrown into your previous rationalizations.
"extra brain atoms" indeed--lol ! where does one come up with this stuff?
teocaf, the question is indeed this, but why would it be poor sportsmanship to do so ?
If the opponent is annoyed, he can always resign (what he should have done a good time before). I hope we agree on the fact that dragging the game as long as possible is more the fault of the losing than of the winning player.
(my 2 cents in short : that's losing your time by trying to be more stupid that the non-resigners, but you can always do it)
There is a difference between not seeing the fastest mate and prolonging a game just because you think it would be fun to have three queens on the board. Yes, your opponent can resign whenever he wants, but there is a certain lack of grace in dragging the game out. If you want to practice different endings, go to Chess Mentor.
Not a lot of difference in my mind between the player who drags out the ending and the player who allows a game to time out in a hopeless position instead of resigning. It's just simply a matter of sportsmanship and class. Some people have it and some people don't.
I was addressing the OP's question but I havn't a clue what you're talking about!
You never answered the question of why. It does seem like poor sportmanship to prolong a game that can be ended quickly. My advice would be play like you would like your opponent to play against you. How would you like to be toyed with?
I feel Teocaf and Estragon are both on target here...gracious works....after all you are 'the other person'...cheers
i guess that the way i'm thinking about it is like this: the player that will lose in a few moves may not be seeing the mate coming so he may not know to resign right then. so i believe it is incumbent on the player that saw the mate to execute the moves and save everyone the time instead of grabbing pieces and try to flaunt his superiority, be petty or vengeful, etc. so i believe that the intent counts on the part of the player that sees how to mate in a few--that's where the conduct of sportsmanship, good or bad, is shown. if, on the other hand, the winning player doesn't see a mate that he can execute, and is just trying to reduce the opponent's arsenal , then that's completely different.
all that aside, there are practical considerations that others have mentioned: and those are that if you see the mate and don't act on it, you risk losing or drawing. i had a game where i was playing this very respectable guy, a judge, in otb games every week. i would win most of the games and he was visibly upset. so we played again and i had a innefective opening gambit and he just started taking a lot of my pieces. i stayed in the game despite the odds trying to figure out a way to win. as i was dodging his attack, i quietly lined up a queen and a bishop. he didn't even stop to look--he was so intent on grabbing every last piece of mine and crush me completely. i checkmated him in the corner and that was that. i'm sure he felt worse losing then, when he was so far ahead and had what was a winning game all along.
You make a whole lot of assumptions in your first paragraph which may very well not be true.
Is it considered bad if I am playing a game and figured out a mate in 3 moves, but instead I decide to either capture all the opponent's remaining pieces and/or try to promote all of my pawns to queens before he resigns?
here, ponz111, i've gone ahead and copied the original post #1, for your ease in reading and discussing the subject in this particular forum directly. by some of your comments, i sense that you are discussing points that refer to some things altogether different or only tangentially related to the original poster's question.
Yes, I know but still you are making a lot of assumptions in your first paragraph.The assumptions may or may not be true.
how eloquent...er, i mean repetitive. Of course what I'm assuming is that I can get on these forums and have an discussion with others that like to use thoughtful, well crafted arguments for their point of view, but that may or may not be true. i think it's time for me to disengage from this discussion and go back to playing strictly on my iphone where i won't be tempted to even glance at the forums while waiting for my move.
i guess that the way i'm thinking about it is like this: the player that will lose in a few moves may not be seeing the mate coming so he may not know to resign right then. so i believe it is incumbent on the player that saw the mate to execute the moves and save everyone the time instead of grabbing pieces and try to flaunt his superiority, be petty or vengeful, etc. so i believe that the intent counts on the part of the player that sees how to mate in a few--that's where the conduct of sportsmanship, good or bad, is shown.
Well, the "oh the poor man did not see the mate" is an assumption that might not be true in case you did not understand ponz111.
At my live chess level, I expect my opponents to know how to mate with K+R vs. K with >1 min on the clock, and I do hope they think the same of me.
I agree torturing the opponent is not showing the best set of mind, but I think it is not poor sportsmanship, on the basis of "you want to keep playing ? So do I".
Again, this applies only between players that know that the position is winning, without any problem or previsible stalemate.
So I've noticed that chess players are really pretentious... But yeah, I enjoy the genocide technique.
Hahah, fell out of my chair. :D
Estragon, Suspose you are in a vote chess game that has been going on for months. You at this point have only two opponents one is a near expert and the other is a master. They are in a completely hopeless pawn endgame and they know it is completely hopeless. They even mention it is hopeless. But one says let's continue to play as they might time out.
Your whole team has been waiting for them to resign for many moves. This affects your team a they do not want to have too many games going at once.
Would it be ethical for your super administrator to say something to the other team? [ not say anything unnecessarily antagonistic..]
Sorry, I missed this before.
First of all, I believe "ethical" is the wrong word. We are talking about sportsmanship and showboating, not ethics. One can be a poor sport, a showboat, and a general butt-head without being "unethical."
BUT it is NEVER sportsmanlike to request the opponent to resign. There is no rule or convention in chess which requires or suggests resignation at any time. It is an option like surrender on the battlefield, only the losing side can say when it has had enough and wishes to give up the fight. Sometimes they fight on to the last man long after the result has been clear.
So, NO, I would not countenance any Admin making such a suggestion, however politely phrased, to an opposing team. I would be unlikely to participate in further matches of any kind for a group that lets an Admin get away with such behavior.
Of course, OTB, that sort of communication is strictly illegal.
I might add that even in casual blitz at clubs, I never see good players do anything like that. EVER. The only exception might be an up and coming kid who gets full of himself, and that merely shows a lack of maturity.
please read the original post #1. this is what i was addressing in regards to poor sportsmanship. i do realize that these forums tend to stray off topic and take on a life of their own, which is fine, but after a while, no one knows which exact points are being addressed. the examples that you mentioned above as well as some that ponz brought up do not seem to me to apply to the situation discussed in the very first post. in any case, if these discussions get more people to reflect more on conduct during a game, then it's all good...
I always attempt to win as quickly as possible, whether my opponent is in a totally lost position or not. It doesn't really bother me, I'm sure they are just hoping I will screw up and stalemate or run out of time.