But beginner games have much bigger material deficits. You don't have to be strong to know when it's hopeless.
That's an easy resign after move 71...
Wrong, you missed it by 20 moves. It was completely hopeless at move 51. Just a matter of technique. Supposing these really were GM's.
Resigning a game too late isn't a problem though.
Oops, slight edit.
It was completely hopeless at move 51. Just a matter of technique. Supposing these really were GM's.
At beginner level i suppose 71 is the correct answer.
@ Scottrf. I edited my post before. Misread something. Your answer was right in fact.
I really wish I could play games where you can't resign just because you don't think your going to win.
I just started playing online and I hate people resigning before the game is finnished, especially when you spend 8 minutes building your attack only to have the game stopped once the person thinks it isn't in their favour.
Chess isn't about winning it's about learning new strategies to better your game.
Winning is a culmination of a lot of losing.
The end game is where you learn the most, especially when your on the back foot.
Can we please have an option to have games that can't be resigned unless both players agree?
Why is it that I keep reading about chess players wanting to change the rules, (which by the way have been in place for hundreds of years) just so they can benefit from a rule change? In this case, this player wants to change the rules so that they can checkmate their opponent and claim it helps improve their game. I say that is total BS. Let's say I am losing and I want to resign, but this opponent wants me to keep playing so that I can become a better chess player? He wants me to keep playing until I am checkmated so he can look down at the board and admire his handy work.
They actually have the balls to tell everyone else who plays chess what the purpose of the game is. (chess is not about winning...etc) and they go on to proclaim it is the end game where you learn the most.
Can we please have an option that when I log in as a paying member and go over to the Forum link and not have to read these ignorant topics? You see, by reading the Forum topics is where I learn the most about chess!
It is considered good manners to say check when one checks ones opponent......
It's actually considered bad manners, especially in a tournament game. Only beginners feel the need to say check. It literally "goes without saying" with stronger play.
Laws of chess: Handbook FIDE
12.6It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.
From this rule, if saying check distracts you or annoy's you, then you are within the rules to tell the Arbiter your opponent is so doing so.
For me, it is ok if my opponent is saying so in a very low volume unless it happens in the end game with very few pieces left on the board. However, yes after a move is made, the position should speak for itself and saying check in not nessecary and can be considered rude by some.
I wouldn't accept low volume either. It's rude because it implies you're so weak as to not know you're in check. I won't put up with that at any volume.
Yes, not being able to resign sounds like a good idea, because i love it when people just close their browser rather than resigning leaving me waiting...
I wouldn't except low volume either. It's rude because it implies you're so weak as to not know you're in check. I won't put up with that at any volume.
and you are within the rules to object. Not all chess players have the same perspective. I was playing in a tournament and this guy keep talking to me during the game. Under time pressure I blundered and lost the game. After the game I told the arbitor about what happened. He consulted my opponent and then declared a draw. I should of known the rules and nipped the talking in the bud. I am not much of a tournament player. I also remember in another game my opponent whispered check. That did not bother me, but I do not do it. If they do not see the check and make an illegial move, then the score sheet comes into play. I always thought is was kinda odd the players keep score, but with so many players in a tournament and so few officals what choice is there. I guess someone could try to cheat by keeping an incorrect scorecard on purpose!
Do you slump over your keyboard and cry out Why! Why! Why!?
Just to be clear about my position, ceritus peribus, if I feel there is a decent chance at counterplay, I will play on for as long as I feel the ability to construct some sort of fighting plan.
I once won an OTB game against a very strong opponent, after having my position collapse after a hard-fought, very long game (the last game to finish in the round). Time pressure was a factor, the opponent was very low on time and there were several moves to go until time control. But the biggest factor was this: I had a rook on an open file and he had the typical back rank mate vulnerability. All I had to do was clear that file of pieces and I have an instant win. I threw away piece after piece tempting his pieces off the file and sure enough, he blundered BxN and it was over.
Had I not had reasonable counterplay, I would have resigned once it became clear that my position was hopeless. But given the checkmate possibility, the position was not completely hopeless. I had a realistic chance to save the game.
That sounds like a magnificent multi-sacrifice combination. I'd be interested in seeing that game if you have it.
I loved it in the 1600's when they came up with the "rulische der blitzen" that changed the game to use clocks set for 5 minute time controls, and how they added the "lawen del mater suf" where you still wouldn't win the game if your opponent's clock ran out but you held insufficient mating material.
But it was certainly the greatest elder of all, Count vonFischerman, who made the game complete in 1637 with the introduction of the "Sefen Hundreds and Score Randomme" variation of positional practice, finally obliviating any need for additional nonsenses.
This "option to have games X" sounds like pure tyranny. I hate it when people force options on other people...
And in one out of one hundred games, their opponent slips and gives up a stalemate.
Was that worth the five hours they spent playing out the other 99 games?
Most people say no.
Actually, I get more like five out of a hundred, put it's probably the class of player I compete against. Again, your mileage may vary.
Had to correct my post as I saw I used "except" instead of "accept". I must have been asleep when I wrote that.
At any rate, I remember during my first OTB tournament, I got paired with the leader in the 4th round. In order to disrupt my concentration, he would smack the button on my clock really hard so the noise was sharp and loud. It worked to the point of causing me to lose focus and I played into a lost position. Finally I spoke up and told him to stop doing that, but by that point he knew he had me beat and it didn't matter. I vowed from then on to never let my opponent pull distractions like that.
By the way, that opponent went on to win the tournament, and turned out to be a sandbagger upon investigation. He took the prize money and promptly never played a rated game of chess again. That was 15 years ago.