And stalemated me.
Checkmating vs Torture
Sort:
No. Don't, i had a great incident where, as it was mate in two, I thought I'd let him mate me. It would be just as quick and more satisfying for him. Instead, he decided to get another 4 queens....
And stalemated me.
And stalemated me.
Nov 2, 2017
0
#4
If a game is stalled past obvious, inevitable checkmate, it's not chess anymore. It's sort of in the same ballpark as frying ants with a magnifying glass and getting off on it. If I was the winning side I think I'd rather resign than do that.
If i am getting beat and I suspect my opponent is playing "torture" moves like that, i will just burn the clock.
That's not cool it just wastes your time and theirs. If you got the win just finish the game, no need to rub it in or take someone's time.
Its so painful.
At least you checkmate them. I just disconnect and let them ponder their life priorities.
If it did boil down to that, in which victory is more than obvious ...torture would make no difference to an opponent with such an automated or robotic personality.
Checkmate, and move on.
CB49 wrote:
I just wanted to say, when I play a decent player, I play nicely and checkmate. But when it's an easy one, I make them suffer by taking away all their pieces and then checkmating him. Does someone else do this too?
In my case, my opponent receives a different experience. If my opponent has maybe one pawn with little chance of promoting, and I have many pawns, they will receive 'special' checkmating treatment from me.
But not always you should seek for other checkmates if a readily available checkmate is available. I once had a game where Qxh7# (my White queen originated on h6) is mate. I went to play Qf8+?? instead thinking the mate was more stylish, and hidden in the bushes was an a3 Black bishop. Black captured my queen obviously (there is no other alternative) and I resigned immediately in embarrassment.
Nov 2, 2017
0
#11
It's douchey to promote 5 knights or whatever but the same could be said of not resigning when its king vs king and 5 pawns.
Strangemover wrote:
It's douchey to promote 5 knights or whatever but the same could be said of not resigning when its king vs king and 5 pawns.
I presume that some players are very protective of their rating and/or win/loss statistics, and they will do they can to avoid the loss by prolonging the game to the point of checkmate, since there is a possibility that the side with 5 pawns runs out of time, disconnects and so on.
Nov 2, 2017
0
#13
Snookslayer wrote:
same
I'm embarrassed when I can't find the checkmate and have to promote an extra queen like a schmuck.
Nov 3, 2017
0
#14
CB49 wrote:
I just wanted to say, when I play a decent player, I play nicely and checkmate. But when it's an easy one, I make them suffer by taking away all their pieces and then checkmating him. Does someone else do this too?
Are you starving for attention?
Nov 3, 2017
0
#15
I sometimes do, when my opponent is really, REALY stupid. But sometimes I can't resist myself and just go for the checkmate anyway.
If your two moves away from mate then, if I were you, and prefer to mate.
If I'm 3 moves away from Mate and my opponent resigns, it's a bit annoying. Id rather finish it.
However if I'm 20 away from mate or something then I'm more then happy for them to resign.
If I'm 3 moves away from Mate and my opponent resigns, it's a bit annoying. Id rather finish it.
However if I'm 20 away from mate or something then I'm more then happy for them to resign.
Aug 20, 2022
0
#17
RothKevin wrote:
That's not cool it just wastes your time and theirs. If you got the win just finish the game, no need to rub it in or take someone's time.
The way I see it, the losing player is wasting time by not resigning. Why should I respect his time if he won't mine?
Aug 20, 2022
0
#18
If I feel that I'm winning, I focus on eliminating my opponent's sources of counter-play... not on torturing the opponent, nor on finding the mathematically quickest win. I'll settle for the surest win.
Yes. LOL 😂
Aug 20, 2022
0
#20
CaptainStormy wrote:
VitoTheHero wrote:
RothKevin wrote:
That's not cool it just wastes your time and theirs. If you got the win just finish the game, no need to rub it in or take someone's time.
The way I see it, the losing player is wasting time by not resigning. Why should I respect his time if he won't mine?
That's a good point. If the losing player considers their position so hopeless that they are willing to call it " torture ", they have no reason to continue playing like they have a chance.
The main thing is, the first player to stop taking the game seriously is at fault, and it's not always the losing side who does it first. Also, since neither player can be sure, sometimes both players think their opponent was the first, and so both try to grief each other... it's all very childish.
I just wanted to say, when I play a decent player, I play nicely and checkmate. But when it's an easy one, I make them suffer by taking away all their pieces and then checkmating him. Does someone else do this too?