Playing on in lost positions in daily games
Sort:
there is update
Sep 18, 2019
0
#2
OTBchump wrote:
One valid reason is to try get into a stalemate position.
I feel like that might apply to live games, but in daily games you'd have to be an absolute idiot to stalemate someone.
Sep 18, 2019
0
#3
I know from experience that sometimes they don't have anything to do or they want you to time out.
I just played a game where I had 2 Queens another piece and an advantage in pawns. Checkmate quickly followed but the end was obvious long before that. This use to annoy me no end but I’ve mellowed quite a bit. Forfeiting a huge number of games because for a time I was too ill and distracted to keep playing humbled me. Who am I to say how the other person should play, except for “vacations”, that is. Don’t get me started on that absurdity.
Darwin’s probably right on this one, and, of course, on that other “question”.
Sep 18, 2019
0
#6
I always play on in losing positions because you never know what move you could learn from. Sure, I'm going to get checkmated, but I'd like to see how it happens. Maybe a move in a lost game could help me win or draw a future game. I don't play chess just for the result (otherwise it would be best for me to just not play), but also to gain experience with it.
Sep 18, 2019
0
#7
darwinwasright hat geschrieben:
DevynDuffy wrote:
I always play on in losing positions because you never know what move you could learn from. Sure, I'm going to get checkmated, but I'd like to see how it happens. Maybe a move in a lost game could help me win or draw a future game. I don't play chess just for the result (otherwise it would be best for me to just not play), but also to gain experience with it.
one doesn't gain experience wasting time when losing. It is disrespectful and ruins the game for the winner as well as any hope of discussing the game with your opponent.
Nice post. And such behavior not only shows disrespect towards your opponent, but to the duel of Chess as well.
Sep 18, 2019
0
#8
DevynDuffy wrote:
I always play on in losing positions because you never know what move you could learn from. Sure, I'm going to get checkmated, but I'd like to see how it happens. Maybe a move in a lost game could help me win or draw a future game. I don't play chess just for the result (otherwise it would be best for me to just not play), but also to gain experience with it.
100% agree. You’re not learning anything by quitting.
willitrhyme wrote:
That is not an absolute. Sometimes playing on to see how your opponent goes for checkmate does indeed help you gain valuable technique experience.
darwinwasright hat geschrieben:
DevynDuffy wrote:
I always play on in losing positions because you never know what move you could learn from. Sure, I'm going to get checkmated, but I'd like to see how it happens. Maybe a move in a lost game could help me win or draw a future game. I don't play chess just for the result (otherwise it would be best for me to just not play), but also to gain experience with it.
one doesn't gain experience wasting time when losing. It is disrespectful and ruins the game for the winner as well as any hope of discussing the game with your opponent.
Nice post. And such behavior not only shows disrespect towards your opponent, but to the duel of Chess as well.
willitrhyme wrote:
It is not disrespectful to anyone.
If someone chooses to resign it their prerogative.
If they choose to play on they are well entitled to do so.
darwinwasright hat geschrieben:
DevynDuffy wrote:
I always play on in losing positions because you never know what move you could learn from. Sure, I'm going to get checkmated, but I'd like to see how it happens. Maybe a move in a lost game could help me win or draw a future game. I don't play chess just for the result (otherwise it would be best for me to just not play), but also to gain experience with it.
one doesn't gain experience wasting time when losing. It is disrespectful and ruins the game for the winner as well as any hope of discussing the game with your opponent.
Nice post. And such behavior not only shows disrespect towards your opponent, but to the duel of Chess as well.
Sep 18, 2019
0
#11
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
willitrhyme wrote:
It is not disrespectful to anyone. If someone chooses to resign it their prerogative. If they choose to play on they are well entitled to do so.
darwinwasright hat geschrieben:
DevynDuffy wrote:
I always play on in losing positions because you never know what move you could learn from. Sure, I'm going to get checkmated, but I'd like to see how it happens. Maybe a move in a lost game could help me win or draw a future game. I don't play chess just for the result (otherwise it would be best for me to just not play), but also to gain experience with it.
one doesn't gain experience wasting time when losing. It is disrespectful and ruins the game for the winner as well as any hope of discussing the game with your opponent.
Nice post. And such behavior not only shows disrespect towards your opponent, but to the duel of Chess as well.
I feel like it's different for correspondence than rapid, blitz, or bullet. Not resigning in obviously lost positions means that you and your opponent have to play out an easily winning endgame for maybe 2 weeks or more sometimes. Now I have a bishop and 3 pawns against a lone king. What good does it do anybody to play that out for days or weeks on end?
Sep 18, 2019
0
#12
If I see I'm clearly losing a game, I resign. I want play on hoping my opponent blunders. I.prefer to give them a thumbs up and go on to another game.
Sep 18, 2019
0
#13
Pyracantha wrote:
If I see I'm clearly losing a game, I resign. I want play on hoping my opponent blunders. I.prefer to give them a thumbs up and go on to another game.
Totally agree. There are absolutely no winning chances for my opponent and yet he chooses to play on, and the chance that I'm gonna stalemate him is this position is basically nonexistent.
Sep 18, 2019
0
#14
metric_space wrote:
While I don't condone this behavior (and it irritates me to no end), I agree with the sentiment that Magnus Carlsen espoused in his most recent banter blitz (#6): that your opponent has an "absolute right to play until checkmate." Being slightly annoyed isn't really a compelling enough reason to try and impinge upon that right.
I would sort of agree with you in live chess, but I feel like daily is different since it takes such a long time. I know he's not doing anything against the rules, but it's still a waste of time and honestly a bit disrespectful.
Sep 18, 2019
0
#15
In what world did we reach a point where finishing a game is considered disrespectful?! And how much time is wasted anyway? If you aren't doing deep analysis on a game it takes just seconds to play a move, whether you are on the 'clearly winning' or 'clearly losing' side.
People should be allowed to resign when they want. Expecting an opponent to resign is 'disrespectful'. You sign up to play a game of chess, the ultimate aim of which is checkmate. If someone resigns before checkmate it's just a shortcut and a mild courtesy or they don't want to spend any more time on the game, but no-one should be moaned at for playing a game to its natural conclusion so long as they are actually still playing moves.
Dittos & amen to previous 2 posts!
KariEgilsson wrote:
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
willitrhyme wrote:
It is not disrespectful to anyone. If someone chooses to resign it their prerogative. If they choose to play on they are well entitled to do so.
darwinwasright hat geschrieben:
DevynDuffy wrote:
I always play on in losing positions because you never know what move you could learn from. Sure, I'm going to get checkmated, but I'd like to see how it happens. Maybe a move in a lost game could help me win or draw a future game. I don't play chess just for the result (otherwise it would be best for me to just not play), but also to gain experience with it.
one doesn't gain experience wasting time when losing. It is disrespectful and ruins the game for the winner as well as any hope of discussing the game with your opponent.
Nice post. And such behavior not only shows disrespect towards your opponent, but to the duel of Chess as well.
I feel like it's different for correspondence than rapid, blitz, or bullet. Not resigning in obviously lost positions means that you and your opponent have to play out an easily winning endgame for maybe 2 weeks or more sometimes. Now I have a bishop and 3 pawns against a lone king. What good does it do anybody to play that out for days or weeks on end?
Damn right it's different because in daily it's no time wasted at all, it takes you seconds to make a move and you can have other games to play anyways.
You could even loads a series of premoves and it plays itself.
KariEgilsson wrote:
metric_space wrote:
While I don't condone this behavior (and it irritates me to no end), I agree with the sentiment that Magnus Carlsen espoused in his most recent banter blitz (#6): that your opponent has an "absolute right to play until checkmate." Being slightly annoyed isn't really a compelling enough reason to try and impinge upon that right.
I would sort of agree with you in live chess, but I feel like daily is different since it takes such a long time. I know he's not doing anything against the rules, but it's still a waste of time and honestly a bit disrespectful.
It is not disrespectful in the slightest.
You agreed to play him at chess, by all accounts you're about to win.
This is what the game is about, checkmate. So go and get it.
Sep 18, 2019
0
#19
What are you talking about? In almost every serious chess game people resign when they are clearly lost. There is nothing inherently wrong with playing until checkmate, but it's just a waste of time. Why the hell would you want to play for example a mate with a queen and king for weeks?
As long as chess has existed, and the concept of stalemate has existed, there is little reason for anybody to resign in a totally lost position. Granted, the chance of pulling it off in a daily game is beyond slim, but the rules don't have exceptions for daily games and bullet chess. It's an opponent's right to play the game till he no longer has any legal moves, or the position is a draw due to insufficient mating material. -It would be at least rude to not resign in a position that has a theoretical mate, but highly unlikely.