Great game, poor sport!

Unbelievable! Playing this guy in correspondence, who just refuses to resign, and then, when his loss is truly assured and forced, he tries to offer a draw and stalls even more... What a poor sport!

In any case the game itself was HIGHLY entertaining, and I'm going to go ahead and post it (even though he hasn't resigned yet) b/c , well, when you see the current position, you'll agree. Here it is:

During our last encounter, he used the stonewall as white and we had an intersting positional game, though 1 important tactic midgame did give me a decisive edge.

This time, I play as white, and used my favorite opening - KG - for an exciting and tactics-filled game.
Sure enough, I win his queen with some nice piece and attack co-ordination, but then foolishly, I let him take my queen 2 moves later by sheer blunder.

Then later in the game, I blunder away my rook by letting it hang after having moved to quickly and being distracted!! My gosh, from being up a queen, to down a rook - rediculous on my part.

HOWEVER - I still managed to be resilient and fight back and push through to a victory - aided of course by 1 or 2 less-than-optimal moves by my opponent.

BUT I must say, that he did a formidable job defending with the bishop against my rook, pawn and king, and almost forced the draw.

Very instructive for me (i.e. good endgame practice/challenge), and enjoyable.

Too bad my opponent is too hung up on his dual defeat to appreciate a good/exciting game. Hopefully you, the reader, can:

UPDATE - to be fair to my opponent, he did soon after I put up this post resign, and offer some kind words. So he has improved on his sportsmanship I suppose, but I don't understand the motivation behind those other dirty tricks.

Guess he didn't want to lose to a lower rated player, but still...

there are players in this site dedicated to the maxim of no surrender until checkmate is final! maybe your opoonent is one of its' follower. so be kind and thankful because you experienced good chess game against him anyway, so he is not the kind of player your initial impression about him seems to indicate.(lol)

I admire that maxim to a degree, but when you look at the final position - it is just silly! Then trying to 'trick' me into taking a draw when I am 1 move from checkmate?!  That is more than just following the 'no surrender' policy.

I agree that players should often be forced to show that they've won, but I feel that I did that a long time back.

The only thing that can somewhat justify his actions, is that I blundered badly twice in the game. But I feel that the play I made otherwise showed that there was no way I would mess up past a certain point.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed my games with him - I wrote that in my post and title after all. I'm just appealing for a little more decency and mutual respect for players on this site.

 that's honourable

He should have resigned at move 59. No one likes to lose though. And it's always easy to say someone should be a good sport when you're on the winning end.Good job on not blundering and forcing a draw.

Thanks badmove, But you're Right Rainbow - Absolutely - bloody resign! Ofcourse, I must agree with Shiro - that is honorable, respectable and shows your enthusiasm and admiration for the game. A good combo deserves to be seen! I don't mind if I am checkmated vs resigned, so I'll often let my opponent finsih me off, but when there is a half-decent rating, and I am seriously outgunned, I always resign promptly, with a 'gg' for good measure.

i disagree . Its not won at move 59.....to a GM , maybe ! But not to us mere mortals.

There are some who would argue that YOU should have resigned when you were two pieces down :)

To be honest, I find it rather hypocritical that you demand a resignation when your oppenant is losing, yet insist on playing when your in the losing position.


As for the game, it was just played terribly by both sides (which is why the high ratings suprise me greatly)...


Ignoring all the obvoius blunders, I was shocked at how black plays the game:

for starters, your queenside attack could have been stopped at almost any point ethier by sacrificing a peice for pawns and/or developing peices. (for example, on move 31 black could have tried Rb8 [if Ne6? then Nf3+] cxd6 Rxb7  ... OR even Nxd5 cxd6 Kxd6 Rxe4 is good for black. )

 
And then it only occurs to him to use his rook on move 42!

omg. soooooooooooo not fair of the other dude. thats not right. :P

I'm with above poster, way to be hypocritical, no, you didn't have any compensation for your 5 points material deficit, you where just hoping for some blunders by him, just as he where by you.

I agree with Blackadder, the game was a fiasco. The most concerning thing (apart from both players hanging pieces with gay abandon), is how long it took you to win a simple K+R+P Vs K+B. You had the Black King cut off and then you allowed it to get to the queening square, this shows a serious lack of conceptual understanding. Glad you're enjoying the chess, but you've gotta work on your endgame skills.

no need for name calling ; )

The guy lived up to his name -- Mr. Obstinate.

well the game involves at least a move in a certain number of moves.....and the rules allow for the offering of a draw.....so what's the problem???? your opponent  didn't do anything illegal....very bad form to post game and imply he did something improper/and to mock him.....if you're that impatient couldn't you just read a book, start another game in the interim etc????    Just thinking outloud here......

So he did !

But to publicly chastise someone for not resigning when he had a resignable position himself ?

As Blackadder says , its a little hypocritical .

How about after 3...f6? 4. Bc4 c6 you play 5. Ne5! threatening 6. Nxf7 forking Queen and Rook.  If Black plays 5...fxe5, you have 6. Qh5+ Ke7 (6...g6 drops a Rook) 7. Qf7+ Kd6 8. d4 with the threat of Bf4+ coming.  Looks like it's just a matter of time.

I wish more GMs did this. Especially when I was first getting into chess, I had a hard time visualizing the continuation that motivated one player to resign. When someone pointed out the line, it made sense, but I wish they would just play out the extra five or ten moves. It's not as if they have anything better to do, right?

Nothing hypocritical about the OP here. He had plenty of play left and potential threats in the position to justify playing on.

Called him out publicly? His name was publicly omitted as to not embarrass the guilty and to keep the focus on the point. I would say that was actually pretty respectful.