New to chess here. I honestly thought that not resigning was respectful. I'll keep this in mind then
How to disrespect rude opponents (Important game knowledge)
Sort:
None of the scenarios mentioned are rude according to me...
I always do them...
Sep 9, 2020
0
#84
As long as rules of the game are followed anything goes in my opinion, but it can be frustrating when you have obviously a won game and the opponent continues to play, maybe hoping for a blunder leading to stalemate or just wanting to see how you go about checkmating them. Perhaps the best is to finish the game in as few moves as possible, but sometimes it may be a temptation to just promote multiple pawns to queens just to increase the absurdity of the situation. Actually I don't think I ever had more than two queens on the board. I wonder if a game could be played where all your pawns are promoted so you have nine queens?
smh most people would consider playing on a sign of respect
Sep 9, 2020
0
#87
Chessguy149 wrote:
smh most people would consider playing on a sign of respect
how come?
According to James Stripes, you should only resign if any of these 3 conditions have been met:
- If you were playing with the opponent's pieces and you would be able to beat a GM
- If your opponent has shown the ability to beat a GM with that given position
- If there are no swindles / stalemate / perpetual check ideas left
I generally resign when I'm certain I'm lost. I don't think games should be played on until mate unless both players are beginners. Think it's Ok to play on with just material down as the comeback potential is still there.
Sep 9, 2020
0
#89
I mean if only lost a queen on a board with basically every single piece still on the board, there is no way I’m resigning. It’s better to make your opponent work for the win. But if I have nothing left on the board I’m definitely resigning, unless you have less than 3-4 seconds with no increasement lol
Sep 9, 2020
0
#90
Playing for the flag in a dead lost position is not wrong since it was the opponents mistake, he shouldn't have played the game slowly. Stalling on purpose is wrong and those ppl who stall deserve to get reported
CruiseShip wrote:
Bruh, playing on is not so disrespectful. You are just being toxic for no reason.
It is disrespectful - why would you play on when you already lost all your pieces lmao? If he's good enough to win all your pieces, he's probably good enough to finish you off. Check out my thread on this.
Sep 9, 2020
0
#93
arooster2020 wrote:
CruiseShip wrote:
Bruh, playing on is not so disrespectful. You are just being toxic for no reason.
It is disrespectful - why would you play on when you already lost all your pieces lmao? If he's good enough to win all your pieces, he's probably good enough to finish you off. Check out my thread on this.
It depends,if it's a game with no increment I would rather play on since there is a chance that I can flag him. If there is no increment I would resign for sure.
Sep 9, 2020
0
#94
If it's an online tournament or it's bullet chess then play on. seen enough accidental stalemates when I've been playing that it's worth it.
kelli203 wrote:
If it's an online tournament or it's bullet chess then play on. seen enough accidental stalemates when I've been playing that it's worth it.
If it's bullet then that's ok, but if it's classical/rapid it's disrespectful imo.
Sep 9, 2020
0
#97
arooster2020 wrote:
kelli203 wrote:
If it's an online tournament or it's bullet chess then play on. seen enough accidental stalemates when I've been playing that it's worth it.
If it's bullet then that's ok, but if it's classical/rapid it's disrespectful imo.
Opinions differ...I agree with u on the classical and rapid part tho
I start making unusual move's.
I have to laugh when people claim playing on to checkmate is disrespectful. Chess is the only game where people feel disrespected if they have to fulfil the objective lol. If someone is good enough to checkmate me, that will checkmate me.
Giving the opponent the satisfaction of checkmate is the sporting to do.