If White has 2 Qs and 4 passed pawns, Black has a K and a pawn, but doesn't resign, who is stalling?
Sort:
Jul 22, 2024
0
#2
The person with the third queen, because they should have been able to checkmate you. In the latter, you could always play for a draw if your opponent doesn’t put you in check, and you no longer have a move.
Shouldn't the person with the single pawn not know that and thus choose to resign?
Jul 22, 2024
0
#4
I have drawn games with just a King. Sometimes it’s worth hanging in there. But, I have resigned too.
I suppose it's hope chess. The fact is people make mistakes. I feel it's poor sportsmanship to not resign in that scenario, however. Down two queens and four passed pawns, it seems just being a poor sport to me.
Thadriel wrote:
Who is the one stalling here? The one who gets a third queen to make absolutely certain the other player has no chance of drawing or winning on time, or the one who refuses to resign against insurmountable odds?
Or are both justified?
No one is as long as they are both playing and not running down the clock for minutes at a time
Jul 22, 2024
0
#7
I see your point, but you don’t lose as many points in a draw. In fact, you may even gain depending on your opponent’s rating. I played against a player who just kept cashing in pawns for queens and kept the game going. To me it’s not only stalling but taunting and certainly bad sportsmanship.
RubberSoul54 wrote:
I see your point, but you don’t lose as many points in a draw. In fact, you may even gain depending on your opponent’s rating. I played against a player who just kept cashing in pawns for queens and kept the game going. To me it’s not only stalling but taunting and certainly bad sportsmanship.
Hikaru plays out positions occasionally it's not bad sportsmanship as long as they sent typing anything bad if you get that type of player there's a good chance they will stailmate so actually you want those type of players
Plus to stop them from doing it just resign if you don't resign and your annoyed about them playing on I dunno what to tell you
RubberSoul54 wrote:
I see your point, but you don’t lose as many points in a draw. In fact, you may even gain depending on your opponent’s rating. I played against a player who just kept cashing in pawns for queens and kept the game going. To me it’s not only stalling but taunting and certainly bad sportsmanship.
Could it not be a retaliation to a perceived stalling by the person who refused to resign? Someone mad that they played poorly, so they force the other player to keep playing even though the game is clearly lost? "Fine, if you're going to force me to keep playing on a game that's over, maybe I'll underpromote all my pawns?" In that case, it's retaliatory, isn't it?
Jul 22, 2024
0
#10
I am not an expert on Hikaru’s games, but I don’t that would routinely be a play against someone with a king and pawn. However, I agree with you on at least being able to play to a stalemate. Players who disparage you in chat when you need time to figure out a move or who use angry emoticons also irk me. I prefer to crack jokes, especially when I blunder. I am good at that. 😉
Jul 22, 2024
0
#11
Multiple Queens makes a draw MORE likely (via stalemate), not LESS likely.
So yes, the person queening Pawn after Pawn is just dicking around instead of trying to win.
blueemu wrote:
Multiple Queens makes a draw MORE likely (via stalemate), not LESS likely.
So yes, the person queening Pawn after Pawn is just dicking around instead of trying to win.
So what's the person doing when they're down four passed pawn, two queens and a knight, if not dicking around?
I'll change my mind if any of you can show me one game in the history of competitive, Elo rated chess where players rated above 1500 kept playing when down two queens, four passed pawns and a knight. I suspect it's never happened, but you show me a real Elo game where it happened and I'll be convinced you are right.
Jul 23, 2024
0
#13
The truth is that nobody is stalling in this situation. Third queen is unnecessary, but if one wants to promote 4 or 5 queens even, he is entitled to do so (even though stalemate is more and more probable in such a situation). Just like the other person is entitled to play until checkmate.
All of that, if they play out that game in a reasonable manner when it comes to the time management in such situation.
Stalling would be if the player (especially in losing position, because that is the more obvious case of stalling) starts delaying the end of the game by not playing his moves in a reasonable amount of time.
For instance, if one plays a long game where he has a winning position, and he forces an exchange of queens (leaving the opponent with no pieces left), then suddenly the opponent decides to spent next 20 minutes waiting to make a move, that is an obvious case of stalling.
Jul 23, 2024
0
#14
Thadriel wrote:
blueemu wrote:
Multiple Queens makes a draw MORE likely (via stalemate), not LESS likely.
So yes, the person queening Pawn after Pawn is just dicking around instead of trying to win.
So what's the person doing when they're down four passed pawn, two queens and a knight, if not dicking around?
I'll change my mind if any of you can show me one game in the history of competitive, Elo rated chess where players rated above 1500 kept playing when down two queens, four passed pawns and a knight. I suspect it's never happened, but you show me a real Elo game where it happened and I'll be convinced you are right.
You seem to be of the opinion that "If THEY dick around, my only option is to dick around".
How about "If THEY dick around, MATE them"?
blueemu wrote:
Thadriel wrote:
blueemu wrote:
Multiple Queens makes a draw MORE likely (via stalemate), not LESS likely.
So yes, the person queening Pawn after Pawn is just dicking around instead of trying to win.
So what's the person doing when they're down four passed pawn, two queens and a knight, if not dicking around?
I'll change my mind if any of you can show me one game in the history of competitive, Elo rated chess where players rated above 1500 kept playing when down two queens, four passed pawns and a knight. I suspect it's never happened, but you show me a real Elo game where it happened and I'll be convinced you are right.
You seem to be of the opinion that "If THEY dick around, my only option is to dick around".
How about "If THEY dick around, MATE them"?
If I cared about winning and losing that much, sure. But I resign even when I'm about to win on time if I felt my opponent outplayed me, so "sticking it to them" by mating them has little value to me.
I'd say the one making lots of Queens for no reason is the one with worse sportsmanship in this case (the only reason you would ever do this is to show disrespect to your opponent). But both players are inside the rules. Also, nobody should resign at under 1000 level (like where I'm at), because the "winning" player may just be making more Queens because they don't know how to checkmate and end up getting Stalemate by mistake. 
NoemiS05 wrote:
I'd say the one making lots of Queens for no reason is the one with worse sportsmanship in this case (the only reason you would ever do this is to show disrespect to your opponent). But both players are inside the rules. Also, nobody should resign at under 1000 level (like where I'm at), because the "winning" player may just be making more Queens because they don't know how to checkmate and end up getting Stalemate by mistake.
I do it just to do it I don't really show disrespect if I do lol sometimes you just want a game to be slightly longer but titled players show disrespect all the time mostly cause it's funny
Think of it like this if you don't resign when your loosing your giving your giving full right for your opponent to do whatever they want as long as it isn't 1.running down the clock 2.writing mean stuff in chat 3.spamming draw offers
If yourlossing the only one who will resign will be you unless your opponent has to do with or is super nice (or thinks they are losing ) or their phone crashes or wifi
Stalemates happen.
Who is the one stalling here? The one who gets a third queen to make absolutely certain the other player has no chance of drawing or winning on time, or the one who refuses to resign against insurmountable odds?
Or are both justified?