paulgottlieb, you are correct. What's your opinion? I had a winning position, but I offered a draw because I already advanced to the next round.
Is it ok to offer a draw?
Sort:
Perhaps your trying to warm the heart of a cruel child.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9pFp6iRVM0 (relevant)
Game relevancy, STIGMA in your opening you overextended your pawns, denied your Knight his natural square, and you didn't castle. Now your rated much higher than I am, but those are fundamentals that people tell me to focus on at my level. How did you think your way through your opening?
Not critiqueing I just want to understand.
I did some research and found this is called Ponziani's opening, and that it is proven inferior to the italian and Ruy Lopez openings. If it is inferior, why do you play it?
maybe he's more familiar with the system, and openings isn't the most important part in chess. It's tactics that make a difference.
Stigmatisert wrote:
bean_Fischer wrote:
Is it ok to offer a draw when the game doesn't affect the standing?
The most obvious case is unrated games, but I guess that doesn't interest you.
The second most obvius - in my opinion - is in rated games when your opponent has made a terrible blunder that make him/her lose AND you have a very good relation to this person.
This game ended last week. Sometimes the game is more important than the win
That's an interesting final position!
chasm1995 wrote:
maybe he's more familiar with the system, and openings isn't the most important part in chess. It's tactics that make a difference.
I can't verify it, I just read somewhere. It said that the Ruy was a more ambitious opening for white. Why would you choose a less ambitious opening?
I'm not critising I just want to understand the purpose of playing less than as ambitious as possible.
In the blue line, 3...Rd1+
ZeroSymbolic7188 wrote:
Perhaps your trying to warm the heart of a cruel child.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9pFp6iRVM0 (relevant)
Game relevancy, STIGMA in your opening you overextended your pawns, denied your Knight his natural square, and you didn't castle. Now your rated much higher than I am, but those are fundamentals that people tell me to focus on at my level. How did you think your way through your opening?
Not critiqueing I just want to understand.
At the end of the movie:"GG". Why did they chat? And then make about 10 moves in less than a minute? Are you allowed to chat? I wish they allowed it.
I crush my opponent (or try as hard as humanly possible) and love every second of it.
"a bad move against a Grand Master, may be the "ideal" against a lower rated player"
That sir, was a great revalation to me. It's a brilliant statement. That's going to be one of those pieces of advice that I take with me forever. You have impacted my game in a great and positive way.
Stigmatisert wrote:
bean_Fischer wrote:
Is it ok to offer a draw when the game doesn't affect the standing?
The most obvious case is unrated games, but I guess that doesn't interest you.
The second most obvius - in my opinion - is in rated games when your opponent has made a terrible blunder that make him/her lose AND you have a very good relation to this person.
The non-obvious thing is our satisfaction. I was satisfied, so was my opponent. He surely couldn't hope more, except for my BIG BIG BIGGER blunders, which were almost impossible.
I play chess to enjoy. Win, lose or draw comes second.
ZeroSymbolic7188 wrote:
"a bad move against a Grand Master, may be the "ideal" against a lower rated player"
That sir, was a great revalation to me. It's a brilliant statement. That's going to be one of those pieces of advice that I take with me forever. You have impacted my game in a great and positive way.
The question of a bad or good move is not absolute. It is only relevant to the players of both sides, not some commentators.
The clock is 0.01 second with no increment. Trade the queen with a pawn makes it a bad move, but win on time.
Is it ok to offer a draw when the game doesn't affect the standing?