I helped direct a scholastic chess tournament and and watched one player as he took all his opponets pieces and left him with only the king. He then proceded to queen each of his eight pawns. As he made his ninth queen he stalemated his opponent.
Is it unpolite to make three queens?
Sort:
Actually I think not resigning is ok. Those who fights for a stalemate to the bitter end I do respect.
I suppose it's your own personal choice. I, however, prefer to just finish them off and be done with it.
Fiveofswords wrote:
i enjoy getting all the queens i can before mating someone. As lame as it is it kinda satisfies some sexual fantasy for me.
That actually made me laugh audibly.
I'm a one-girl type of guy, but yes, it is impolite. That's why when I play a good friend I try to get 3-4 Queens to rub it in. This can backfire and cause you to prematurely draw, if you know what I mean. We've all been there.
Fewer Queens = less chance of accidental stalemate.
Well there is almost never a reason to get three Queens except to show off and rub it in...at least no reason I can think of off the top of my head. One could probably fabricate a scenario... It would almost always be faster to mate without getting three Queens. Of course, there is a flip side to that coin. Isn't it impolite for the losing player to not resign once you are up a Queen or two?
Jan 15, 2015
0
#47
If you need more queens on the board, that means you are not thinking!
It may also mean you want easy way out. Certainly, making three queens is not rude! You can make as many as you want. The final goal is to win the game then so be it!
It's not polite to not resign in a completely lost position
It's hard. When I'm excited with three Queens ... throw in a horse and a couple Bishops for some Thorn Birds action ... I can't always look ahead. It's all about instant gratification and I blow it. I get too excited about the impending mate. Tunnel vision. You know the drill.
>> It's not polite to not resign in a completely lost position
Egggsactly. I wish I thought of that.
Fiveofswords wrote:
well...if you just bother to look 1 silly move ahead that wont happen. just 1 move man...you can do that right?
if not then maybe you dont deserve 3 queens.
I know. I can't actually believe how many people think it's a legitimate concern.
In real life, if a man is messing around with two extra Queens, and he doesnt look a move ahead, his wife can suddendly stalemate him.
If a player won't resign in the face of overwhelming odds, I'll subpromote to knights and bishops to show my contempt 
If this guy can have 3 Queens, then why can't you?
Scottrf wrote:
Fiveofswords wrote:
well...if you just bother to look 1 silly move ahead that wont happen. just 1 move man...you can do that right?
if not then maybe you dont deserve 3 queens.
I know. I can't actually believe how many people think it's a legitimate concern.
Yeah, like Silman.
Let him who thinks he can look one little move ahead, be careful, lest he fall!!
It could be the case where one must see multiple moves ahead. Everyone always does that perfectly.
I don't find it rude, but they may be able to trick you into stalemating them if you have 3 queens. Two queens, two rooks or rook + queen should be sufficient for two rook mate.
It isn't impolite, unlike Hearthstone BM-ing, but could go badly.
Egggsactly. However, I am sure that if it happened in a GM tourney then it would be considered rude by cognoscenti...kind of subjective though...
Yes!
Anybody who would make 3 queens in a chess game is a social outcast, who should be shunned by modern society. And tarrred & feathered, where legal.