I don't hesitate to employ an array of loud sighs, anxoius gesticulation, and departures from the board when dealing with this sort of thing OTB. The only thing more insulting is a situation involving a player who refuses to draw a drawn position.
Fortunately, there are several rules addressing that scenario - threefold repetion, 50-move rule....
"In the Middle Ages and during the Renaissance, chess was a part of noble culture; it was used to teach war strategy and was dubbed the "King's Game"
It would be interesting to know if that rule was introduced because some players were whining or bitching about how a game isn't playing out the way they wanted, or if the aristrocrats and nobles just simply want to up the ante and make the game more complex
It had nothing to do with complaints, or to make the game more complex. It was added to preserve the proper characteristics of pawn structures and passed pawns. Once the two-square pawn advance was instituted, en passant had to be added, and the reason why is obvious to anyone that play endgames often enough.
"In the Middle Ages and during the Renaissance, chess was a part of noble culture; it was used to teach war strategy and was dubbed the "King's Game"
It would be interesting to know if that rule was introduced because some players were whining or bitching about how a game isn't playing out the way they wanted, or if the aristrocrats and nobles just simply want to up the ante and make the game more complex
Once the two-square pawn advance was instituted, en passant had to be added, and the reason why is obvious to anyone that play endgames often enough.
You really thought you were being smart, didn't you..must've read in a previous post I don't play endgames well LOL
Back to seriousness, the en passant was the by-product of the two-square pawn advance. The "new rule" added to the game was this latter not the en-passant.
But do tell "the reason why is obvious to anyone that play endgames often enough"? Were you sitting at the table with authority of chess 600 years ago and that is what they said when they created this two-square pawn advance?
You really thought you were being smart, didn't you..must've read in a previous post I don't play endgames well LOL
Back to seriousness, the en passant was the by-product of the two-square pawn advance. The "new rule" added to the game was this latter not the en-passant.
But do tell "the reason why is obvious to anyone that play endgames often enough"? Were you sitting at the table with authority of chess 600 years ago and that is what they said when they created this two-square pawn advance?
Ummm, I haven't read jack about you...
If you have defeated a 2000+ player in online chess, but you can't understand the diagram I posted above, then something is rotten in the state of Denmark...
Take another look and then decide who wins that endgame (black to move) in the following scenarios:
- If pawns can only move one square, and not two, on the initial move.
- If pawns can move two squares, and en passant is a rule.
- If pawns can move two squares, and en passant is not a rule.
As I said, en passant was added to keep the integrity of the game intact but still allow for the two square pawn advance that would speed up the openings considerably.
I don't hesitate to employ an array of loud sighs, anxoius gesticulation, and departures from the board when dealing with this sort of thing OTB. The only thing more insulting is a situation involving a player who refuses to draw a drawn position.
Fortunately, there are several rules addressing that scenario - threefold repetion, 50-move rule....
The 50 move rule is difficult to come into at certain times.
.... referring to positions where play continues for far longer than it should, resulting in one person or the other eventually making an inaccuracy/mistake/blunder move that negates the previously drawn balance on the board...
Wouldn't you say that that is simply good STRATEGY?
If you have defeated a 2000+ player in online chess, but you can't understand the diagram I posted above, then something is rotten in the state of Denmark...
Take another look and then decide who wins that endgame (black to move) in the following scenarios:
- If pawns can only move one square, and not two, on the initial move.
- If pawns can move two squares, and en passant is a rule.
- If pawns can move two squares, and en passant is not a rule.
As I said, en passant was added to keep the integrity of the game intact but still allow for the two square pawn advance that would speed up the openings considerably.
I looked at your diagram.
lol, are you serious?!!!
if you want to believe that that is why they created the rule 600 years ago (which, btw, is ridiculous conjecture.), i realIy don't care to stop you from what you believe in anymore than i care to tell some people that the world was NOT created in 7 days or that eve was not made from adam's ribs.
The 50 move rule is difficult to come into at certain times.
.... referring to positions where play continues for far longer than it should, resulting in one person or the other eventually making an inaccuracy/mistake/blunder move that negates the previously drawn balance on the board...
Wouldn't you say that that is simply good STRATEGY?
Not necessarily, no. Particularly in situations where the player refusing the draw goes on to blow their game.
"Not necessarily, no. "
Precisely - 50-50 % percent odds that things will turn out in one's favor. If you destabilize/piss off your opponent psychological-emotionally enough he/she may blunder...
My brother is such a player...it took me a long time to respect his STRATEGY...that came after I reached a certain level of maturity (at our level of chess playing, of course).
I don't let his antics bother me anymore and the game just plays itself out til the end.
I looked at your diagram.
lol, are you serious?!!!
sheer conjecture.if you want to believe that that is why they created the rule 600 years ago, i realIy don't care to stop you. none of my business, what you believe in anymore that i care to tell some people that the world was created in 7 days or that eve was made from adam's ribs.
Unfortunately for you, it's not just what I believe, it's what the entire worldwide chess community believes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_passant
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/186341/en-passant
http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2011/12/en-passant-history-and-illustration.html and http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2013/06/logic-of-en-passant.html (both from a chess.com regular's blog)
http://chess.about.com/od/rulesofchess/ss/Specialrules_3.htm
http://www.chessinvasion.com/en-passant.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/en-passant
[T]hey give a pawn leave to pass beyond taking by Pawns; which not only makes quite a different Game from the original one, but also takes off a great deal of its Beauty; because by this means a Pawn may pass before two others, who with much Dexterity and Industry have reached within three Squares of becoming Queens, and are there stopt by the King, or the Adversary's Bishop; while this single Pawn will either go and make a Queen, or oblige you to abandon all your advanced Pawns and come attack this Wretch, who during the whole Game has done nothing. This certainly is quite opposite to the Rules of war, where Merit only can advance a Soldier's Fortune.
Philidor, Chess Analysed (London, 1750), vi-vii.
Now stop being a tool. Thanks in advance.
I looked at your diagram.
lol, are you serious?!!!
sheer conjecture.if you want to believe that that is why they created the rule 600 years ago, i realIy don't care to stop you. none of my business, what you believe in anymore that i care to tell some people that the world was created in 7 days or that eve was made from adam's ribs.
Unfortunately for you, it's not just what I believe, it's what the entire worldwide chess community believes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_passant
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/186341/en-passant
http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2011/12/en-passant-history-and-illustration.html (a chess.com regular's blog)
http://chess.about.com/od/rulesofchess/ss/Specialrules_3.htm
http://www.chessinvasion.com/en-passant.html
Now stop being a tool. Thanks in advance.
Why are you putting all these links that basically all says the same thing? Did you google the subject and just start copying and pasting everything?
Especially about something that I already know -- why the en passant was created.
Let's backtrack shall we?
Someone brought up the en passant rule, I guess in defense of all the whining and hissy fitting about the game and how new rules should be implemented to make them happier,
I said I'm quite sure they didn't make the new rule to placate to the whiners but to make the game more complex (it is here that I was wrong).
The en passant was a by-product of the new rule - the two-square pawn advance.
And the 2-square pawn advance was put in to speed up the game opening (not to make the game more complex, as I thought)...but it was neither to placate to whining players....hmmm? or maybe they WERE placating to whining players who thought the game openings could be sped up....
interesting.
We shall see if whiners manage to change the game rules, so that they may be happier when they play.
I found this http://ttebooks.com/royalchess/1history.html
there has been many changes to how chess is played
castling and promoting pieces and more. chess is not the same as 800 years ago. Imagine a chessgame where you couldn't promote pawns.
@ bobbyDK Thanks for that. I should like to learn the reasons why a new rule was put in. That would be most interesting. I doubt much that they were put in for every whine and whimper a player made about the game.
I'm fully aware of the logic of playing on in a drawn position, yes, there is always the puerile tactic of holding out for a game chaning blunder. To say that this tactic exists is not to disprove its infantile nature.
The first time I witnessed the endless multitudes of puerile tactics of chess players was at a H.S. state championship. Huge bug-eyed sunglasses, oversized face covering cowboy hats, walking-dead expression staring contests, annoying tics and twitches at the table....lol...but that was High School..at 14 I was rather impressed by the "seniors"
I find it puzzling that this debate even exists........
Good points! Turbo 1
I don't think so...but leave the game with clock is running is definitely disrespectful.
I'm fully aware of the logic of playing on in a drawn position, yes, there is always the puerile tactic of holding out for a game chaning blunder. To say that this tactic exists is not to disprove its infantile nature.
The first time I witnessed the endless multitudes of puerile tactics of chess players was at a H.S. state championship. Huge bug-eyed sunglasses, oversized face covering cowboy hats, walking-dead expression staring contests, annoying tics and twitches at the table....lol...but that was High School..at 14 I was rather impressed by the "seniors"
I think you are thinking of the WSOP.
I was playing someone who's rating was <1200, withing 15 moves he/she was considerably down pieces, a player with a higher rating would have resigned. But the game was played another 18 moves until checkmate.
I didn't mind it at all. He/she was just intent on learning/practicing the game with a higher level player. Or was just a person who liked seeing things to the very end.
I don't get all these complaints I've seen in the forum.
It all seems very whiny or hissy fitty to me.
Some even going so far as to want the rules of the game changed -
Chess with its rules has been played for over 800 years. Wanting to change the rules because they are "unhappy" when a game isn't going their way is laughable.
I agree with you. This is why most of my expert and master friends feel that quite a few, if not most, of the folks on this site are not "real" Chess players
And this is the thing: although resigning is so morally praised, people also probably do it for some secret feeling of being good at chess. As if to say, well I got totally crushed, but look how good I am, I know I will lose! And, often, people are actually willing to take the risk that they missed something just for this :p
I'm gonna play a GM as black and then resign after the 3rd move. He'll win, but I will obviously look smarter because only I am smart enough to calculate the forced loss!
Sniveling brats, wow man. You don't get the point of the analogy. It exaggerates how people often try to make themselves feel better by thinking "oh, well I must be pretty decent at chess because I know I'm lost."
If you want to be recognized as good, just win games. Don't play like crap then "resign early" as if this takes tremendous skill.
Well, if you want my general points against your argument you can look through this thread, because I have a lot of experience meeting these kinds of arguments :)
Anyway, strange how me allowing mate in 1 has not lost me enough points to drag my rating below 2000 :) Of course, sometimes I resign, and sometimes I don't, but it's always when I am comfortable.
is fine,
when you are lost in a game can resign , or dont resign if you are specting to win by time ,
that will not be the best win , but a win is a win
As to the OP, who (whom?) I mostly ignored 
:
Resigning is fine too. A person should not play longer than they want to, and we have seen some reasons why they might want to cut the game short. Wins by resignation are perfectly legitimate, since, well, if your opponent is not continuing, there's no way he can checkmate you. Being able to get your opponent to resign is certainly one way to keep yourself from being beaten, so that's a legitimate part of winning a game. Although legitimate, obviously if your opponent has to go and so resigns on move 5 that doesn't exactly mean you can credit your own genius for the win :) But if you have a totally winning position and then your opponent resigns, yeah, I think your chess skill had something to do with it :)
The ability to move two spaces, and the related ability to capture en passant, were only introduced in 15th-century Europe. So chess may have been played 800 years but not with the same rule all the time.
I wonder what people said about the rule change in the 15th century.
Wikipedia: "The en passant capture rule was added in the 15th century when the rule that gave pawns an initial double-step move was introduced. It prevents a pawn from using the two-square advance to pass an adjacent enemy pawn without the risk of being captured."
"In the Middle Ages and during the Renaissance, chess was a part of noble culture; it was used to teach war strategy and was dubbed the "King's Game"
It would be interesting to know if that rule was introduced because some players were whining or bitching about how a game isn't playing out the way they wanted, or if the aristrocrats and nobles just simply wanted to up the ante and make the game more complex