Your opponent is talking rubbish and is just salty because he messed it up. He didn't have the ability to checkmate you and so this fully justified your decision not to resign. Your approach as a learner is correct - don't resign and treat every game as a chance to learn something. Here you learnt how not to play with a massive material advantage in the endgame.
Playing to a stalemate bad sportsmanship?
Sort:
Nov 26, 2020
0
#3
By the way this is actually quite a cool ending. Your move 50.Rb8 does not force stalemate, black should just go Qg2#. However, 50.Rh7+ is a forced stalemate! If Kxh7 its stalemate, and if Kg8 you just play Rg7+ and again it is stalemate if black captures the rook with either his rook or king. 😎
Nov 26, 2020
0
#4
Only salty beginner players have anything against stalemate. Attempting to stalemate an opponent is a legitimate strategy that every GM learns to both execute and avoid. No titled player would ever fault you for going for it; indeed, they would encourage it.
Nov 26, 2020
0
#5
No playing to stalemate is perfectly legitimate, at almost every level of the game.
He was clearly frustrated by his own lack of ability - to be fair these days, end games are a thing that many people neglect, so playing on is always best.
(At titled level if someone has just lost a piece for nada then maybe resignation is customary...but even that is debatable, with clocks, forcing a draw is a legit continuation.)
(Also don't criticise your opponent too much - he had just got a 1/2 from what he thought was a win, so he was hitting out in frustration.)
Nov 26, 2020
0
#6
ztm200 wrote:
I'm sure this question has probably been asked innumerable times, but I am new to the game and haven't come across it in a search. Is achieving a stalemate when you are obviously losing considered bad sportsmanship? I had a game where my opponent was clearly destroying me (by the time the game was over he had a +22 advantage since he was able to promote a pawn at the very end), but I wanted to play through the endgame so in order to continue learning, try out some endgame tactics I have looked at, and see what strategies he used. In this game I was able to secure a stalemate which I was pretty surprised I had been able to do. As soon as the game was over my opponent had told that what I had done was "pretty low". Is the case? In the limited reading and learning I have done I didn't even know what a stalemate was a month ago) stalemates are presented as viable goals if you are in a losing position. Is this wrong? I certainly want to practice proper etiquette in my games.
no it is not bad sportsmanship, it just means that your opponent was not paying attention and careless, or that the opponent was not capable of checkmating you
If you want to completely waste your time and the opponents - all for the sake of saving a few rating points - go right ahead.
You’ll find as ratings increase players simply resign m. Many players start out with a never resign attitude. Most get over it. Down -22 in material - who are you kidding by saying - good to practice tactics. None exist.
Bad sportsmanship? Depends on time left on the clock and any realistic chances to create it’s position. With several minutes left in hopeless positions - count on many players blocking you for wasting both your time. Move on - what enjoyment value is there? Decide yourself the sportsmanship question. An easy answer in my book.
Chess is a hobby for us. Enjoy playing it. Can’t convince me players who never resign in hopeless positions with minutes left on the clock are enjoying the remainder of the game m. The motivation is more directed at slapping the opponents face than practicing any imagined skills.
Whoopty - do. After 100 such attempts an opponent dozes off and allows stalemate. 2 points were gained instead of losing 2 points. In the meantime- good chance 1/2 of those players you’ll never see again.
Nov 26, 2020
0
#9
@badbishop. I mean I’m all for resignation in a hopeless situation, but some positions lend themselves to stalemates and some don’t. Just the other day I put my opponent in check with a rook. He didn’t see that by taking it left me without a move, but he took anyway. I lost nothing by setting it up and salvaged a draw.
Eliminating stalemate potentials is also why I take the extra time to clear out pieces and not go for the fastest mate—better safe than sorry.
Honestly, chess.com should have stalemate puzzles.
Eliminating stalemate potentials is also why I take the extra time to clear out pieces and not go for the fastest mate—better safe than sorry.
Honestly, chess.com should have stalemate puzzles.
I never do puzzles anymore. Not familiar with the ones here. Are there not ones that stipulate a side to move and draw? Such puzzles are a common motif in lesson plans. They may not state a side to move and stalemate - only to draw.
Nov 26, 2020
0
#11
Justs99171 wrote:
In an over the board tournament, I would not recommend playing a lost position to stalemate.
Yes, it is bad sportsmanship and that's putting it lightly.
However, that's not why I strongly advocate against it. It's better to resign a dead lost position against a respectable player due to the energy expended by dragging the game out. Why x number rounds to go, why waste energy that would be better put to use in the next game? At some level, this is going to cost you in the long run. If we're talking about a primary school or elementary school section in a scholastic tournament, with ratings all below 1000 ... yeah sure, DRAG EVERY GAME OUT!
On-line, drag it out if you wanna drag it out.
Some where at about intermediate level, though, the game just gets more and more physically taxing the better and better you get at it.
I can remember when chess tournaments were not tiring and then I can remember when they became grueling.
But if you have stalemate, is it really lost?
I had a game in Columbia, South Carolina in 2008 that you could try to argue White is lost, but if he is, it sure isn't easy:
Black plays 1...Kxf6 and White plays 2.Rf2+. If he goes to the g-file, it still is not easy as many 2-on-1 scenarios in Rook endings are drawn, and how is Black to make progress other than playing f5 or h5 eventually? Any Rook check I play Kg2, and then he must leave the h-file, and unless he hangs his Rook, I immediately go back to h3.
In the game, he goes 2...Ke6, and I play 3.Re2+!! and the game is drawn!
Clearly - the position is playable. Equal material.
The question centers about hopeless positions. The OP was losing by 22 points. Ridicules to even be playing. The point at which resignation is the honorable solution varies for everyone. The primary factor is time left on the clock. Short time left for the opponent- zero issue. 5 minutes on the clock and using every last second - issue.
Nov 26, 2020
0
#13
The point is that it’s the OP’s right to play on. I don’t approve, but it’s his right. If you’re on the winning side of +22 and you stalemate, it’s a good life lesson, actually. Getting salty is lame. Learn good mating technique.
Nov 26, 2020
0
#14
White was probably in time pressure when he botched the ending, it was a 1 day per move game.
Hogwash - this “right” thing. Go ahead and waste the opponents time. It’s in the rules. You lose when time expires. In many situations it is regarded as very poor etiquette. Don’t give me this “it’s their right” business . Rights and rules are not synonymous.
The issue is about respecting opponents and nothing about rights.
Nov 26, 2020
0
#16
BadBishopJones3 wrote:
Clearly - the position is playable. Equal material.
The question centers about hopeless positions. The OP was losing by 22 points. Ridicules to even be playing. The point at which resignation is the honorable solution varies for everyone m.
Material count is not the point. Material count means nothing. The King is what matters.
White is down a large number of points in the following positions. You saying he should resign these if it is his move?
Nov 26, 2020
0
#17
Ahem. I said I don’t approve, didn’t I? I don’t like it. You don’t like it. As I said, certain positions are more amenable to stalemate tricks than other, especially endgames where you are down a piece or down the exchange and a pawn. I’m not going to resign if I’m down the exchange and a pawn, even though I’m probably -5. It’s not going to drag out 30 moves, either.
The OP is obviously a beginner. He probably can’t tell if a position is prone to stalemating. Beginners hang pieces all the time so dead lost to you isn’t dead lost to him.
The OP is obviously a beginner. He probably can’t tell if a position is prone to stalemating. Beginners hang pieces all the time so dead lost to you isn’t dead lost to him.
All these positions shown are playable ones.
Geez- the nit picking that goes on . The OP asked about -22 points in material. Some players never resign in any and all situations. Can this be bad sportsmanship? Yes - sometimes.
Nov 26, 2020
0
#19
I don’t think it’s nitpicking to say that context matter. GMs resign down a minor piece or sometimes even a couple of pawns. Should a pairs of 1500s resign down a piece? Probably. Should 1000s? Ehhhhhhh.... should 400s? Heck no.
More nit picking - GMs resigning down a piece vs a game down 22 points and 5+ minutes on the clock. As if comparisons can be made .
The primary consideration is the clock - regardless of the material count. The opponents short on time - make them play it out. What’s so hard about understanding with 5 minutes on the clock. - down 22 points and using all the remaining time is regarded by many as being a bad sport?
The excuse made was to practice tactics. No - usually it is done to show open disrespect.
I'm sure this question has probably been asked innumerable times, but I am new to the game and haven't come across it in a search. Is achieving a stalemate when you are obviously losing considered bad sportsmanship? I had a game where my opponent was clearly destroying me (by the time the game was over he had a +22 advantage since he was able to promote a pawn at the very end), but I wanted to play through the endgame so in order to continue learning, try out some endgame tactics I have looked at, and see what strategies he used. In this game I was able to secure a stalemate which I was pretty surprised I had been able to do. As soon as the game was over my opponent had told that what I had done was "pretty low". Is the case? In the limited reading and learning I have done I didn't even know what a stalemate was a month ago) stalemates are presented as viable goals if you are in a losing position. Is this wrong? I certainly want to practice proper etiquette in my games.