Promoting pawns when you are ahead in material...Rude?

  • #181

    There's a lot of crying going on over this issue.  Anybody know someone who has quit chess because they were so devastated that their opponent had more than one queen?

    I have to admit that I am crushed when I am two, three or four pieces down.  Why would those @$$holes put me more than one piece down!?! Those Jerks! (tongue-in-cheek alert for the dense)

  • #182
    waffllemaster wrote:

    Hey I just though of an even better way.

    Not only do you promote all your pawns, but then you sacrifice them 1 by 1 until you have just a king and a rook, and win from there

    If they didn''t get the point, can we just shoot em after that?

  • #183

    you're just trying to win the game, but still... idk

  • #184

    i am a boor also.  if you don't want to resign ... fine. if you don't want me to make queens DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!  yes it is rude deal with it

  • #185

    It may already have been mentioned here but is actually poor chess-practice to promote pawns to Queens if you already have a Queen on the board. In doing so you are increasing the risk of accidental-stalemate. Promotion to Rook in most cases should be sufficient to quickly win the game. (by checkmate if your opponent doesn't resign)

  • #186
    ChristianSoldier007 wrote:

    I was playing a guy who wouldnt resign and it ended 8 rooks against a king

    Was not one rook against the king sufficient?

  • #187

    If they are in a helpless position some people play on just in case a blunder.so promoting would put them in a more helpless position and the game ends.

    I HAVE SACRIFICED MY QUEEN FOR A PAWN PROMOTION.

    Then I promoted into a queen and another and another.He finally resigned but in I personally think that if you let stay in the game the person will stay there and fight!!!!! YA YA YA YA YA YA YA YA

  • #188

    I don't think it's particularly rude either.. Do what you want, and let your opponent do the same.  Why bring emotional baggage into it?

    Maybe they don't know how to easily win with what they've got without putting themselves at risk for a stalemate. Maybe they could win quicker by promoting..  Maybe the just find some sense of satisfaction in an overwhelming victory..  Regardless, what has that to do with you?  If you don't like it resign.  Let them play the game the way they would like, and hopefully they'll let you do the same.. What more can you fairly hope for?

  • #189

    Why on EARTH is it rude? If you realize that a loss is totally inevitable, you resign. If your opponent isn't really high ranked and wants to make sure he can mate before time runs out or he draws by the fifty move rule than he would be dumb NOT to promote the pawn.

  • #190

    And it's true...I haven't resigned before pawn promotions in the hope of forcing a stalemate...and it worked!

    I wasn't doing it to be annoying. I was doing it to see if I could work a draw out of a losing position. And it's worked for me more than once, so I don't intend on stopping until I see a really quick and obvious mate.

  • #191
    joeydvivre wrote:

    ^ That's utter nonsense from someone who doesn't know very much about chess.  If a GM is down a piece without compensation in a game with sufficient time to another strong player, he will ALWAYS resign not out of propriety but because it is ludicrous to continue.  If I'm up a piece on Anand, he will almost surely lose.  If Morozevich is up a piece on Anand, there is not a 1 in a 100,000,000,000 chance that Anand will draw.

    I removed that last bit on Grandmaster play before you replied because I didn't feel it was directly related to whether a person should overpromote, and I was overly hot in how I stated it.. However since you responded.. I will in turn do the same..

    You said it yourself " If I'm up a piece on Anand, he will almost surely lose."  Almost surely.. But not surely.  If there's is an ulterior reason.. Fine.. You're tired and need to conserve your mental strength for a more winnable game.. Okay, that would be valid.. Because you feel it will increase your chances in further games..

    Otherwise you're selling yourself short.  If you made the mistake.. So can he.  It may not be likely, but unless you have an additional reason to resign, you're giving away games.

    Incidentally Grandmasters hang pieces more frequently than 1 in 100,000,000,000 even when they're playing just to trade down.. True though even then that would only get you back to near even.  More is required win.. But I'd estimate the chances for a win closer to 1 in 1,000 for good opponents of equal skill.  Much greater still for a draw, still not likely, but why give it away if not because you're tired or being polite?

  • #192
    flatters1 wrote:

    What does chess etiquette have to say about promoting pawns when I'm already ahead in material?  Say a bishop and two pawns..  It seems safest and fastest for me (at my skill level..  about 1400 turn-based online)  to win by doing that, but it seems like piling on.  Would doing so irritate people?    Is it insulting to keep your advanced pawns two ranks back deliberately?  What am I missing here?  Thanks guys!

    If promoting pawns helps you win, how can you not do it, regardless of material advantage?? You take the swiftest route you can to checkmate. Being up a bishop and 2 pawns DOES NOT guarantee you victory. Promoting a pawn gets you much closer to victory. Not rude.

    If you are one move from checkmate, but instead promote a pawn, it might be considered rude...i guess.

  • #193

    Heh, this is funny.  Joeydvivre is right, 1 in 100 billion is a fair estimate.  A piece down vs a GM (no compensation)?  It's hard to make a comparison.  It's not like surviving a 100 foot fall, more like surviving jumping into an erupting volcano...

  • #194
    waffllemaster wrote:

    Heh, this is funny.  Joeydvivre is right, 1 in 100 billion is a fair estimate.  A piece down vs a GM (no compensation)?  It's hard to make a comparison.  It's not like surviving a 100 foot fall, more like surviving jumping into an erupting volcano...

    You have to believeeeeeeeeee!!!!

  • #195
    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • #196
    AnthonyCG wrote:
    waffllemaster wrote:

    Heh, this is funny.  Joeydvivre is right, 1 in 100 billion is a fair estimate.  A piece down vs a GM (no compensation)?  It's hard to make a comparison.  It's not like surviving a 100 foot fall, more like surviving jumping into an erupting volcano...

    You have to believeeeeeeeeee!!!!

    hmm. did not know this referred to GMs; I doubt I will ever have the oppty to play one

  • #197

    So joey, just to make things clear..  My statement of "But I'd estimate the chances for a win (closer) to 1 in 1,000 for good opponents of equal skill" is fantastically wrong.. Which means that there aren't 1 in 49,000,000,000 Grandmaster level games (basically ever in recorded chess history) where a Grandmaster resigned a won position a piece down?   Because that's what you just said in case you weren't aware...

    Maybe if you'd like to bring science into it you'd prefer to be more precise?  If we're going to argue about our ballparks I think I'll still manage to come out ahead.

    That was never my point though.  My point was only that many a game has been resigned in otherwise winnable situations due to the propriety of chess politeness.. I think that's unfortunate.

    I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so antagonistic.. But I've got nothing against you.  I'm sure you're a smart player, I wish you were a little more friendly though.

  • #198
    MattMcan wrote:
     My point was only that many a game has been resigned in otherwise winnable situations due to the propriety of chess politeness.. I think that's unfortunate.


    I always thought people resigned because they couldn't see a way to save the game. People (not even GMs) don't give up so easily just because they are down material. They resign because they evaluate the situation as hopeless. If it turns out they were technically wrong, that doesn't specifically mean they would have been able to find the solution on the board. They already tried and gave up. It's the same as blundering. I've resigned drawable endings before, but my resignation wasn't because I wanted to be polite.

  • #199
    FirebrandX wrote:
    MattMcan wrote:
     My point was only that many a game has been resigned in otherwise winnable situations due to the propriety of chess politeness.. I think that's unfortunate.


    I always thought people resigned because they couldn't see a way to save the game. People (not even GMs) don't give up so easily just because they are down material. They resign because they evaluate the situation as hopeless. If it turns out they were technically wrong, that doesn't specifically mean they would have been able to find the solution on the board. They already tried and gave up. It's the same as blundering. I've resigned drawable endings before, but my resignation wasn't because I wanted to be polite.

    Fair enough.  But is the situation hopeless under what one might consider perfect play, or hopeless regardless? 

    While I don't think one should base their moves on hoping the opponent doesn't see the flaw in the plan, I also don't feel people should assume the opponent will play perfect and necessarily see what you see.

    There are situations where I agree with most.. A grandmaster just isn't going to mess up when play is down to 6 pieces and he's up a minor piece.. It's just not going to happen.. I personally think there's still room for error in the middle game though, be it overlooking a forced mate or hanging a piece, it happens even to grandmasters.

    However even if it's KQ vs K which is probably drilled into all of our heads so that we could do it blindfolded, half asleep, with two hands behind our back.  What's the harm in playing it out.. Definitively lost games play out quickly.  More than a few people would find that rude though.  It would be as if you were saying "You're an amateur".   I've known a few people who would get REALLY worked up over something like that..  Honestly though, I'd still prefer to play it out.. Not because I want practice on my K+Q vs K endgames, or because I think my opponent is going to mess up.. But simply because I prefer the sense of closure checkmate brings.. It's an aesthetic thing for me more than anything else..  At least it is when it's fairly obvious to me who's going to win.

    But I have personally felt the social pressure from similiar situations. I've even resigned out of "Politeness" when I felt there was at least a decent chance of drawing and would have preferred to play on and would have meant no disrespect in doing so.  It bothered me that my only choices were to bow to a social convention I feel is silly, or infuriate someone essentially because that social convention is in place.

    I think there are plenty of valid reasons to resign, but lacking a good reason.. Why not just play on, even in a losing position.  Who does it hurt, other than an ego based on silly convention..  Again though, if you're tired, it's late, or you just don't want to.. That's fine.. I just don't think it should be expected.

  • #200

    I don't like playing out lost games. When the position is so bad that I have no plan to follow and I might as well make random moves, then I'm not playing chess anymore. I prefer to resign before that happens.

or Join

Online Now