Take the quickest mate.
Promoting pawns when you are ahead in material...Rude?
Sort:
chapablanca2000 wrote:
BruceJuice wrote:
I don't think they always expect to win. In sports like football or basketball the teams will play on in one-sided games even though it's blatantly obvious that there is no way they can win the game. Perhaps they are bringing this over to chess.
Strong players know that one-sided games are usually a matter of technique or a science. But I think most people will see it as a game or sport instead of a science and they will play on until the end.
Yes, but in a football or basketball game, there's no option to resign, nor is there any way to "win as quickly as possible". About the closest thing is for the losing team in a blowout to start playing its bench players, and that usually happens after the winning team does the same. And the closest thing to playing on a queen down would be if a basketball team is down, say, 20 points with two minutes left, and they keep fouling the other team to put them on the free throw line and prolong the game.
Why wouldn't a sports team have the option to resign? Even if they can't resign, they could technically sit out the rest of the game.
ClavierCavalier wrote:
chapablanca2000 wrote:
Yes, but in a football or basketball game, there's no option to resign, nor is there any way to "win as quickly as possible". About the closest thing is for the losing team in a blowout to start playing its bench players, and that usually happens after the winning team does the same. And the closest thing to playing on a queen down would be if a basketball team is down, say, 20 points with two minutes left, and they keep fouling the other team to put them on the free throw line and prolong the game.
Why wouldn't a sports team have the option to resign? Even if they can't resign, they could technically sit out the rest of the game
the more i read that, the more puzzled i get!
CalamityChristie wrote:
ClavierCavalier wrote:
chapablanca2000 wrote:
Yes, but in a football or basketball game, there's no option to resign, nor is there any way to "win as quickly as possible". About the closest thing is for the losing team in a blowout to start playing its bench players, and that usually happens after the winning team does the same. And the closest thing to playing on a queen down would be if a basketball team is down, say, 20 points with two minutes left, and they keep fouling the other team to put them on the free throw line and prolong the game.
Why wouldn't a sports team have the option to resign? Even if they can't resign, they could technically sit out the rest of the game
the more i read that, the more puzzled i get!
Some sports you can resign, concede, throw in the towel, whatever you want to call it.
Boxing, snooker springs to mind, maybe there's more.....
i'm still wondering about the teams though
TheGrobe wrote:
The right, yes, but then that wasn't the question, was it?
To consider a legal move as unethical is silly.
Suggo?
Rude is not even close to the same thing as unethical.
Is it unethical to ask for requests as to what I should promote to?
Why would we promote to a bishop? You could have simply done a rook or a queen and then checkmated the king easily.
TheGrobe wrote:
Suggo?
Rude is not even close to the same thing as unethical.
If it's not wrong for someone to promote their 5th knight, why should anyone take it as being rude? Is more than one draw offer rude? Is 2.Qh5 rude? What of silly sacks on f7? Is refusing a rematch rude? Is "gg" rude after a win? Is ommiting "gg" rude?
Ofcourse not. Engine-abuse and refusing to move are the only "rude" things one repeatedly comes across.
Well, technically refusing to move isn't illegal....
The short answer is the obvious one:
If you have to ask if it's rude, it probably is.
Whether the rudeness is justified is another topic. Hence the +250 posts on this topic already.
I think it depends on if you should be able to win easily with what you have, then yes, but if you are promoting a pawn because it is actually part of your strategy no it is not rude.
I think they mean excessive amounts of pawns when you could just checkmate.
Your opponent has the option of resigning if it's that easy for you to win though.
Yes, I find it extremely immature and disrespectful if your opponent promotes his pawns when he can win in a few more moves. But if he has, lets say, a knight and a bishop, it would be much easier just to promote it.
"Yes, I find it extremely immature and disrespectful if your opponent promotes his pawns when he can win in a few more moves."
Why not resign then?
Personally, I find that if you're in the position that they can just promote pawns to kingdom come, then you should have resigned a while ago.
It isn't rude to promote pieces- unnecessary maybe- but it is your fault for being in that position in the first place. We all need to learn how to play better, losing badly is a great way to do this.
I have played against some people who are vastly down in material, and refuse to resign or spam draw offers. If I have the opportunity, I'll just promote to all knights or bishops just to extend the torture (being careful not to stalemate of course.) Otherwise if my opponent has been normal and is just trying to salvage a game, I'll promote only enough to ensure a win.
So it seems that the discussion of whether rudeness is justified by the rudeness of others continues.
I tell my students not to resign until they are about 1600 (USCF, not chess.com) strength. They have too much to learn.
In my own practice, I often promote to a B+N and practice that mating pattern. That way I get something out of the last few moves, and my opponent does too. Unless my opponent is a strong enough player to know that endgame. In which case, they're strong enough to know when to resign too.
"When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground." ..Cersie Lannister
There are days I wish I could get my game up to being able to promote just one pawn. Having a game where I would promote two is a fantasy..