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

  • #221

    "All that matters is that I gave it 110%."  Football players, and now chessplayers...

  • #222
    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. 

  • #223
    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!

    what you're missing is ....

    it's insulting to "intend" insult

    (though even then, your opponent may still not be dumb enough to hurt themself with it)

  • #224

    Yes, there is the possibility of resigning to end the misery, but I would say that if you are promoting to seven knights, chances are you are doing it out of spite. And spite is not a good thing, in my opinion.


  • #225

    I was down to a king verse an opponent who still had a queen and plenty of pawns.  He had a clear mate in one, but decided to premote all of his pawns.  About 15 moves later he stalemated me.  Lesson?  Never resign, that is if you are willing to endure the shame.

  • #226

    lot of big egos play chess and you've just exposed the chess achilles heel.

  • #227
    AnthonyCG wrote:

    It's an annoying waste of time either way. Just trap the king with a rook and end the stupid game.

    People like to think chess is like other sports where if you try hard maybe you can pull something off. Chess isn't like that. At some point you're just screwed and there's nothing you can do about it.

    As annoyingly theoretical as it may be, I don't assume there is such thing as a 100%/0% chance of anything happening. Even if there is a 100% chance of something happening, my mind is too limited to ever know if that is really the case. And I'm not talking about heart attacks during a game (although I am including temporary blind spots in our brains) or anything like that.

    I actually played a position with two rooks vs one against houdini, with me having a passed A pawn (it's a long story; actually, I was arguing with my father that the position was the kind I had a 100% chance of winning against anyone; I don't believe that anymore), houdini having three pawns on the kingside as well as I; we both had a queen. Surprisingly, I still had to be a little careful. I did win, but I feel like I would probably miss something to throw away the win once in a blue moon; for instance, forgetting about houdini's Qxf2+ as I move my rook away from f2 to support my passed pawn! In any case, I cannot at all say I am certain I would win that position 1000 times out of 1000, at least against houdini.

    So I still keep the option open that there is a small possibility of any position being won or drawn by the underdog, although in some cases the percentage could be as low as 10^-30, crazy numbers like this.

  • #228
    Elubas wrote:
    AnthonyCG wrote:

    It's an annoying waste of time either way. Just trap the king with a rook and end the stupid game.

    People like to think chess is like other sports where if you try hard maybe you can pull something off. Chess isn't like that. At some point you're just screwed and there's nothing you can do about it.

    As annoyingly theoretical as it may be, I don't assume there is such thing as a 100%/0% chance of anything happening. Even if there is a 100% chance of something happening, my mind is too limited to ever know if that is really the case. And I'm not talking about heart attacks during a game (although I am including temporary blind spots in our brains) or anything like that.

    I actually played a position with two rooks vs one against houdini, with me having a passed A pawn (it's a long story; actually, I was arguing with my father that the position was the kind I had a 100% chance of winning against anyone; I don't believe that anymore), houdini having three pawns on the kingside as well as I; we both had a queen. Surprisingly, I still had to be a little careful. I did win, but I feel like I would probably miss something to throw away the win once in a blue moon; for instance, forgetting about houdini's Qxf2+ as I move my rook away from f2 to support my passed pawn! In any case, I cannot at all say I am certain I would win that position 1000 times out of 1000, at least against houdini.

    So I still keep the option open that there is a small possibility of any position being won or drawn by the underdog, although in some cases the percentage could be as low as 10^-30, crazy numbers like this.

    That's great and all but it's not the same as a situation where one person has a queen and 20 pawns versus a lone king. You litteraly have no control over the course of the game. Whether the game is won or drawn depends completely on the other player. And the odds of human error occuring in such a position are too low to even bother depending on.

    Playing is just a waste of time imo. You won't comeback until hell freezes over and you can't be having fun pushing the king around with no control over your situation. So what is the point?

  • #229

    A player has the right to make any legal move he pleases, whether that may be shuffling his king or promoting needlessly to minor pieces. If that annoys you, you're playing the wrong game. I'd feel much worse getting mated in 20 moves than 120.

  • #230

    The right, yes, but then that wasn't the question, was it?

  • #231

    Well, that's your opinion Anthony, but not everyone views it the same way. Personally I wouldn't play those overwhelming positions on unless in a bullet game, but if someone wants to keep their opponent honest, make sure they don't over-confidently promote too many queens and eventually make a stalemate, I think that's up to them. I agree that playing on positions to the end might waste time that could have been used for something else, but some people just really enjoy the struggle, even to the point of playing on some ridiculous positions.

  • #232

    a player playing a completely lost position is hoping for you to mess up. You must not mess up. Promote as much as you need- all of them if you like.

  • #233

    it really doesnt matter

  • #234

     "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..Cool

  • #235

    Take the quickest mate.

     

     

     

  • #236
    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.

  • #237
    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!

  • #238
    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.....

  • #239

    i'm still wondering about the teams though

  • #240
    TheGrobe wrote:

    The right, yes, but then that wasn't the question, was it?

    To consider a legal move as unethical is silly.

or Join

Online Now