I think you mentioned that in a post before. It's an interesting observation.
Etiquette discussions on chess.com remind me of whitespace discussions in coding.
Go for Bishop and a Knight versus K and show him what you got!
Didn't you post this same thing somewhere else? It looks familiar.
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!
Do whatever is the fastest and easiest way fo finishing the game. I've done it before because I was afraid of getting a draw by repetition if I didn't promote an extra pawn. It was nothing personal.
Would you like someone to promote "their" pawn against you ??
Of course not! So just line up all your pawns on the 7th rank and leave them there looking stupid! Because it's rude to promote them.
Chess is not for the fainthearted. No point accusing any player of being rude. May as well just open 1h3 as White.
I love it!
If it is legal, play it. Rude is eating sticky candy and touching your opponents' chessmen with sticky figures, etc.
Yes, I would feel offended that you were beating me that badly. Now just resign and make me feel good about myself
Absolutely not rude. It sounds as though you and I are approximately in the same skill range and I actually tend to play an intentionally deliberate and boring middle game if ahead in material by a few pieces whenever possible, trying to advance at least one pawn to the end of the line to take the pressure off myself, as my end game remains the weakest part of my play. An extra Q really takes my shattered nerves out of the equation.
The only exception, in my opinion, would be if you are literally prolonging the agony. A situation, say, where your opponent has a blocked pawn, a bishop and a K left, while you have your queen, 2 rooks and 4 pawns on the board. To not just end it in 3 or 4 moves for the sake of moving a pawn to the end is definitely douchebagery at it's worst. If you did that to me I'd definitely shove a trojan horse up your back rank.
Here's something I heard last week or so that sums it up perfectly.
Bill Belichick, head coach of The New England Patriots, (an American football team, for those of you who don't follow jocko-type sports) was asked if he felt his opponent, when the Patriots might appear to have the game well in hand, might feel he was attempting to run up the score by leaving his starting quarterback in the game and pushing the play as though the score was tied and the game's outcome still hanging in the balance. Did he feel this was disrespectful to his opponent?
His reply was something along these lines;
" On the contrary. I think in a league of such parity, the exact opposite holds true. To pull our starters and simply try to run the ball and kill the remaining time on the clock, in my opinion, could justifiably be perceived as rude or disrespectful. It says you are so confident your opponent won't muster a comeback, or at the very least, continue to fight even though the battle may be almost definitely lost, that you can now beat their best with your back-ups. I think leaving your best players in the game and playing hard to the end, barring any celebration should you score or make a nice play is, in fact, a show of respect for your opponent. It says you believe they will never give up the fight, so you'd better not either. Then there are always those 1/1000 games where a combination of crazy events has them right back in the game in a matter of a minute of two of them possessing the ball. This is my justification for playing the way we do."
Lots of posts, some dumb, some not (taunting? dumb). Bottom line is, as eddiewsox said, do whatever gets you the mate quickest. In the interest of improving my sometimes shakey endgame technique, I usually only queen one pawn (if material and position is otherwise equal or close) and then go for mate. However, if it's a blitz game and there is only 30 seconds left and I've got 2 pawns on the 6th or 7th, they're both getting the upgrade. Two queens generally mate faster than one!
Digital Underground said it best - "Do whatcha like"
The only time it may cross the rude boundary is if you promote to a 3rd queen or more, but then again, if you are able to do that in a given situation then your opponent is being rude for not resigning a hopeless position. So I gues all is fair in love and war.
In my personal opinion, some people MAY find it rude (mostly pissed off bullet players who think you just got lucky.)
However, I think that it is just fine if you promote however many queens you want if you can!
If the other player is NOT RESIGNING, than he or she is just begging to get killed!
Bottom line, if they dont resign when they are lost, feel free to do whatever the heck you want to them.
I think its okay to promote to your heart's desire. Your opponent should've resigned by then though
If I can't find a quicker checkmate than promoting pawns, then I'll promote pawn or pawns.
Am I correct in thinking that chess is the only game/sport/competition in which players in losing positions are sometimes expected to resign or quit before their playing time is up?
delcarpenter, no. For example, match play in golf. When one player is ahead by more than the number of remaining holes, they do not finish the round.
In bridge it is common to "claim" the rest of the tricks instead of playing them out when you hold a hand that will obviously win the rest of the tricks (e.g. all trumps when no one else has any).
I'm not sure that this is completely accurate.
In match play, there is no option for the losing player to continue and no chance for him to win. The game has been decided and is thus over. In chess, while the outcome may seem a foregone conclusion, it is not an absolute (stalemates, blunders, etc.).
With regards to bridge, the same holds true. There isn't a chance for the other players to win, and thus the winning player essentially shows his hands and proves that he has won the remaining hands. This is closer to accurate than your golf analogy but still falls short with regards to certainty of outcome.
The gripe that started this thread seems to all be much about "nothing", IMHO. The rules of chess are clear and, like pretty much any other game, chess is a game that you play to win. If you "need" the extra material, GET IT. If not, you are wasting time at worst. As previously stated, your opponent has the resign button at their disposal always.
Some people are way too touchy. And the truth is that they are actaully angry at losing and not at the way in which they lost. Mouthing off about unnecessary promotion is a straw man. Taunting an opponent or making insulting comments, now that's rudeness. Playing the game by the rules to win, that's CHESS.
Ive always thought at average internet level its always a challenge and good practice when somebody makes me earn my win and vice versa. Especially if they have a couple of pieces and some pawns left but ultimatley we both know im going to win. I was very surprised to see the comments that it was rude, Ive never come across that train of thought before. I do agree with NM Reb that at high level tourmament or even good club level it would be rude as they probably dont need that sort of challenge or practice
Maybe a consideration might be if you are playing a "friendly" game (whatever that is) versus someone you have no connection with.. or a connection where you play for blood despite your acquaintance (more fun that way!). I thought I was out of this, but I'm getting a lot of great thinking from you guys...
According to previous posts from staff, promotion overkill can also get you flagged and eventually punished for violating the "fair play policy."
Which is just another ridiculous attempt by chess.com to change the rules of chess if you ask me, but hey I'm not the site owner. I'm just a customer. If too many onerous non chess rules are added by chess.com to the point where it affects game play and makes live chess less enjoyable (which already seems to be happening) I'm free to vote with my feet. Would be a shame, because at one time chess.com was the best chess site on the web but anyway...
A player should be free to make as many Queens as they want. That's the rule.
Of course said player also needs to take care to avoid having sooooo much force that they end up with a stalemate, but again that's the rules.
While it's probably asking too much for chess players to have good manners and exhibit good sportsmanship, at least they should learn the rules of chess so they're not constantly posting stupid questions or gripes in the forums.
100% agreed. If chess.com punish people for promotion overkill, then they are stupid drongoes. If some morons haven't got enough sense to RESIGN when the opponent has a storm of pawns heading for promotion, then that is their problem, not that of the side winning. No amount of complaining from being 0wn3d by 9 queens should change that.
I promote in games in which I do not respect my opponent(such as making unsound sacrifices, insulting popular openings in chat or using the Bongcloud). And when I do it, I do it all the way.
At the last count, I have over-promoted(6 queens, eat it) against the computer 3 times and once against an idiot who neglected the centre and spammed the chat with draw offers.