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

  • #161
    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • #162
    alexlaw wrote:

    Also please note allowing checkmate is probably better if it is in a few moves, after your opponent did a marvelous queen sacrifice to send your king to the middle of the board or something. However, if your opponent has two pawns + king vs king, you might as well resign

    Yup, I agree with this. If your opponent earned a checkmate, give it to him if its there in a few moves.

  • #163

    Yes this whole topic ridiculous. Of course it is okay to promote pawns but also is dignified to respect your opponent & checkmate as soon as possible once sufficient material is amassed to do so.

    To humiliate an opponent (especially a weaker-strengh player) with 4-Queens or 5-Bishops or suchlike is reprehensible.

    Is conceited & bullying behaviour that only those without proper-manners would even consider.

  • #164
    netzach wrote:

    Yes this whole topic ridiculous. Of course it is okay to promote pawns but also is dignified to respect your opponent & checkmate as soon as possible once sufficient material is amassed to do so.

    To humiliate an opponent (especially a weaker-strengh player) with 4-Queens or 5-Bishops or suchlike is reprehensible.

    Is conceited & bullying behaviour that only those without proper-manners would even consider.

    How is that bullying? That is not bullying. Can you say I resign/quit while being bullied and have it finished? No. Can you resign in chess before all that happens. Yes. Thats a big difference right there. Control.

    I think there are people here who get that. You cannot force your opponent to "suffer" (if being up against 5 queens is suffering, at least one should be pretty), your opponent can end it at any time.

    Now, I'm not saying that justifies doing it, and I'm not saying that it doesn't justify doing it, I'm just saying that it seems like people think the player with a lone king against 5 queens and whatnot is forced into that position. He/she never is. 

  • #165
    ciljettu wrote:
    netzach wrote:

    Yes this whole topic ridiculous. Of course it is okay to promote pawns but also is dignified to respect your opponent & checkmate as soon as possible once sufficient material is amassed to do so.

    To humiliate an opponent (especially a weaker-strengh player) with 4-Queens or 5-Bishops or suchlike is reprehensible.

    Is conceited & bullying behaviour that only those without proper-manners would even consider.

    Well if an opponent wants to take the piss by not resigning in such a situation, I reserve the right to take the piss in return. If he is genuinely a beginner and unable to fathom what is going on I would be a bit kinder

    No cjett. Weaker players maybe not resigning as been told to fight-on. That is no reason to humilate. Simple checkmate ASAP is enough.

  • #166
    stubborn_d0nkey wrote:
    netzach wrote:

    Yes this whole topic ridiculous. Of course it is okay to promote pawns but also is dignified to respect your opponent & checkmate as soon as possible once sufficient material is amassed to do so.

    To humiliate an opponent (especially a weaker-strengh player) with 4-Queens or 5-Bishops or suchlike is reprehensible.

    Is conceited & bullying behaviour that only those without proper-manners would even consider.

    How is that bullying? That is not bullying. Can you say I resign/quit while being bullied and have it finished? No. Can you resign in chess before all that happens. Yes. Thats a big difference right there. Control.

    I think there are people here who get that. You cannot force your opponent to "suffer" (if being up against 5 queens is suffering, at least one should be pretty), your opponent can end it at any time.

    Now, I'm not saying that justifies doing it, and I'm not saying that it doesn't justify doing it, I'm just saying that it seems like people think the player with a lone king against 5 queens and whatnot is forced into that position. He/she never is. 

    The game of chess has an objective & purpose. Checkmate your opponent & win !

    Of course to do anything else is rude !!

  • #167

    Also I'd like to add that you are not really humiliating your opponent, your opponent allows himself to be humiliated (if you at all consider such positions humiliating).

    Its like if somebody were uploading a picture of you that you find humiliating (but the other person doesn't) to facebook, and there you are in front  of their computer with the ability to cancel the uplaod before it finishes. If you dont its more your fault than the other persons

  • #168
    netzach wrote:
    stubborn_d0nkey wrote:
    netzach wrote:

    Yes this whole topic ridiculous. Of course it is okay to promote pawns but also is dignified to respect your opponent & checkmate as soon as possible once sufficient material is amassed to do so.

    To humiliate an opponent (especially a weaker-strengh player) with 4-Queens or 5-Bishops or suchlike is reprehensible.

    Is conceited & bullying behaviour that only those without proper-manners would even consider.

    How is that bullying? That is not bullying. Can you say I resign/quit while being bullied and have it finished? No. Can you resign in chess before all that happens. Yes. Thats a big difference right there. Control.

    I think there are people here who get that. You cannot force your opponent to "suffer" (if being up against 5 queens is suffering, at least one should be pretty), your opponent can end it at any time.

    Now, I'm not saying that justifies doing it, and I'm not saying that it doesn't justify doing it, I'm just saying that it seems like people think the player with a lone king against 5 queens and whatnot is forced into that position. He/she never is. 

    The game of chess has an objective & purpose. Checkmate your opponent & win !

    Of course to do anything else is rude !!

    Losing is rude? Drawing is rude? Forcing a threefold repetition in an otherwise losing position is rude? Really?

  • #169
    joeydvivre wrote:

    "Its like if somebody were uploading a picture of you that you find humiliating (but the other person doesn't) to facebook, and there you are in front of their computer with the ability to cancel the uplaod before it finishes. If you dont its more your fault than the other persons"

    This is scary that he thinks that.  There are a few ethical principles here that apparently nobody has taught you:

    a) A person doing an unethical thing bears significantly more responsibility for it than a person who fails to stop it.

    b) A person can be a victim even if they could have behaved differently and avoided it.

    c) The morality of an act does not depend at all on whether or not someone else can stop it from happening.

    From his profile, this is likely a guy who grew up in Bosnia during the '90's.  Hmmm....

    All of your points (a,b and c) are irrelevant. Try reading not skimming what I posted.

    Also, could you please explain the bosnia comment, so you can clearly show everybody what kind of stuff you use to show your point. (btw. your assumption is false)

  • #170

    WINNING is Rude. We should help those who are down on their luck (or Chess ability, as the case may be) !

    Btw, Can you spare me a Knight, Chessfriend ?

  • #171

    You don't seem to get my post, do you.

    Person A is doing/about to do something (to/in regards to person B) which he does not think is humiliating (for himself in reversed roles and of course person B) and he does not know that person B find a it humiliating (which he does). Person B is able to stop/prevent person B but doesn't. Who is (more) at fault there?

    Also, while doing something to humiliate somebody or even doing something that you know will humiliate somebody may be unethical I definitely don't view doing something with neither intent or knowledge of such a humiliation unethical, do you?

  • #172
    netzach wrote:

    To humiliate an opponent (especially a weaker-strengh player) with 4-Queens or 5-Bishops or suchlike is reprehensible.

    Is conceited & bullying behaviour that only those without proper-manners would even consider.

    And yet to pass such ignorant judgement makes you even more reprehensible. Like I said before, even a rank beginner knows the futility of fighting on against 4 queens against a bare king, so it is just as much my right to create an army instead of checkmating as it is his right to waste time playing on when resignation is appropriate. Why is it that people like you can't seem to comprehend how simple that is to understand? Are you really that thick-headed?

    In blitz, I'll refuse rematches when they force me to play out an elementary checkmate. They lose the right to a rematch in my book.

  • #173

    You're not doing them or yourself any favours.  If they don't know any better, then teach them how lost they are by being expedient about their defeat, and if they do, manage the amount of time you waste on them while practicing your efficiency.

    In either case, the course of action should be the same and you don't have to concern yourself with speculating about their motivations.

  • #174
    ciljettu wrote:
    Once a 1800 standard player was playing on against me in K+Q vs K. He had a habit of resigning later than normal, and I did once start promoting pawns to humiliate him. Onlookers gathered and started giggling, upon which resignation ensued and lesson learnt for the tedious bugger

    the tournament director should throw out all who is giggling. onlookers should be quiet until the game is over. 

  • #175
    joeydvivre wrote:

    I got lost about here "Person B is able to stop/prevent person B but doesn't. "  I must not read well.

    Wow. You really posted that?  I feel sorry for you and for the people who have to deal with you (thankfully I dont have to). 

    Enjoy your life ;) 

  • #176

    promoting pieces can be wasting a tempo in some situations. your opponent may get a last attempt to do something or set a stalemate trap that some might fall into because of how certain you are in victory. it really depends on how lost the position is. 
    as Josh Waitzkin said it: if you are on the edge of winning - you are also on the edge of losing the win. that is a funny thing about chess.
    there is hidden resources everywhere in chess.

  • #177
    ciljettu wrote:
    TheGrobe wrote:

    You're not doing them or yourself any favours.  If they don't know any better, then teach them how lost they are by being expedient about their defeat, and if they do, manage the amount of time you waste on them while practicing your efficiency.

    In either case, the course of action should be the same and you don't have to concern yourself with speculating about their motivations.


    This guy knew what he was doing and he was a repeat offender who played on to irritate opponents into a stalemate. A legit tactic, to be sure, but cynical and irritating. Often he got finished off as quickly as possible, but occasionally someone would run out of patience and start overpromoting to take the piss. Of course this is not a nice thing to do, but within the rules. Sometimes in the face of repeated jackassery you have to be a bit of an a-hole. Clearly if it is a kid just starting the game I would not do it.

    Discouraging a player who habitually plays on in the hopes of a stalemate with a tactic that increases your risk of a stalemate hardly seems like a good disincentive.  If you do this, you may well be a part of the problem.

  • #178
    FirebrandX wrote:
    netzach wrote:

    To humiliate an opponent (especially a weaker-strengh player) with 4-Queens or 5-Bishops or suchlike is reprehensible.

    Is conceited & bullying behaviour that only those without proper-manners would even consider.

    And yet to pass such ignorant judgement makes you even more reprehensible. Like I said before, even a rank beginner knows the futility of fighting on against 4 queens against a bare king, so it is just as much my right to create an army instead of checkmating as it is his right to waste time playing on when resignation is appropriate. Why is it that people like you can't seem to comprehend how simple that is to understand? Are you really that thick-headed?

    In blitz, I'll refuse rematches when they force me to play out an elementary checkmate. They lose the right to a rematch in my book.

    No Firebrand. I repeat chess is a game with an objective & that objective is to checkmate your opponent & win the game.

    Just because they have not resigned when YOU want them to is not breaking the rules of the game. Is no question of reacting in anger & seeking to humiliate them. You should carry on in the game of chess & seek to checkmate & defeat your opponent as quickly as you can.

    In public-simuls by Masters you would never see them behave in such a way despite slaughtering many on the board. They show respect for chess & opponent by winning the game quickly.

    Your manner of speaking clearly identifies a bad-mannered boor but this has no place in chess & should be discouraged.

  • #179
    ciljettu wrote:

    You have a point... got to be extra careful that you do not walk into that!

    Making such a mistake whilst trying to "give him a lesson" would make you look even more silly.

    And reinforce his behaviour, much to the detriment of everyone else.

    Just finish him off quickly.

  • #180
    joeydvivre wrote:

    "Its like if somebody were uploading a picture of you that you find humiliating (but the other person doesn't) to facebook, and there you are in front of their computer with the ability to cancel the uplaod before it finishes. If you dont its more your fault than the other persons"

    This is scary that he thinks that.  There are a few ethical principles here that apparently nobody has taught you:

    a) A person doing an unethical thing bears significantly more responsibility for it than a person who fails to stop it.

    b) A person can be a victim even if they could have behaved differently and avoided it.

    c) The morality of an act does not depend at all on whether or not someone else can stop it from happening.

    From his profile, this is likely a guy who grew up in Bosnia during the '90's.  Hmmm....

    You seem to think that there is some universal set of morals that everyone should abide by, and that it is your set of morals.

or Join

Online Now