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

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. 

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 ;) 


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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)

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?


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


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


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)

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?


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


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


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?


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.


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.

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?

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.


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...