Well, it is mostly correspondence chess that is being discussed here and stalemate in CC is very, very rare... in blitz it does happen when you've got 2sec on the clock, of course, but playing for a stalemete in CC is not really reasonable.
resigning!
Sort:
I agree that you should resign if you are way down (queen, rook, or two pieces, etc.). But if not too far down, and you don't know the opponent, there's nothing wrong with playing on.
The good players who know each other (like when you look at the GM's games against each other) sometimes will resign when they get down a piece because they know the other guy will not make boneheaded blunders (like I can and do).
thanx very much for all the replies. In the actual game he didn't resign - he just let the clock run out (for 25 minutes) so I couldn't start a new game. It could have been a tactical move to come back after 20 minutes, make a move and see if your opponent was still around. thanx again, all
Oh good, I wondered when another one of these threads would pop up.
I personally don't care if my opponent doesn't resign in a lost position. It just makes the victory that much sweeter. If they want to be unsportsmanlike and drag out the game by not making moves until they have to (in CC), then I just imagine how excruciating it must be for them to see this lost game on their screen haunting them.
don't you love being in win situations? i know it really doesn't help with chess, but learn to not to take those situations lightly. you must not let your guard down. i've lost many games because of this
I played a lot of games where the clock runs out 1 move away from checkmate. That is unsportsman like conduct. But, sometimes you can finagle a draw out of a crappy situation. i think it's worth the time to try to see if you can. I don't see where the harm is.
Jan 10, 2012
0
#28
timab wrote:
I played a lot of games where the clock runs out 1 move away from checkmate. That is unsportsman like conduct. But, sometimes you can finagle a draw out of a crappy situation. i think it's worth the time to try to see if you can. I don't see where the harm is.
There's only one person to blame for than. I've done it myself before, and it sucks, but it was my own fault for not managing time better. It's not unsportsmanlike in blitz to force your opponent to mate if he has little time on the clock. Time management is half the game in blitz. Probably at least 80% in bullet.
browni3141 wrote:
timab wrote:
I played a lot of games where the clock runs out 1 move away from checkmate. That is unsportsman like conduct. But, sometimes you can finagle a draw out of a crappy situation. i think it's worth the time to try to see if you can. I don't see where the harm is.
There's only one person to blame for than. I've done it myself before, and it sucks, but it was my own fault for not managing time better. It's not unsportsmanlike in blitz to force your opponent to mate if he has little time on the clock. Time management is half the game in blitz. Probably at least 80% in bullet.
Yes, in some situations it is ok to let your opponent lose on time. In others, it's not. It happens to me often enough that I lose in blitz because I am 0.2sec short on time (since I play with no increments per move) - and I have a queen and a rook and the opponent has just the king and it's mate in 2 or something... and I am playing -unrated- games. Of course, I don't lose any rating because of this and the opponent doesn't gain any - all it does is annoy me. I mean, how can anyone be happy about winning a game like that?
I'm only fairly new to online chess but I'm immediately frustrated by players who will not resign when you are clearly ahead in material and space. Clearly a lack of courtesy when playing otb, should same online.
NumBerwanG wrote:
I don't want to sound like a dick, but if a person is down 3 pieces or in a queen+king v. king endgame, or in a inevitable endgame position, where prolonging the game, which I'm not denying is his/her right, is gratitous and slightly unsportsmanlike? Wouldn't it be better, and better mannered, to admit defeat in a certaintly lost position and stop wasting everyones time? It's totally ok if they do, except for the fact that it's increadiably stupid and annoying.
Just check mate them and get it over with.
I hate this topic. It should not exist. It should resign.
RetGuvvie98 wrote:
UnratedGamesOnly wrote:
Just check mate them and get it over with.
or, as an expert explained to me in 1985, when he was ahead major material, and his opponent wouldn't resign, he would sac his remaining pieces for the opponent's pawns, and then queen another pawn and then another and another - and then - with 3 queens, checkmate him - - - but be careful not to allow him stalemate while doing it.
Im partial to promoting to all rooks, and then aimlessly moving them one square. I have no problem with people not resigning. If they chose to keep on playing in the hopes of getting a stalemate, or simply doing it to "annoy" me that is their right. I figure if im here i have to log in and check on my games, so what is the issue with making a move on a won game?
Jan 10, 2012
0
#36
pfren wrote:
No question about it being unsportsmanlike, but unfortunately you have to live with such behavior. Just don't play against these guys anymore.
1st of all chess is not a sport and 2 it was the way chess was originaly played until somebody came up with giving up or your unsportsmanlike
Jan 10, 2012
0
#37
RetGuvvie98 wrote:
UnratedGamesOnly wrote:
Just check mate them and get it over with.
or, as an expert explained to me in 1985, when he was ahead major material, and his opponent wouldn't resign, he would sac his remaining pieces for the opponent's pawns, and then queen another pawn and then another and another - and then - with 3 queens, checkmate him - - - but be careful not to allow him stalemate while doing it.
Wouldn't doing that be unsportsmanlike????
Jan 10, 2012
0
#39
RetGuvvie98 wrote:
I would think so - but - it happens sometimes... or just exchange everything off - and underpromote your last two pawns to two bishops of different colors - and then checkmate him. taking on a real challenge - is taking the knight and bishop and trying to mate him.
I've never tried that, because I can only imagine how terrible I would feel if I couldn't do it. I wouldn't even try it with less than 5 minutes on the clock.
Jan 10, 2012
0
#40
IMDeviate wrote:
gol4man wrote:
I am new here at chess.com. I won a game today against an opponent who had no chance. When he had realized his defeat, he let the timer run out appr. 25 minutes. Can I report him somewhere? Can I block him so I wont meet him again?
No.
Blocking doesn't prevent a player from playing you again.
You have posted this a couple of times. A block is supposed to prevent the blocked player from accepting your seeks. The only way you might get paired, is in a tournament, if it is working like it says it should.
If that is not correct, have you opened a ticket or seen where someone has?
There is the possibility of a stalemate if you play too carelessly, so I do not fault those who do not resign.