You've misunderstood my post and used it as a reason to sit there and tell me about what kind of person I am. Keep your arguements about the topic, or to yourself. Either is okay with me. :))
In English "you or you're" is used in the general sense...like "l'on" en français...."you're not a good player"= "l'on ne peut être bon joueur"....
I was not saying that YOU are not a good player
I don't admire my opponent when they weasel their way out of a loss.
The mistake you and 1Doc are making is you are assuming that you have beaten your opponent before the game is over.
"Pride comes before a fall"
It's called going for the draw. It's not poor sportsmanship. A chess player with good sportsmanship would admire his opponent having found a way to turn an otherwise loss into a draw.
I don't admire my opponent when they weasel their way out of a loss. Even though it's my fault, I don't admire it :P Usually when I do that to a person I know how I feel inside when i stiff them like that. ;)
It's a SKILL to spot out the weaknesses of the opponent notwithstanding his positional as well as the pieces advantage.
What I get from you is that if in a duel, when one of the fighter breaks his sword - the other one whines - "don't be a weasel. why don't you just stand still and let me poke you with my sword."
A smart player will keep on checking until draw or until the other fumbles. In any case, you're not a very SOLID player if you can't get a proper checkmate without expecting the other player to "just let you win".
Again you misunderstood me. You used the word 'you' in a personal sense, not a general sense. By structuring your sentence as such, you implied that I hold the opinion that you painted for me. Again, keep your arguements to the discussion, or yourself. I'm not interested in what you've got to say there pal.
I don't admire my opponent when they weasel their way out of a loss.
The mistake you and 1Doc are making is you are assuming that you have beaten your opponent before the game is over.
"Pride comes before a fall"
I am well aware of that, hence my admittal that it's my fault. It's bad practice to not quote somebody in their entirety.
I am well aware of that, hence my admittal that it's my fault. It's bad practice to not quote somebody in their entirety.
I was not questioning your realisation that you were at fault.
I was questioning your accusation of dishonesty ("weasel") towards a player who used normal legal moves to force a draw.
I quoted the relevant part of your post to make my point. It is bad forum practice to "overquote".
I would go further than removing perpetual check....For a start, get rid of castling...too abstract...and En Passant...too French
As I have republican sympathies I'd get rid of the king and queen....Bishops ? get rid of them, I have no time for organised religion....Knights - Well "SIr " Jimmy Saville...say nor more - get rid of them...Rooks are representative of feudal warfare and pawns of the the class system...
Let's just sit there with the 64 squares and meditate on the triumph of our political correctness...
Touche. Perhaps there is a difference in the meanings of 'weasel' in the U.S. and the U.K. When I lived in the states, we used the word 'weasel' to refer to somebody who simply employed some cunning to get themselves out of an unfavorable decision. I wasn't aware that for somebody to use that word as a verb, the other party had to be dishonest.
What I get from you is that if in a duel, when one of the fighter breaks his sword - the other one whines - "don't be a weasel. why don't you just stand still and let me poke you with my sword."
Again you misunderstood me. You used the word 'you' in a personal sense, not a general sense. By structuring your sentence as such, you implied that I hold the opinion that you painted for me. Again, keep your arguements to the discussion, or yourself. I'm not interested in what you've got to say there pal.
Ah oh yes that part. Well, that's what I got from you. But, since you say I've misunderstood...okay.
Anyhoo, I'm gonna quit hairsplitting over this weasel vs whiners match.
Quite sure serious chess players on gm levels don't whine or consider their opponents "weasels".
I was pieces up in middle of a game with a much stronger player...until kbam! - I blundered....now the only save I could get maybe was to see if I could scope any chance for a draw or stalemate....but hey, I was up against a very good player - didn't see a chance in hell, so I resigned....
But if the player didn't know what he was really doing, I would check the heck out of him til he gives up lol
In another game - 6 pawns and queen vs. 6 pawns and queen - after 13 straight checks, all 6 of my opponent's pawns were wiped out. His king ran all over the board, his queen did not move once. My opponent was a good sportman who after the game recognized the power of the queen and what she can do.
So yes - check check and check away if the board allows it.
"I think the rules should be changed"
Only people who don't understand chess say that. The rules are what they are because they're perfect.
I wouldn't say that they're perfect. How do you define whether or not a set of rules for a game is "perfect"? But I agree that they don't need to be changed.
This is the exact reason they have the 50 move rule. Grated 50 moves is a long time but this way a person can not avoid a draw when there can be no checkmate. In online chess it is considered bad sportsmanship to force another player to the 50 move rule when you can see no win but some players here are so intemperance they just refuse to lose. Personally if I can see I have no chance I either offer a draw or resign and move on to a game where you can at least have some fun. To each their own but Please think about being courteous to other players :) Cheers
I Applaud your last comment BlackLeopard-1, I've been playing Chess for many years, As I said I've only seen it done twice maybe. I think this would be a good forum if comments were keep on a Intelligent Level.
Well said Commander_Riker
I was playing a rapid game (G/60) in a tournament against the club expert. At the time he was rated over 2200, but never got a master norm. Anyway, I outplayed him in the opening and middle game and had a clear winning advantage, but my king was in the open. He checked and checked and checked, but I had spotted a route for my king to the opposite corner of the board, and I reached safety. He looked at the board, looked at the clock (I had plenty of time left), and resigned.
Sounds like an exhilarating game!
If anyone was a poor sport it would be you
I Applaud your last comment BlackLeopard-1, I've been playing Chess for many years, As I said I've only seen it done twice maybe. I think this would be a good forum if comments were keep on a Intelligent Level.
Am really not a judge of what is a proper intelligent level for forum discussion. However, I've noticed that sometimes exchanges needs to come round a full 360 degree circle - sideways and diagonally - emotionally, rationally, illogically, etc - for the interlocutors to get to a point of understanding.
F
I hate it when people open checking accounts, especially on live matches. They are probably eating Checks Mix whilst they do so.