Sorry 32, q x p, winning the rook and bishop
What do you feel about players that do perpetual checks when they are losing?
Sort:
Apr 15, 2014
0
#83
Scottrf wrote:
"He was only able to draw due to the rules of the game." Is I think my favourite quote on this forum ever.
+2 you beat me to this comment
trotters64 wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
"He was only able to draw due to the rules of the game." Is I think my favourite quote on this forum ever.
+2 you beat me to this comment
I said it first.
Are you trolling? Think of it this way: to win the game, you need to put your opponent in checkmate. This is why complaining that your opponent managed to win by checkmating your opponent after he sac'ed two rooks and a queen for mate had a cheap win is nonsense- he was playing the rules of the game. Likewise if he can keep you from checkmating him, by checking you forever, he has simply played a good tactic, not cheated you out of anything.
The point of chess is not to gain the most material.
Apr 15, 2014
0
#87
kleelof wrote:
trotters64 wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
"He was only able to draw due to the rules of the game." Is I think my favourite quote on this forum ever.
+2 you beat me to this comment
I said it first.
+3
Thanks.
Apr 15, 2014
0
#89
WalhallaRoad wrote:
Nah, I think if someone is beating me pretty good and has proven to be the better player, I'm not going to do a bunch of checks that lead to nothing just so I can collect points. It might be part of the game, but it's cheap and pathetic.
"A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about."
-David Sirlin, "Playing to Win"
Any sequence of legal moves is a legitimate strategy in chess.
(Contrastingly, perpetual check is not allowed in Japanese chess (shogi) or Chinese chess.)
The fact is that serious threats to your king render material irrelevant. The goal is checkmate, or if not that, preventing your own king from being checkmated, by any sequence of legal moves available. If it's your opponent's move, even mate threats of your own can be rendered irrelevant.
If you don't viscerally understand this, you don't know anywhere near as much about chess as you think you do. If you don't know the pain and elation of being on both sides of these situations, you need more chess experience, both to improve as a player and to learn the terrible beauty of the game.
Apr 15, 2014
0
#90
WalhallaRoad napísal
This is the game. I should have just taken his pawn with my pawn instead of letting it advance to 7th rank. He wouldn't have been able to take it with his queen because I would have checkmated him. I was not into just running around the entire board getting checked so I basically just walked into the loss plus I was down on time by one minute and if he just kept checking me I would have eventually lost on time.
it is funny how he went for a win with 32.Qe4+ when he could really easily draw with 32.Qe6+ and checking along the 6th rank. Well, your flawed logic is best seen in the comment "he was able to draw only because of the rules". man, you are able to win only because of the rules, even more, you are able to play only because of the rules. Stop whining and pull out the same tactic from the worst side.
WalhallaRoad wrote:
This is the game. I should have just taken his pawn with my pawn instead of letting it advance to 7th rank. He wouldn't have been able to take it with his queen because I would have checkmated him. I was not into just running around the entire board getting checked so I basically just walked into the loss plus I was down on time by one minute and if he just kept checking me I would have eventually lost on time.
Oh my god he smashed you! Generally, when trying to avoid the unavoidable and checks you all the time while not being to draw it is cheap, but now it was a fair and square win for him. An awesome one if you ask me.
trotters64 wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
"He was only able to draw due to the rules of the game." Is I think my favourite quote on this forum ever.
+2 you beat me to this comment
Nah... I played with Kasparov once... He is not that good you know, he was only able to beat me due to the rules of the game. You know, the checkmate things...
Apr 16, 2014
0
#93
27...Qxf1+ ends it once and for all.
When ahead (as you're here, up a whole rook) - keep it simple.
Of course, if you see a mate - perform it. But 27...Bxf1 just hands the initiative to your opponent.
True, that initiative isn't much. He needs lots of help from you in order to make something of it (for example, you could go 28...Kd7 and there was nothing he could still do) - but why allow it on the first place?
27...Qxf1+ forces the exchange of queens. 28. Qxf1 Bxf1 29. Kxf1 cb and he's absolutely nothing to play for.
lol, is OP real? zfc.
Apr 16, 2014
0
#95
Get used to losing and drawing games that were completely won, that will never ever change. it happens to all of us, even world champions. If you can't deal with it chess probably isn't the game for you.
WalhallaRoad wrote:
Say you're beating someone and aren't that far away from a mate. Say he somehow breaks through your defense with a queen and begins checking you all over the board. What do you feel about this? I was winning a game pretty handidly and my opponent sacrificed a pawn in order to give his queen open space to check me. It was in a position in the board where I didn't have a shield for my king and so he could have checked me as many times as he wanted. I think it's pretty cheap.
If you get yourself into a draw then that is your fault...
part of being a good chess player is to watch for such situations and avoid the situation if you think you will still be winning.
You did not have a winning position if your oppoent was able to draw by perpetual check. You just thought you have a winning position.
hahaha cheap? Why cheap? Because he was trying not to lose?
It is all perfectly legal and valid, he did the right thing! I don't know who it was but congrats to him!
Your question is laughable actually. It is like saying "I had a knight, a bishop and my king and my opponent had only the king. And he did not resigned!!! Achieving a mate with Knight, Bishop and king is complicated so I couldn't do it. What do you think about the fact that he did not resigned? I think it was very cheap!!!"
The ones who complain about perpetual check, losing while "winning on material" and 50 move rule are the same ones that cry about losing on time in a game format they AGREED to play.
Does 35 Q x p win for black.